This article argues that while “convergence” has become a key modern buzzword, its meaning is often diluted and overused. It distinguishes true convergence from concepts such as parallelization, application, and borrowing, and discusses the importance of convergence in redefining its nature and driving creative value.
It is the age of convergence. From my own field of study to industry, culture, and society at large, “convergence” is one of the hottest keywords of our time. In fact, the concept of convergence hasn’t come out of nowhere. Since ancient times, convergence in various fields has been a driving force behind human progress. Just as ancient Greek philosophers tried to unify knowledge by studying math, philosophy, and science together, medieval alchemists tried to create new systems of knowledge by combining physics, chemistry, and medicine. In the mid-20th century, with the development of computer science, convergence became an even more powerful force. As such, fusion is not new, but rather part of a historical trend that has repeated itself over and over again. Nowadays, it’s become a trend and a concept, as evidenced by terms like “fusion” and “hybrid”. Whether it’s a fusion between disciplines or between sub-disciplines within a single field, it’s changing the world by creating something new that didn’t exist before, or even becoming another field in its own right.
And today’s technological advances are accelerating the pace of convergence. Advances in digital technology are rapidly bringing disciplines together and spawning new innovations. For example, the convergence of artificial intelligence (AI) and medicine has led to the rise of personalized healthcare, and the convergence of the automotive industry and IT is making self-driving cars a reality. These developments are more than just technological advances; they are fundamentally changing the way we live. Convergence has become an integral part of many industries and disciplines.
As with any fad, when a trend becomes widespread, there is a tendency to jump on the bandwagon, and as it continues to grow, the boundaries become blurred as to where it reaches its essence. The trend of “convergence” can be understood in the same way, as the original concept has been diluted by numerous movements to converge with “convergence,” and it has been used somewhat broader than its original meaning, becoming an earring for the ear and a nose ring for the nose. In this context, it is important to clarify the concept and understand its essence in order to seriously discuss academic and industrial convergence. Given its wide-ranging and far-reaching implications, it is not unreasonable to examine the concept of convergence and rigorously reassess the meaning that has been lost to fashion.
The biggest problem with the concept of “convergence” is its unintended expansion through misuse and abuse. As the concept of convergence is used more than necessary for various reasons, such as the needs of the times, ambiguity accumulates, and the boundaries of the concept become more unclear as such behavior is repeated. In order to properly diagnose and resolve these issues, it is necessary to recognize the main cases and types that cause problems. Avoiding them can be the solution to the problem.
First, we need to be clear about the difference between parallelism and convergence. Simply putting different things in the same place is not fusion. The first definition of fusion in the Standard English Dictionary is “the melting together of different kinds of things so that they become indistinguishable. Or the act of doing so.” In other words, convergence requires a relationship that is equivalent to 1+1=1. From this point of view, parallelism is a relationship where 1+1=2. This is because they form a relationship in which different kinds of things come together but remain distinct. Just as the combination of tteokbokki and fried food does not constitute a new menu item called tteokbokki fries (or any other appropriate name).
In another case, the distinction between application and convergence needs to be rigorously enforced. This is especially common in the realm of academia, where, for example, research into the use of shape memory alloys as human prostheses is a biological application of materials technology, not a convergence of materials technology and biology. In the case of application, the center of the relationship is the subject of the application (in this case, materials technology) and the direction of the relationship is unidirectional toward the object of the application (biology), whereas in the case of fusion, the concept is bidirectional. Of course, there are controversies that accompany these and other disciplinary categorizations. However, in this article, we’ll focus on the difference between the two concepts through the lens of directionality. The discussion of taxonomies and convergence will be addressed in the “Further discussion” section at the end of this article.
Finally, it is important to be precise about the difference between borrowing and fusion. Along the same lines as the previous distinction between application and convergence, there is a difference in direction. An example is the use of ideas from control engineering theory in the study of business cycles in economics. Borrowing is similarly a unidirectional relationship, with the center of gravity of the relationship being the subject of the borrower (in this case, economics) and the direction being from the subject of the borrower (control engineering theory) to the subject of the borrower.
As in the previous discussion of the problem, it is impossible to show all the requirements, but answering the above question by focusing on the outcome and process of convergence is meaningful in redefining the concept.
First, new value must be created through the act of convergence. It is not a simple mixing of different objects, but the product formed through the act must have characteristics that can only be obtained by mixing the objects. This is an important characterization of the result of convergence. Second, for a fusion to form, it is not the physical mixing per se, but the creativity inherent in the process that is indispensable. This is an important characteristic of the process by which fusion is formed, suggesting that the act itself must have legitimacy and meaning. Thirdly, I would like to say that the object that results from the fusion should be an independent entity, just like the object before the fusion – including, of course, the fact that from the point of view of other disciplines, this result can also be the parent of the fusion. This is not to say that it should be, of course. However, if convergence is a form and a process of development in my field, then I would say that it should be satisfied on a larger scale that it should be the basis for further development.
Leaving aside the discussion on the meaning and necessity of convergence (I briefly mentioned my views on this in the ‘Further Discussion’ section), convergence as a trend of the times has been much loved by the world. As a fad, it has inevitably brought with it its own set of problems, and its ramifications are so far-reaching that they must be addressed accurately and correctly. We can do this by looking at typical incorrect and correct answers to ‘convergence’, specifically, by analyzing the differences between parallel convergence, application convergence, and borrowing convergence in the case of incorrect answers, and by discussing the elements of outcome, elements of process, and objects as outcomes in the case of correct answers.
