In this blog post, we revisit the essence of convergence and examine whether the convergence we have achieved today is truly creative or merely an imitation.
We are truly in the age of “convergence.” From various academic fields to industry, culture, and society at large, “convergence” is arguably one of the hottest keywords of our time. In fact, the concept of convergence did not emerge suddenly. Since ancient times, convergence across diverse fields has been a driving force behind human progress. Just as ancient Greek philosophers attempted to integrate knowledge by studying mathematics, philosophy, and science together, medieval alchemists sought to create new systems of knowledge by combining physics, chemistry, and medicine. By the mid-20th century, with the advancement of computer science, convergence began to exert even greater influence. Thus, convergence is not something new but rather part of a historical trend that has been continuously repeated. In modern times, as evidenced by terms such as “fusion” and “hybrid,” convergence has spread like a trend and established itself as a distinct concept. Through convergence between different fields or between subfields within a single discipline, it creates things that did not previously exist and even establishes them as new fields in their own right; in this way, “convergence” is transforming the world.
Furthermore, today’s technological advancements are accelerating the pace of convergence. Thanks to the development of digital technology, various fields are rapidly merging, giving rise to new innovations. For example, the convergence of artificial intelligence (AI) and medicine has led to the emergence of personalized medical services, while the combination of the automotive industry and IT technology is bringing self-driving cars closer to reality. These developments go beyond mere technological progress; they are fundamentally transforming the way we live. As such, convergence has established itself as an essential element across various industries and academic fields.
As is often the case with trends, when a trend becomes widespread, there is a tendency to jump on the bandwagon. As this tendency persists and the trend grows in scale, the boundaries become blurred, making it unclear where its true essence lies. The trend of “convergence” can also be understood in this context. Amid the countless movements seeking to converge with “convergence,” the original concept has been significantly diluted, and the term is now used in a somewhat broader sense than its original meaning, becoming a catch-all term that fits any situation. In this context, to seriously discuss academic and industrial convergence, it is important to clarify the concept and understand its essence. Given the far-reaching ripple effects across a broad spectrum, it would not be meaningless to reexamine the concept of “convergence” and rigorously redefine the meaning lost to the trend.
The biggest problem arising from the concept of “convergence” lies in the unintended expansion of the concept through misuse and overuse. As the concept of “convergence” is used more than necessary for various reasons, such as the demands of the times, instances of ambiguous usage accumulate; and as this behavior is repeated, the boundaries of the concept become increasingly blurred. To properly diagnose and resolve these issues, it is necessary to identify the primary cases and patterns that cause them. Simply avoiding such cases and patterns can itself be a solution to the problem.
First, we must strictly distinguish between parallelism and convergence. Simply placing different things side by side does not constitute convergence. The Standard Korean Dictionary defines the first meaning of convergence as “the process by which different kinds of things melt together to become indistinguishable as one, or the act of doing so. Or, such an event.” In other words, convergence must correspond to a relationship where 1+1=1. From this perspective, parallelism corresponds to a relationship where 1+1=2. This is because, although different elements are combined, they form a relationship in which they remain distinct from one another. Just as mixing tteokbokki and fried food together does not result in a dish recognized as a new menu item called “tteokbokki-fried food” (or any equivalent appropriate name).
In another instance, we must strictly distinguish between application and convergence. This is a phenomenon particularly common in the academic realm; for example, research on using shape-memory alloys for human prosthetics constitutes a biological application of materials technology, rather than a convergence of materials technology and biology. In the case of application, the focus of the relationship lies with the subject of the application (in this case, materials technology), and the relationship is unidirectional, pointing toward the object of the application (biology). In contrast, convergence is a concept achieved through a bidirectional relationship. Of course, there is room for debate regarding such academic classifications and the classification systems of various fields. However, in this paper, I intend to address the difference between the two concepts from the perspective of directionality. Discussions regarding classification systems and convergence will be addressed in the “Further Discussion” section following this article.
Finally, we must clearly distinguish between borrowing and convergence. As with the cases of application and convergence discussed earlier, there is a difference in directionality. One example would be research in economics dealing with business cycles that utilizes ideas from control engineering theory. Borrowing similarly constitutes a unidirectional relationship, in which the center of the relationship lies with the subject being borrowed from (in this case, economics), and the direction flows from the subject doing the borrowing (control engineering theory) toward the subject being borrowed from.
So, what elements must be present for something to qualify as “convergence” in the strictest sense? Just as when discussing the issues earlier, it is impossible to list all necessary conditions; however, answering the above question by focusing on the outcome and process of “convergence” formation holds significance in redefining the concept.
First, the act of convergence must generate new value. It is not merely a simple mixture of different entities; rather, the outcome formed through this act must possess characteristics that can only be obtained through the combination of those entities. This constitutes a key feature of the outcome of convergence. Second, for convergence to take shape, creativity inherent in the process—rather than the physical mixture itself—is an indispensable element. This constitutes a major characteristic of the process by which convergence takes shape, implying that the act itself must possess legitimacy and meaning. Third, I wish to emphasize that the object resulting from convergence must be an independent entity in its own right—just as the objects were before convergence—and, of course, this must include the fact that, from the perspective of other fields, this result can also serve as the foundation for further convergence. Of course, this does not mean it must necessarily be that way. However, if convergence is considered a form and process of development within its own field, it can be said that this is a point that must be satisfied on a principled level, as it should serve as the foundation for further development.
Setting aside the discussion on the meaning and necessity of “convergence” (my views on this were briefly mentioned in the “Further Discussion” section), “convergence” as a trend of the times has been widely embraced. Along with this, it has inevitably inherited the problems that accompany trends; since the ripple effects of this are so vast that they span nearly every field, it must be handled accurately and appropriately. We can explore how to address this by examining representative examples of both incorrect and correct approaches to “convergence.” Specifically, incorrect approaches involve analyzing the differences between parallel convergence, applied convergence, and borrowed convergence, while correct approaches involve discussing the elements of the outcome, the elements of the process, and the object as the result.
