Interfacing Science, Literature, and the Humanities

It aims to investigate the relationship (links, affinities, differences, questions and problems) between the sciences and the humanities in order to question the very idea of ‘influence’ (or ‘mutual influences’) in favour of a more dynamic idea of ‘INTERFACING’. Therefore, a fundamental point of departure is to acknowledge the isomorphism of the two fields, recalling that they have often developed new models and strategies of investigation into complex scientific and cultural (artistic, literary) phenomena at the same time, simultaneously responding to their own actuality and societal matrices. This idea of isomorphism is no longer linked to the traditional ideas of ‘cause’ and ‘effect’, but instead implies simultaneity and not consequentiality. It is not always one of the two fields that influences or conditions the other one: isomorphism implies joint discoveries, as both domains tend to develop, at the same time, new investigative models which become, in turn, analogical mirrors of a world in constant progress. This idea leads us to view the sciences and the humanities together, because their mutual interfacing can trigger new, dynamic fields of knowledge in new contexts. Even in the more specific domain of literature or critical theory, the very idea of ‘influence’ has now become obsolete, to the point of being truly discredited in some circles. As a consequence, other possible paradigms have begun to emerge, following the development of new societal conditions, such as globalisation, changing political assets and the development of new ‘mediascapes’. In such a shifting context, the idea of “interface/interfacing” (derived, as is well known, from the new ICT world) seems to offer a suitable paradigm triggering new heuristic implications. Also, the very idea of ‘interfacing’ leads to the interesting concept of ‘complexity’, itself a metaphor implying exchange, mutual interlinking and, above all, to the concept of ‘networking’, that is of new strategies for looking at and therefore rendering the world now in progress. Strategically, to pursue the idea of interfacing between the sciences and the humanities can lead a grasp of new implications underpinning the making of the new Europe, as well as to a development of possible guidelines suggesting new ways to conceive and assess the status of research, the idea of ‘progress’ and the questions of evolving identities for a reality (Europe) which aims to play a leading role in the international panorama. Among the ideas underpinning this new proposal, there is the one that views the gaps between the humanities and the sciences as an artificial construction articulated during the 19th century, and consolidated by the middle of the 20th century; a construction which is increasingly seen as an anachronism in the 21st century. In the two previous centuries, in fact, theories of education were developed around the ideas of distinction and choice: humanities on the one hand, sciences on the other hand. On the contrary, today students are asking for new educational models, reflecting the complexity and interplay of a world characterised by a different understanding of knowledge and, especially, by the rapid development of new societal matrices. We are facing a constantly evolving cultural situation and this is a fact that both domains have to acknowledge. There are already some positive responses, and, as noted above, also the previous ETNP ACUME has been exploring joint research projects. Among the most interesting examples there are, for instance, new university programs in medical schools, faculties of engineering and other scientific branches which are offering specific courses in literature, arts, philosophy, as well as courses encouraging creativity. On the other side, there are examples of positive applications of scientific research and knowledge in the humanities: from more practical applications, such as the creation of new disciplines within the humanities (e.g. the case of the ‘Humanistic Informatics’; the creation of new infrastructures, e-archives, new databases, etc.), to new theoretical developments combining theories of literature/criticism and scientific models of investigation (from ‘field theory’, to chaos theory, to fractal theories, etc.). Other interesting examples come from the social sciences, which have been playing a pivotal role in developing new lines of research and new concepts capable of breaking down barriers and encouraging interdisciplinary approaches. The case of anthropology is, in this regard, quite an exemplary one: take the case of the application, in this field, of the scientific idea of ‘thick description’ to analyse culture tout court, a broad and complex concept which nevertheless interfaces the two domains. Following similar patterns, in the last two decades scholars in the humanities have started to reconsider the very idea of ‘literary phenomena’, with literature no longer perceived as a closed system, but instead as a complex one, a network of events, therefore triggering a new understanding of ‘zeitgeist’. In such a shifting environment, inevitably the links between scientific discoveries and literary and artistic experiments are reconsidered not just as linear and sequential phenomena: they are, instead, interlinked and convergent.