Abstract
This article contends that the evolution toward interdisciplinary collaboration that we are witnessing in the sciences must also occur in the humanities to ensure their very survival. That is, humanists must be open to working with scientists and social scientists interested in similar research questions and vice versa. Digital humanities is a positive first step. Complexity science should be the next step. Even though much of the ground-breaking work in complexity science has been done in the natural sciences and mathematics, it can, if critically adapted, provide the needed metaphor for a broad integration of disciplines, humanistic and otherwise. Given its almost a-disciplinary nature, a complexity approach to the research problems in the humanities necessarily breaks down silos. Moreover, it can restore and reframe the seamless intellectual fabric sought by researchers before the atomization of the various disciplines in the nineteenthcentury academy.
[1] Fisher, L. (2009). The Perfect Swarm: The Science of Complexity in Everyday Life. New York: Basic Books. Search in Google Scholar
[2] Gribbin, J. (2004). Deep Simplicity: Bringing Order to Chaos and Complexity. New York: Random House. Search in Google Scholar
[3] Hayles, N. K. (1991). Introduction. In N. K. Hayles (Ed.). Chaos and Order: Complex Dynamics in Literature and Science, pp.1–33. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Search in Google Scholar
[4] Hodge, B. (2007). The Complexity Revolution. M/C Journal 10.3. 18 Jul. 2010<http://journal.mediaculture.org.au/0706/01-hodge.php>. Search in Google Scholar
[5] Johnson, S. (2001). Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities, and Software. New York: Scribner. Search in Google Scholar
[6] Johnson, S. (2010). Where Good Ideas Come From: The Natural History of Innovation. New York: Riverhead Books. Search in Google Scholar
[7] Kagan, J. (2009). The Three Cultures: Natural Sciences, Social Sciences, and the Humanities in the 21 stCentury. New York: Cambridge UP. 10.1017/CBO9780511576638Search in Google Scholar
[8] Lam, L. (2008). Science Matters: A Unified Perspective. In M. Burguete and L. Lam (Eds.). Science Matters: Humanities as Complex Systems, pp.1–38. London: World Scientific. http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/9789812835949_000110.1142/9789812835949_0001Search in Google Scholar
[9] Marcus, L. (1995). Cyberspace Renaissance. English Literary Renaissance 25, 388–401. 10.1111/j.1475-6757.1995.tb01454.xSearch in Google Scholar
[10] Mitchell, M. (2009). Complexity: A Guided Tour. New York: Oxford UP. Search in Google Scholar
[11] Mossberger, K. (2003). Virtual Inequality: Beyond the Digital Divide. Washington, DC: Georgetown UP. Search in Google Scholar
[12] Newell, W. (2001). A Theory of Interdisciplinary Studies. Issues in Integrative Studies 19, 1–25. Search in Google Scholar
[13] Paulson, W. (2001). Literary Culture in a World Transformed: A Future for the Humanities. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP. 10.7591/9781501729348Search in Google Scholar
[14] Paulson, W. (1991). Literature, Complexity, Interdisciplinarity. In N. K. Hayles (Ed.). Chaos and Order: Complex Dynamics in Literature and Science, pp. 37–53. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Search in Google Scholar
[15] Pettitt, T. (2007). Before the Gutenberg Parenthesis: Elizabethan-American Compatibilities. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston, MA. April 27. Plenary Lecture, 1–12. Search in Google Scholar
[16] Unsworth, J. (2008). University 2.0. In R. N. Katz (Ed.). The Tower and the Cloud, pp. 227–237. Educause. Search in Google Scholar
[17] Waldrop, M. (1992). Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos. New York: Simon & Schuster. Search in Google Scholar
[18] Wilson, E. O. (1998). Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. New York: Knopf. Search in Google Scholar
© 2012 Institute for Research in Social Communication, Slovak Academy of Sciences
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.