On the Reparative and Creative
Habits of Mind
Jonathan Michael Dickstein holds a
PhD in English literature. He teaches
literature and media studies and
researches connections among
psychoanalysis, mathematics, and
narrative theory. Correspondence
regarding this article may be
addressed to Jonathan Michael
Dickstein, Department of Humanities
& Arts, Worcester Polytechnic
Institute, 100 Institute Road,
Worcester, MA 01609-2280.
Email: JMDickstein@wpi.edu.
Phone: (908) 531-8665.
Business Expert Press 978-1-94784-324-0 (2018)
www.businessexpertpress.com
Jonathan Michael Dickstein
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Abstract: The present article considers how the scientific
and humanistic methods compare and contrast accord-
ing to the general rules that govern them. An argument
is made that the two fields overlap when it comes to the
practicing of both repair and creativity insofar as at is-
sue in these activities is the negotiation of something
lacking.
Key words: Creativity, Deformance, Humanities,
Interdisciplinarity, Repair, Sciences
A perhaps clichd framing observation: modern
technologiesmore specifically, modern digital technol-
ogies (computers, smartphones, smart cars, etc.)pose a
serious challenge to traditional pedagogical norms. This
challenge often manifests itself most explicitly in terms
of new (often distracting) in-class devices, also with re-
gard to shifts in materials taught (that is, scholars try to
remain current), and notably by way of changes to the
structure of teaching itself (scholars try to be current not
only in content but also in style).
Various (we might say standard) accounts of this chal-
lenge posed by modern technologies consider it to be a
problem. For example, following someone like Martin
Heidegger, these accounts might suggest that modern
technologies make their objects and even human op-
erators into mere instruments, enframing the dynamic
between them in such a way that prevents their
authentic, poetic disclosure (Heidegger, 1977). Such
an argument seems to have real merit today in terms
of the scienceshumanities (mis)connection, as specific
humanities departments (like those recently at SUNY
Stony Brook) or more general humanities initiatives (the
national endowment) are being cut for reasons of finan-
cial productivity.
With Stanley Fish we might suggest that the only
solution to this crisis is intellectualthat is, for
senior academic administrators to explain . . .
aggressively the function of the liberal arts
Expert Insights
1
 On the Reparative and Creative Habits of Mind
rejecting the demand (always a loser)
to economically justify [themselves],
refusing to allow myths (about lazy,
pampered faculty who work two
hours a week and undermine reli-
gion and the American way) to go
unchallenged, and if necessary flag-
ging the pretensions and hypocrisy
of men and women who want to ex-
ercise control over higher education
in the absence of any real knowledge
of the matters on which they so con-
fidently pronounce (Fish, 2010).
Put differently and more directly, with
Steven Pearlstein we might respond to
those who believe that liberal arts majors
waste four years contemplating the mean-
ing of life ... [that] at least those passionate
kids wont make the mistake of confusing
the meaning of life with maximizing life-
time income (Pearlstein, 2016).
While I have genuine respect for the
motivations behind these reactions to the
challenge posed by modern technologies,
particularly insofar as these technologies
tend to be made to prop up the idea of a
society based solely on a principle of the
division of labor (that is, human needs
over and against human desires), I want to
think about the challenge differently and, I
would argue, more constructivelyless in-
sofar as the challenge indicates a problem
to be resisted and more insofar as it signals
an opportunity to change. To paraphrase
N. Katherine Hayles, I want to claim that,
given the challenge posed by modern tech-
nologies, now is the time to rethink what
education ismore specifically, what the
scientific vis--vis humanistic modes of ed-
ucation areand how education and these
modes of education work together with
regard to the dynamics of twenty-first cen-
tury technologies (Hayles, 2010).
To this end, I want to begin with the fol-
lowing proposition I take to be axiomatic: all
scholarly studies (scientific and humanis-
tic alike) proceed according to sets of rules.
Put differently: any study that proceeds
2 Business Expert Press 978-1-94784-324-0 (2018)
www.businessexpertpress.com
without recourse to a set of rules of some
kind is not what we would or should call
scholarly. This point follows from the
immediate observation that a rule-governed
study will be (by definition) organized,
while a non-rule-governed study will be at
best disorganized and at worst nonsensical.
Those in the sciences I believe will have
little if any reservations about this propo-
sitionnamely, that all scholarly studies
(scientific and humanistic alike) proceed
according to sets of rulessince what is
generally considered the scientific method
is indeed a system of rules that makes pos-
sible the clear and precise enacting and
communication of experimental results.
To elaborate in detail on what this method
entails would be at this juncture both un-
necessary and presumptuous. Suffice it to
say that (at least following Francis Bacons
inaugural account of it) the set of rules
grounding the sciences (known as Bacons
inductive method) proceeds from sensory
observations to intellectual conclusions
without any anticipation of nature (that
is, without bias about what may or may not
unfold; Bacon 2000, p. 38).1
We pass over the sciences quickly here
because it is the humanists who will be
more skeptical about the suggestion that all
scholarly studies (scientific and humanistic
alike) proceed according to sets of rules. In
particular, responding to the related ques-
tionWhat then defines the humanistic
method or set of rules?humanists might
be inclined to answer: nothing, the human-
ities function without rules. I think it is ob-
vious that this is the lazy answer. Thus, as
King Lear responds to Cordelia (his silently
devout daughter), we ought to reply to these
shirkers: nothing will come of nothing,
speak againe (Shakespeare, 1997, 1.1.90).2
Certainly, there are standards for hu-
manistic scholarship. As is often repeated
at doctoral graduate ceremonies, human-
istic scholarship represents a substantial
contribution to knowledgethat is, as
opposed to that which represents an un-
substantial contribution to knowledge.
Expert Insights
 On the Reparative and Creative Habits of Mind
Similarly, humanistic scholarship may be
deemed publishable or (due to a lack of a
better word) unpublishable. With Alan So-
kal and Jean Bricmont (non-humanists by
profession), we might be skeptical about
the ideology (what they would perhaps in
part rightly label nonsensical ideology) un-
dergirding the differences between these
types of research (Sokal and Bricmont,
1998). Regardless, whether real or ideo-
logical, there are standards for humanistic
scholarship.
Our question though is: what does this
set of standards involve? What are the rules
that frame it? In this context, a second an-
swer might be that the humanistic method
is not different (at least in essence) from
the scientific one. Indeed, humanistic re-
search proceeds from a text (i.e., an object)
to an interpretation (analysis) of this text.
A chief rule again seems to be that such
proceedings ought to take place without
anticipationi.e., without bias.
This answer has more merit than the first
one. However, it still results in an ambigu-
ity. In particular, if the humanistic method
is identical to the scientific one, would not
this identity entail that all humanists are
simply scientists (also scientists human-
ists)? Why then call one a humanist and
the other a scientist? I think we might
agree that the difference between the two
is more than a mere convention or name.
However, while it is clear how the sciences
proceed, it is still unclear how the humani-
ties do so.
An important supposition will help frame
our answer to this question. This supposi-
tion is as follows: where sciences attend to
what is there, humanities attend to what is
not there.3 To avoid confusion, we should
distinguish between particular negations
(term, predicate, even quantifier negation)
and universal negation (nothingnessa
mark that is in itself lacking on any logical
level). Thus, when I say sciences deal with
what is there and humanities with what
is not there, I mean this in the particular
sense, not in the universal one. In other
Business Expert Press 978-1-94784-324-0 (2018)
www.businessexpertpress.com
words, sciences touch on what is, was, or
will be presented in a given situation. Con-
versely, humanities deal with what is not
(but could have been), what is no longer
(but was), or what is not yet (but might be)
presented in a given situation.
Both sciences and humanities function
in contextsthe contexts of a situation.
Indeed (I think this point is crucial) the
situation itself may be the same for both.
However, to be a scientist means to be ori-
ented toward the elements (what belongs
or is capable of belonging), whereas to be
a humanist means to be oriented toward
the parts (what is included but does not
belongin some sense escapes/exceeds
belonging).
The different rules, methods, standards
situating the sciences and the humanities
are adequate to these points. Induction,
for example, is based on observations
about elements of a situation (namely, the
experimental situation). What then is based
on non-elements of a situationthat is,
based on parts included but not belonging
to it?
Obviously, what scholars refer to as in-
terpretation is the name for that which
deals with non-elements of a situation (the
textual situation)that is, with indirect,
part-based aspects of it. In his book, Tex-
tual Intervention, Rob Pope offers a clear
description of what this activity entails.
As he puts it, The best way to understand
how a text works ... is to change it: to play
around with it, to intervene in it in some
way (large or small), and then to try to ac-
count for the exact effect of what you have
done (Pope, 1994, p. 1).
This process of play, intervention, in-
terpretationthat is, the humanistic
methodis for Pope demonstrable by the
most ordinary pedagogical tasks. For ex-
ample, we might find them in the way
students come to respond to the questions
about a given piece of fiction, like the fol-
lowing questions about Robert Brownings
1842 poem My Last Duchess. Pope articu-
lates these questions in the following ways:
Expert Insights
3