In this short communication I want to make a few comments about the relation between Art and Social Science considered potentially as a ‘creative matrix’. This stands against the view of art and science as intrinsically opposing each other in ‘never-to-be reconciled’ conflict. This view is perhaps more often (but not exclusively) expressed by natural scientists, as opposed to social scientists (although some, influenced by a positivist view of science, are also prone). However, a perspective on, and model of, social reality as multidimensional -as it appears in ‘the theory of entangled social domains’ is compatible with a view of art and social science as an integrated creative matrix.

This theory consists of four core entangled social domains: ‘psychobiography’, ‘situated activity’, ‘reproduced social settings’, and ‘contextual resources’ -which are linked in ‘relative independence’ through different relations of temporality and power [3].

This theory and model of social reality, challenges dogmatism and bogus competition as the defining relations between art and social science. Instead, it endorses a conception of a jointly shared future, which would expand our understanding of creativity in all its guises. This is also reflected in an expanded knowledge of all aspects of the world -philosophical, material, psychological, and social scientific. (In my view, this is one implication of Popper’s conception of ‘objective knowledge’ [4], although others may interpret it differently.

There are several issues that need to be considered concurrently. First, we must define the basis of the creative principles on which arts and sciences (including social sciences) are founded, and how such diverse energetic forces could be harnessed in a joint programme. Arts (such as painting, performing arts, sculpture, plays, literature, poetry), may be considered as, depictions, characterisations or ‘evocations’ of human experience (music, to some extent, eludes this definition). However, as part of their fundamental remit, science and (social) sciences, are required to go further and ‘deeper’ by generating ‘causal explanations’ (although ‘causal’ might have rather different implications, with respect to social human experiences).

This definition suggests that we must consider related questions such as how the arts and sciences ‘search for truth’ or, different aspects of ‘truth’. These are questions which spotlight the different forms of creativity involved in arts and sciences. Seemingly, arts are concerned with ‘phenomenal truth’ or the pursuit of veracity as revealed by, and reflected in, our sensory experiences. To some extent, this kind of truth applies to aspects of the methodology of certain social sciences -for example, sociology. These are primarily ontological questions such as ‘what is the nature of reality as reflected in the truth of the artistic object, or even ‘events’ like dramatic events? Other examples, include the emotions evoked by a poem or a painting, or the experience of performing arts, plays or sculpture. By contrast, the (social) sciences are primarily concerned with a search for ‘cognitive’ or ‘explanatory’ truth, and are primarily ‘epistemological’ questions (the basic assumptions that underlie and support ‘knowledge’?). ‘Science’ relies on a bedrock of theorising and conceptualisation generated through empirical research, and validated or ‘proven’ by empirical evidence. The latter involves the matching of concepts with specific sets of (empirical) data.

Such considerations demand that we must also enquire as to the nature and use of language and communication, in arts and (social) sciences. Arts are concerned with the purity of form of its objects and their relation to artistic or ‘dramatic’ truth. Thus, the language of the arts must employ subjective/ emotional or ‘feeling’ components. General acceptance of a work of art by its community of colleagues and peers (and sometimes, the wider public), depends on its originality, as well as evocations of ‘mysteries’ and the strength of feelings and emotions it brings out in this community. Consequently, arts must express an intimacy of language in its conveyance of phenomenal truth. However, science, with its fundamentally explanatory purposes must employ more impersonal, ‘objective’ language in the form of theories and concepts. In this manner, it attempts to express an ‘abstractive’(rather than a ‘correspondent’) relation between knowledge and empirical data.

The aesthetics of art objects (whether they be literally ‘objects’ or simply ‘depictions’ or ‘evocations’ of human experience) are essential to judgements about their merits by its community of colleagues and peers. By contrast, the aesthetics of scientific, explanatory theories are not as important to the judgement of their ‘cognitive’ merits or their ‘explanatory truth’. The abstractive relation between concepts and data must be tightly drawn and established. In this sense, social science theories and concepts must be epistemologically valid, ‘cognitively veracious’ or, simply, ‘true’.

Of course, some explanatory theories may well be considered aesthetically pleasing. For example, many, (myself included), consider aspects of Einstein’s theory of relativity to be aesthetically attractive, as I do the work of David Bohm [5]. Bohm, a physicist who simultaneously worked on mathematical aspects of relativity theory, as well as applying his theories to the arts and social sciences. He thus straddles the division between all the sciences and the arts -as do, Albert Einstein and Carlo Rovelli.

While the scientific community of colleagues and peers concentrate primarily - often ‘insist’- on ‘cognitive truth’ or ‘veracity’, aesthetic considerations of scientific theories may contribute to their ‘attractiveness’ and thus, influence the extent of their more generalised use, and wider acceptance.

The truth of a work of art is communicated in language which, expresses a close, almost ‘isomorphic’ relation to the world of human experience. By contrast, the routine practices of (social) science research projects, should attempt to register human experiences in an abstractive language in which concepts stand for human experience in the form of ‘impersonal’ explanatory theories.

In the light of these comments, how should we attempt to bring together the arts and sciences in forms of creativity that enhances our understanding of the world and how it works? The qualitative strands in the social sciences -for example, championed by sociology- must simultaneously adopt the ‘harder’ more impersonal language of science such as, ‘causality’ and ‘explanatory theories’ (especially in its research methods, whilst also attending to aspects of human subjectivity (such as ‘feelings’ and ‘emotions’ Layder 1997, 2018. This more ‘liberal’ attitude to conceptions of scientific evidence, is reflected in Carl Roger’s work on humanistic psychotherapy [6].

But social scientists must also attend to the extent to which feelings and emotions are reflected in their explanatory theories. Similarly, arts should adopt the more ’convergent’ language of science but absolutely, not its ‘positivist’ versions. In these latter, causality is associated with a dogmatic methodological focus on the statistical analysis of precisely measurable ‘analytic’ variables, and the ‘population representativeness’ of its data samples. Sometimes this happens to the exclusion of considerations of their ‘problem representativeness’ [7,8].

 Finally, social scientists should consider their day-to-to working practices compared with those of artists -particularly developing theories over time. How do they engage in routine data collection? That is, what methods do they employ in collecting relevant data samples for social research? In my view, a more imaginative and creative approach to social scientific methods of research, would generate more insightfully informed theories of human behaviour.

 As a conclusion to this short commentary, I shall end on a personal note. I describe some aspects of my own working practices which (I hope) contribute to the potential creative matrix of the arts and social sciences. I am a professionally trained sociologist who now considers himself a social scientist who deeply appreciates the arts (especially poetry, performing arts and painting), I examine some of my own routine working practices and compare them with those of artists.

I examine my development of the two theories mentioned earlier. That is, ‘entangled social domains’ 1997, and ‘adaptive’ theory 1998 (which represents the methodological support behind applications of entangled social domains). I developed these theories over an extended period, during which, I was constantly reminded of the parallels with the working practices of artists -particularly, painters, novelists, and poets.

The first parallel is the in the manner both arts and sciences require the creation of original, imagined and complete, ‘worlds’. Such worlds are complete and imagined in the sense they could be almost ‘lived in’, in the same way a novelist might ‘draw in’ her/or his readers. With me, this required creating conceptual worlds. For example, a conceptual world populated by ‘entangled social domains’ and including aspects of human actors’ subjectivities. This is reflected in the domain) of ‘psychobiography’ which deals with the typical feelings and emotions that individuals acquire via their social experiences and involvements/entanglements over their lifetimes.

In a visual artist’s case, a painter’s imaged world is created by a highly distinctive visual ‘style- as in Francis Bacon’s work -which depicts distorted human bodies, and morally transgressive themes. In a poet’s case such liveable worlds are created through the linguistic evocation of the lived experience of feelings in immediately recognisable styles, and makes their work readily identifiable -as evidenced in Philip Larkin’s poetry.

The ‘worlds’ created by both arts and social science, be they expressed conceptually or as sensory evocations of visual or acoustic phenomena, may, in fact, be indirect ways of radically challenging or transforming, existing conventions or paradigms – conventional ways of expressing or doing things in their ‘home’ disciplines, communities and practices. In this sense, they may be understood as original, creative solutions to the problems artists or scientists confront, as they encounter their professional colleagues and communities.

All these themes and issues reflect a commonality between arts and social sciences. My intention has been to identify and highlight those factors which may potentially contribute to the creative matrix (between arts and social sciences) and which have been the main focus of this commentary.

1. Layder D. Modern Social Theory: Key Debates and New Directions. University College London Press/ Taylor and Francis: London. 1997.
2. Layder D. Understanding Social Theory. (Second Edition) London: Sage. 2006.
3. Layder D. Investigative Research: Theory and Practice. London: Sage. 2018.
4. Popper K. Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: oxford University Press. 1994.
5. Bohm D. Wholeness and the Implicate Order. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. 1987.
6. Rogers C. (1967-98) On Becoming a Person: A Therapists View of Psychotherapy. London: Constable.
7. Layder D. Sociological Practice: Linking Theory and Research. Sage: London.1998.
8. Layder D. Social sciences, social reality and the false division between theory and method: some implications for social research. Springer Nature Social Sciences. 2021; 1:47.