Theorizing Beyond Theory-as-a-Disciplinary-Matrix

To what extent is it a good thing to know what you are doing when you theorize? The question is posed against a backdrop of existing normative expectations and standards of rationality, reflexivity, and disciplinarity, which for better or (and) for worse circumscribe scientific inquiry and reasoning. Knowing what you are doing might seem advantageous – only, until we start thinking about what it means to know what you are doing, that is, to think and act with a so-called natural attitude. Within the realm of science this, arguably, coincides with doing ordinary (or “normal”) science: you know what you are doing thanks to a disciplinary matrix, a Paradigm with capital P. In my paper I will discuss ingenuity as an opposite style of thought and creation, characterized by a high degree of intuition, preflexivity, and playfulness. For this discussion, I have chosen Thomas Kuhn as my sounding board. In my view, Kuhn writes about preflexivity without naming the phenomenon. The difference between preflexivity and reflexivity can therefore be clarified in the light of his distinction between intuitions and interpretations: as compared to reflective thinking, preflective thinking draws upon intuition to the degree that something like a sudden, unstructured gestalt switch (a re-abduction) may happen. Accordingly, preflexivity is at the centre of Kuhnian theory of science and scientific breakthroughs. With Kuhn I will suggest that we must not turn tradition into a disciplinary matrix. That is not my conclusion, though. I have concluded that there are no less than four ways to rise above normal creativity – and disciplined disciplinarity actually is one of them.