The idea of what defines the field of humanities is something that is debated, often as a result of attempting to confine the study and outcome of the research into one box. Traditionally, in our modern age, the humanities are generalized to be rooted in the ideas of interpretation and abstract. However, the writing of Simon During titled, “What Were the Humanities, Anyway?” addresses the reality of this myth. To do so, During presents a series of environments that the humanities are evident in, despite them not necessarily failing in what some might believe to be the scope of the humanities field. Specifically, Simon draws connections between humanities and the sciences, presenting examples such as “medical-humanities centers”, the processes of information in order to test hypotheses and other instances where work traditionally believed to fall within the realm of the sciences actually overlaps with the humanities (During 3). While spending a considerable amount of connecting the two–During also maintains a clear distinction between the fields. Specifically he emphasizes that while both the humanities and sciences are rooted in the “respect for truth”, it is important to highlight During’s claim that “The humanities, unlike the sciences, routinely produce knowledge that is not testable and rulebound..” (During 5). 

When applying the concept of a writer’s “project” as outlined within Rewriting How to Do Things with Texts by Joseph Harris, During’s intent behind writing his text is easily understandable. Harris describes a “project” as more than simply a main idea but rather an idea that is still in progress or in question. Specifically, he advises those who are seeking to find the text to “push beyond his text, to hazard a view about not only what someone has said but also what he was trying to accomplish by saying it.” (Harris 18). When considering this as a reader, I believe that the project of During’s article was rather not to define the humanities or place a label but to more so emphasize that the humanities world is rather ambiguous, particularly in the modern society we live in. He discusses this idea that while the humanities and other disciplines have similar principles and may intercept or overlap in the real world, they are different . During expresses this in the beginning paragraphs of the text, stating, “… the humanities world one doesn’t see clear boundaries. But it is limited because we, as if intuitively, know that the humanities are distinct from other worlds–worlds of science, sport, business, and so on–even if on reflection, we can see that these worlds and the humanities sometimes overlap” (During 2). By outlining this early in the writing, During creates a platform which allows readers to reflect on how they perceive the humanities. As the article progresses, it becomes clear that the ‘project’ of During is not to provide a particular definition to the “humanities” but rather to present the idea that the humanities is constantly evolving and can not be placed under a confining label. Moreover, it proposes readers to explore the possibilities of what is or could be considered within the “humanities world” (During 2).  Until reflecting back upon the article and the annotations and notes I had made when initially reading the article, I did not realize that I myself had taken the time to consider what really is the humanities.