I admit it: I grow old; the bottoms of my trousers are indeed rolled (except when cycling in my man-pris, when I am merely middle aged and embarassing). I describe myself (depending on the audience) as an erstwhile technologist, digital humanist, and e-learning specialist. And because I remember doing 'humanities computing' as a graduate student, before the advent of DH, I know that Digital humanities is not new, although it may be the It Girl of the MLA. Digital humanities is a response to the old split between quantitative and qualitative knowledge. The classical form of this split is the association of the algorithm with control, and narrative with openness, creativity, and human development (see Braman, "Tactical Memory"). DH is one way of bridging that gap and creating a productive nexus between the two.
I spent a little while reading around in a curiously embodied and ponderous volume, Debates in the Digital Humanities (Minnesota, 2012). (Was there no debate about whether to publish digital only?) It contains many fine essays, posts, and research by people I know and know of, and respect. My initial response to the still-vexed question of "what is DH?" is very much along the lines of Kathleen Fitzpatrick (who without meaning to has shaped my thinking in ways I am still only realizing myself), that it is just the "humanities, done digitally" (13). And that in itself is no small thing, because the humanities - done on vellum, paper, punch card, or network - are no small thing. I also noted with curiosity a piece in the same volume by Jamie "Skye" Bianco, who adduces several telling quotations by DHers who contend that cultural studies are "worthless" and critical theory never achieved anything (96). If cultural studies are worthless, why bring the power of technology to bear upon it? If critical theory never achieved anything, it's because its practitioners never tried to achieve anything with it. Theory changes the way people think, their assumptions, and their values. People must do things because of these changes, or not. Saying that theory never achieved anything is like saying that technology never achieved anything. It's true. People achieve things (or fail to).
It is wondrous to note the vitality and creativity of this field, now it has been constituted, described - and let's be frank - funded as one. But what it is is the creation of humanistic learning for a networked audience. That is, the humanities as always already public. So the digital humanities can burst the bubble of a liberal arts college. Digital humanities means that any institution with network resources can create new knowlede - not just research universities (but that may change).
Digital humanities enables what Franco Moretti long ago called distant reading, and a kind of real-time collaborative close reading. These modes of analysis were always possible before (CommentPress is basically extra-monastic marginal commentary. Just a little bit faster). They just took a lot longer. It is both quantitative, and hyper-qualitative. But perhaps the hyper-qualitative will become the merely qualitative in short order.
My concern is that when we label anything "e" or "digital" – we are creating rhetorical space for those inside and outside academia to respond with retrenchment or deliberate misunderstanding. When you say e-this or digital that you are creating the rhetorical space for haters and know nothings to say "harrumph." Or for finance and administration officials to see dollar signs everywhere. Or for uncritical techno boosters to say oooh and aaah. Perhaps the triumphalist tone of some DH rhetoric is warranted, and resistance is futile.
For digital humanities to change humanities for the better it must engage the public and be open to public critique not just academic critique. And so perhaps it needs the "digital" appellation for a bit longer.
When we are at last freed from the desktop, laptop, and the isolation of the office, we will do digital humanities without the self-consciously digital, and e-learning with a silent "e"—a post-digital humanism where everyone is Steve Austin (and therefore no one is) and the Borg is a bad dream to be avoided. Hope I'll be around at least to see it.
Caveat lector: if this essay rambles or seems disjointed, blame Siri, as it was composted on the eye flow. No wait. Blame organic master. Siri never makes my steaks.
As you know I am no citizen of Academia,just a passerby,but when I read" ...the humanities done on vellum,paper,punch card or network are no small thing.", that I understand.
Without the humanities; art, literature, music,poetry,dance, philosophy, and a bunch of other things I have not mentioned,mankind has no soul, and without the soul.no future.
C. Ruiz
Posted by: Carolyn Ruiz | May 11, 2012 at 06:58 PM