Tuesday: September 10th

A Political History of Digital Humanities:

       This reading, like past readings, seemed to focus on defining what Digital Humanities both is and is not. Digital Humanities prefers lab based research and digital projects to over reading and writing when it comes to studying the humanities. The article also focused extensively on the onset of computers in scholarly learning, the creation of "computer specialists" who were mostly librarians, and their poor worth in the eyes of literary scholars. Jerome McGann and his Rossetti project are mentioned, as well as the necessity of computers in compiling the data required. And in the face of all of this, Digital Humanities is created from the anger and disdain carried by growing Digital Humanists as literary scholars looked down on them.

The Scandal of Digital Humanities:

      The article was about how people seemed to think that Digital Humanities represented and encouraged Neoliberalism. The author remarks on how this belief omits much of what Digital Humanists stand for and what they do/represent. The article also discusses how Digital Humanists have taken steps to examining and critiquing the practice of scholarships in the 21st century. Many scholars look down on and criticize DHers for this and their other practices, but likely (as the author notes) because other targets for their criticism - presidents, deans, or economic providers - are too professionally risky.

Humanistic Theory and Digital Scholarship:

        This reading echoed several principles from the first (A Political History...) in that it noted Digital Humanities focus on project oriented work rather than traditional reading and writing. It also noted that Digital Humanities are limited by the restrictions of technology. These restrictions are often created by the other preeminent users of technology - quantitative data, engineering, etc. Fields that require black and white data without the same level of in depth study and compilation.

Comments:

        The field of Digital Humanities, as it is presented and explained through the readings, is complex, political, and anything but traditional. It's interesting to see how the texts cover similar ground, as one might expect, but two certainly cover very political elements about Digital Humanities. The founding of the practice that was based on resentment for those that refused to take seriously what was a budding field of study, and the argument against Digital Humanities being a form of Neoliberalism. Both these articles in some way worked to defend the field of Digital Humanities from their critics - other scholars. Two of our readings also worked to define what Digital Humanists focus on - digital projects and lab based research.

Questions?

Is the field of Digital Humanities still as political as it once was?

Do most scholars still criticize the Digital Humanities as a field of little worth?