Archive for November, 2016
Digital in DH
I think that in “The Death of a Discipline” David Golumbia’s argument is different from what we have viewed so far, and could be very important. But I have to stay that his suggesting that DH has little to do with the digital makes me rethink my own idea of what is considered to be […]
Response to Golumbia 11/7/16
It seems we’re doing some of that basic humanistic literary work here: picking our way through what language–and a single word, really–means and how that meaning informs our thinking. If we want to get at this question of how the word “digital” is used in DH and what it means, it may help to step […]
Golumbia Prompt
I think it’s really interesting that you picked the passage from page 172 because that was the passage I found most interesting and convincing. Golumbia made an accurate and cutting observation that implies that Digital Humanities may, in fact, not be as digital as it likes to claim. In order to argue, or counter-argue, that […]
Golumbia Response
Golumbia likes to say that DH has no real place in the humanities. That it is a foreign group invading a group already settled in their ways. Golumbia says, “That literary scholars need not defer to DHers when deciding what work qualifies as part of our discipline and meets our own disciplinary standards.” Literary study […]
Responding to Golumbia
When Golumbia states, “We should reflect on the fact that of the tools and methods DH trumpets so prominently, few are part of the digital toolkit of most literary scholars today” (172), I think he misses the point of what the Digital Humanities is setting out to do. The reason “most literary scholars today” do […]
Golumbia Prompt
I haven’t ever questioned the term Digital or Humanities in respect to putting the words together to name a study. And, even after Golumbia’s article made its case at saying the terms are wrong, I’m still not convinced. Not everyone who writes an eBook or designs a blog is considered a digital humanist, and I […]
There’s always more Fish in the sea
Golumbia’s argument swayed me the most when he moved to his discussion of linguistics. He points out that many linguistic scholars use computers to aid their work, but they don’t define themselves as “digital linguists” as if they were doing something dinstinct. Golumbia notes that “attending linguistics conferences, one does not notice dramatic changes in […]
Golumbia Response-11/7
Digital Humanities uses the word “digital” as an adjective. The word digital is supposed to describe the type of humanities the field encompasses. Perhaps there could be a better name for what digital humanities does, but I think digital humanities is an apt name for the field. Because digital humanities is more of a methodology […]
Evolution: the basis of humanities
I think that the digital part to Digital Humanities is a bit broad and vague. The digital side to humanities is such a large topic that within the digital, you need to be more specific on what you mean by being digital in the Digital Humanities. What I mean by this is that You have […]
Golumbia Response
This series of questions makes me want to reevaluate all my thoughts before on DH. So good job on the questions! How does DH use the word digital? It took me a while to think about it and to realize how but the more I think about it, the more I realize that a lot […]
