McGann Response
¶ 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 1 The relationship between humanist as people and humanities as a collection of methods is static and because of this, is dissipating. Humanities as a scholarship has been around for centuries and since it had become so successful for such a long period of time, people do not want to change. What McGann is arguing is that a new wave of humanities has come, one that “takes advantage of digital resources and internet transmission” and with that, a new wave of humanists should come along with it (McGann 60).
¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 1 This is not to say that McGann wants to change humanities entirely and make it so scholars only discuss how informative memes are, but instead to use the subjects that people have always written about, such as literary works and the like, and make it digitally available. The task is not as simple as converting literary essays in PDF files and just posting them up on the internet for the world to see, but to incorporate digital content and how people read and grasp digital content into these literary works.
¶ 3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 1 The tools that are available online are those that people should take advantage of to further their scholarly writing is not used and if used, may not be used effectively. McGann acknowledges one of his biggest concerns, “the degree of ignorance about information technology and its critical relevance to humanities education and scholarship” (McGann 52). We as humanist have become so invested in the sophisticated nature of traditional paper-based work that we are illiterate in digital humanities. “We can no more ‘refuse’ this digital environment than we can ‘refuse’ the empire of the U.S” (McGann 50). McGann realizes that this relationship between humanist and their available tools cannot be ignored and it needs to be embraced fully and effectively.
¶ 4 Leave a comment on paragraph 4 1 According to Mcgann, the future of humanities is promising, but only if we accept the tools that the digital world has given us. “The library, especially the research library, is a cornerstone if not the very foundation of modern humanities” (McGann 53). Libraries understand the implications of re-editing their content and to complete a digital transformation. Digital literary affects the center of our cultural interests and our professional interest as McGann points out. Incorporating this digital transformation and transition into modern literary works and humanity subjects can increase its success, especially in scholarly publishing. Learn from the libraries and the trade publishers who incorporated these digital objects with classic subjects and still have turned out successful. The foundation of success in the future for academic publishing lies within this relationship between humanists and the digital tools.
Slow down here: I don’t agree with your primary observation that the relationship between “humanists” (as subjects) and “the humanities” (as a collection of methods) is static. In fact, McGann is arguing precisely the opposite in this essay, pointing out that our methods are changing whether we like them or not (and whether we understand them or not).
The issue, then, isn’t stasis, it’s forced evolution and change. The issue that we need to consider is: where is that force coming from, and how can we humanists take a more direct role in shaping it?