“We’re All Digital Humanists Now”
¶ 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 2 In her blog post, Lincoln Mullen declares that the digital humanities can be thought of in terms of a spectrum. “To put it another way, all humanities scholars use digital practices and concepts to one degree or another, even those who do not identify as digital humanists” (237). I have a hard time accepting that a person who merely uses a search engine can now identify as a “digital humanist”, but Mullen’s point here is to be inclusive, so I’ll go along with it.
¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 1 If designing this spectrum was up to me, there would be four main positions. I will utilize some numbers here in a scale of 0-10 for clarity (and because in my last blog post, I criticized English majors for not using numbers enough). First along our continuum, at the number zero, is the caveman. Can’t we call him a digital humanist too? That fire he just “built” is pretty revolutionary. Take that, Stephen Ramsay.
¶ 3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 1 But in all seriousness, the second position is next, occupying numbers 1-3. Here we have professors/scholars/etc. who use technology for research or classes. The activities or skills that fall under this category include basic typing, using search engines, making course sites on Blackboard, etc. Our professors and scholars should already be acquainted with these basic skills, and for most of them, the skills are second-nature. The anomaly here is professors that received their education before the digital age, who might still be lagging in this area (YES, they still exist… I had a professor like this last semester… poor CILT). We can place them at number 1 on our spectrum.
¶ 4 Leave a comment on paragraph 4 1 Moving on, the third position occupies numbers 4-6, and it’s a bit harder to define. Mullen states, “Moving from these practices to the digital humanities is a difference of degree, not of kind” (237). I agree that the tools at this position are on a higher degree, but I disagree in the sense that the practices do seem to be a different kind; they interact with the subject matter, rather than working around it. A search engine can help us find an archived text online, but a tool like text mining can be used to analyze aspects of the text for literary study; Microsoft Word enables us to type an essay, but an open peer review tool helps people post comments throughout the essay. The people at this position probably have a slightly higher level of training than the people in the previous position, in which they were introduced to using these DH-related tools. This could be a degree, but it could be as simple as one class or webinar. Scholars like Spiro who favor the “inclusivity” aspects of the Digital Humanities fall along this position of the spectrum because they believe you can be a Digital Humanist without building anything.
¶ 5 Leave a comment on paragraph 5 4 The building argument brings me to the final position on the spectrum, numbers 7-10. I would define this position as “people engaged in building.” I define it this way because I agree with Stephen Ramsay’s claim in his blog post “Who’s In and Who’s Out” that building should include “people who theorize about building, people who design so that others might build, and those who supervise building” (241). Anyone involved in the building process is a Digital Humanist according to my spectrum. Ramsay claims that anyone not involved in this process is NOT a Digital Humanist, but I think those not involved in the process can still be included on the spectrum, just at a lower level. I place the “builders” above the “users” because having builders in the DH helps the field progress; having only users would cause the field to remain stagnant and eventually die. In his blog post, Mark Sample notes, “There are many stakeholders in the digital humanities, which is a good thing. We’re all in this together, even when we’re not” (255). Some people might get anxiety about their spot on the spectrum, but each role is necessary to the field.
I feel the same way. Simply using a search engine or microsoft word is not something i would classify as digital humanities. Everybody uses those, so i don’t think it’s fair to include those in digital humanities.
I respect your suspicion, but shouldn’t the “spectrum” allow for some basic level of non-specialized humanities inquiry and training? After all, it’d be virtually impossible for either a student or researcher in the humanities to get along without a few basic digital tools (like search engines, word processing software, email, etc.).