Unknown Territory

October 17, 2016

¶ 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 1 The humanities will always be changing. With that being said, I stick to what I have been saying these last few weeks regarding the definition and defying the digital humanities. If we continue to create definitions to what the digital humanities consist of, we will be limiting or arbitrarily creating self-defined limits on how we perceive the humanities in today’s world.

¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 0

¶ 3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 1 Hayles makes a valid statement on page 64 “literary scholars generally think they know what is meant by close reading, but, looked at more closely, it proves not so easy to define or exemplify.” I think that this helps with my idea that you cannot create definitions. Defining items can be very tricky and you can start falling down a slippery slope. You will be limited on what you can read, think, imagine and so on if we create these alternate and standard definitions. By creating an open and self-defining definition of the humanities, it creates a vague concentration that could help categorize everything that we need it to categorize (like what Brittany) stated in her post about images, sounds, animations, and so on and so forth.

¶ 4 Leave a comment on paragraph 4 0

¶ 5 Leave a comment on paragraph 5 1 Going forward, I believe that the definition of the digital humanities has definitely changed. Nothing can ever be the same in the aspect that time influences everything and since the humanities is evolving, so will our definition of what it is. I believe that if we, as a society, were to keep the definition of digital humanities the same, we would be stuck arguing about the difference between Shakespeare the entire time and now moving forward.

¶ 6 Leave a comment on paragraph 6 0

¶ 7 Leave a comment on paragraph 7 1 Moving forward with an evolving definition can only benefit the humanities as we are always creating and finding new things. How could we fit an old definition into a new and always changing disciplinary? We can start practicing this type of defining by creating more discussions and more classes regarding digital humanities. I know in class one day we discussed whether the digital humanities should be just a graduate study program, but why restrict this study?

¶ 8 Leave a comment on paragraph 8 0

¶ 9 Leave a comment on paragraph 9 0 If we are always evolving and this is the new form of learning and what we will become, why should we restrict undergraduates (or anyone, really) from learning about how the digital humanities is progressing. By limiting those wanting to learn, we are only harming ourselves and the future of the humanities.

¶ 10 Leave a comment on paragraph 10 0

¶ 11 Leave a comment on paragraph 11 0 Word clouds are an interesting topic to bring awareness to and I think we can get a generalized conception of how we look at the humanities in general. I think that pre-internet days could consist of words that are not digitally formed. We would see a lot more words like ‘close reading, Shakespeare, historicism, deconstructionism, etc.;’ but now I believe you could find words like ‘digital press, google, blogs,’ and honestly anything to do with the internet.

¶ 12 Leave a comment on paragraph 12 0

¶ 13 Leave a comment on paragraph 13 1 This scares me in a sense. I think that the humanities and digital humanities is great but I feel like we could become too absorbed into the technology that we will forget about pre-digital days and we could fall into an unknown territory that could possibly manipulate and completely destroy everything that we have come to work for in the humanities.

This entry is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any comments on this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a comment, or trackback from your own site.

Comments

0 Comments on the whole Post

1 Comment on paragraph 1

Cody Deitz October 19, 2016 at 2:05 pm

I really enjoy what appears to be the happy accident of “the definition and defying the digital humanities.” I’m reasonably certain you meant “defining,” but there’s a quality to DH that encourages a touch of defiance, and I think that’s a healthy instinct to cultivate. It seems to speak a little to your point here–that an emphasis on definition can be restrictive and unnecessarily limiting.

Log in to Reply

0 Comments on paragraph 2

1 Comment on paragraph 3

Cody Deitz October 19, 2016 at 2:12 pm

There’s an important distinction to be made between a difficulty in defining things like DH or close reading and simply not defining those things. You seem to be arguing for the latter, at least in some capacity here. Furthermore, I’m not sure entirely what is meant by a “open and self-defining definition of the humanities.” Bracketing the linguistic difficulty there, I agree it does create a “vague concentration,” and that is a problem. I mean, isn’t “vague concentration” a contradiction in terms? It seems at the very least impractical to pursue such a definition (or anti-definition), especially if we take into consideration the humanities’ traditional struggle to define itself in a clear enough fashion as to be seen as serious and worthwhile.

As scholars in the humanities, I think we’re perfectly able to define our work in a way that is not incredibly limiting–and I would contend that some limitation can be a productive thing. It allows for a certain kind of focus on reproduction of the discipline (again, something that is currently pressing).

Log in to Reply

0 Comments on paragraph 4

1 Comment on paragraph 5

sliming October 25, 2016 at 6:13 pm

My question for you, Hal, is how “defining” the humanities, or “defining” DH is even related to Hayles’ point about the rise of multiple reading modes, practices, and styles. I sense that, in your view, there is a relationship between these concerns, but I’d like to see you state it more clearly.

Log in to Reply

0 Comments on paragraph 6

1 Comment on paragraph 7

Cody Deitz October 19, 2016 at 2:14 pm

Again, I’m inclined to push back a little. Are we truly unable to fashion a definition that cannot accommodate new trends/perspectives/theoretical lenses? That notion seriously sells short the academic field that prides itself on critical thought and the ability to shift its focus and perspective as the situation warrants. Perhaps we’re setting up a false dichotomy here between a clear definition and a definition that functions?

Log in to Reply

Cody Deitz October 19, 2016 at 2:20 pm

Interesting–this idea seems to come from a different place than the ideas you pose earlier in the your post.

And I agree and share some of your fears. Still, we might take some solace in the fact that our biology seems to counteract our best attempts to forge blindly into the future. I believe it was Hayles (or maybe Carr–they’re blending a little) that wrote about how while we interact with increasingly complex technologies that change the way we think about information, our brains remain (pleasantly, maybe?) un-evolved. We still read better on paper than we do on the screen. We still remember things between when we write with a pen and paper than when we type. Sure, some of this may be simple learning and familiarity, but from the studies we’ve read about, there is also biological barrier we seem to be pushing against that doesn’t look to be ready to break any time soon.

Log in to Reply

Cancel

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Digital Humanities