10/24 response
I wonder if Stephen Ramsey’s “If you’re not building you’re not a Digital Humanist” approach is an appropriate way to respond to this question. Certainly that type of neutral language is not racially coded, it discriminates against all or none equally based on your willingness to engage with the tools of computer programming and other digital tools. Yet what Mcpherson informs of us, as Rana has highlighted for us, outlines how the problem is ingrained in the very structure of the toolset. Likewise, is it totally fair to say that there is no discrimination because all have equal opportunity to learn to use said tools if that’s not really the case? I think most would agree that here in America and abroad there is not equal access to education and opportunity across racial lines.
This is not what Mcpherson focuses on though, and not what Rana has asked of us. I think bringing the two ‘modes of inquiry” together is difficult primarily because of that Ramsey identified problem that we don’t all code. We don’t all speak that language, so marrying the two in a meaningful way is difficult. If we wish to examine the foundations and methods of organization in digital tools, a code close reading, we need to be fluent in the medium. Personally I found it a little difficult to follow Mcpherson’s language about code in her essay, and I don’t think it was written to be indecipherable to a neophyte.
This all seems like an inverse of what we discussed last week. Rather than using machine learning and reading to analyze and dissect traditional Humanities work, we are using Humanities techniques to analyze machine language and methods. In that way I don’t see a significant element of change brought to the Humanities at large. This is just a new frontier to explore, like adding graphic novels, television, or movies to the cannon of acceptable texts to study. As for the Digital Humanities in particular, perhaps there is more to learn.
(first paragraph)
I think what Mcpherson is getting after is the idea that the tools themselves have been designed in a divisive way, meaning that even if everybody who wanted it had equal access to those tools, there would still be a systemic problem. I think Mcperson is advocating for equal access to the design of those tools–which would mean building things which would make Ramsey happy.
I wonder if Ramsey had any of these issues in mind when he made his assertion about DH because I think Mcpherson actually gives his argument more weight. If we have enlightened humanists building things–with all of their humanist awareness in mind as they do–then isn’t that the perfect intersection of D and H? This seems to be the “truest” definition of digital humanities, which only really came to light for me after reading Mcpherson’s argument.
(third paragraph)
I think you might be selling Mcperson’s argument short by saying that it just represents the next frontier of humanities. Admittedly, I’m still struggling to understand some parts of her argument (particularly what Sheila said about race not being about race…what?) But I think I understand it enough to assert that there’s more at stake here than that. Our society has gone digital and I think that’s the reason why scholars like Mcpherson are paying closer attention to who’s behind that digitalization.
If we don’t have fair representation in a group that holds a lot of power in our society, then we have a clear problem when it comes to issues of access and equality. And I don’t mean access in terms of access to the tools but accessibility in terms of something being written by and made for certain people and not others. I think we take for granted what “user friendly” and “intuitive” mean when it comes to technology. User-friendly for whom? Intuitive for whom? As a humanist I see a lot of issues unfolding from Mcpherson’s argument that call back into question–what is the digital humanities and what are its responsibilities? Perhaps Ramsey was on the right track in asserting that DHers have a responsibility to create things.
Interesting point re: McPherson’s argument gives Ramsay’s “more weight” — do you see McPherson’s critique of UNIX as reinforcing the idea that “building” itself is not outside ideology? If so, what is ideological about “building,” and does McPherson offer suggestions about ways to extricate the task of building from so-called “lenticular logics”?
What do you mean by “this” (in the first sentence of your second paragraph)? If “this is not what McPherson focuses on,” what is she focusing on, and why the discrepancy?
Some specifics would help, here — try citing and quoting from the text directly to ground your thinking.