Golumbia Response – 11/14
¶ 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 2 I think the essay describes DH effectively in that it addresses some of the previous concerns of Digital Humanists but also raises new questions and perspectives. The argument, as in previous essays, that DH is changing the field of the humanities is again present in this text: “Digital Humanities has often tended to be anti-interpretive, especially when interpretation is understood as a political activity” (Allington 6). The new idea presented here is how DH is intertwined within the university system, not just how it changes aspects of the field of Humanities. These ideas echo the ‘Anonymous vs. Gannon’ debate – the reluctance to use technology versus DH’s methods being incorporated into (and even potentially absorbing) methods of traditional humanities.
¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 0 The fact that the authors are also engaging with other Digital Humanists’ works shows how the field is expanding and how it responds to criticisms presented within; for example, one of the chief criticisms of the DH field is that the scholars often work on their own projects and rarely, if ever, collaborate or consult other works. However, the scholars in this essay reference other DHer’s such as Liu.
I agree that it does describe DH accurately, but I think it just does it in a tone where bias is present, and that though DH is changing the university system, it just won’t stick. I think they do indicate how important DH is, as it is intermixing with the university system as a whole, but they also don’t it sound like “if you don’t do something about it, were all doomed”. It just gives the tone of “meh” when giving it’s importance
Yes, all very well said. But, what in your mind is the traditional humanities? Haven’t we already incorporated DH into our scholarship in the humanities by using digital tools such as digital archives? It always boggles my mind when academic scholars don’t acknowledge DH, when they’ve probably been using it for years.
You get the ball rolling here in your response, but only barely. I’d like to see you engage with these arguments about “anti-interpretive” and “post-interpretive” in greater detail. What stakes are associated with statements and claims of this kind? Why does it matter if we don’t “interpret” text anymore, as literary scholars? What changes might that bring to the field of literary scholarship? And why does any of this matter?
In short, your post leaves me with more questions than claims, and I’d like to see more explanation and engagement over all.