10/10 response
The question of whether or not DH changes people fundamentally depends, I think, on who they are, and ultimately what they do within DH. If for example someone goes into DH with little knowledge of the digital, their understanding of and what they can do within it will undoubtedly be fundamentally changed. To an extent, this change seems almost, if not completely, inescapable for those within DH who are on the lowest end of the spectrum as discussed/”defined” in class. For those in the middle and at the highest end of the spectrum, I think fundamental change can and does exist, but perhaps not so frequently, and maybe not so significantly. Perhaps they are coming into DH at this point on the spectrum having gained their digital knowledge elsewhere, and they don’t progress on the spectrum. Regardless of the reason that may be behind this, perhaps its because this is one extracurricular they simply don’t have time for, and they stay where they are in the middle; contributing, and perhaps creating to an extent, but not progressing, not necessarily changing. Something similar can happen at the highest end of the spectrum as well. They know enough to do what they want to do within DH and that’s where it ends for them.
However, I think that at some point, everyone within DH is changed to some extent. Everyone starts somewhere, and fundamental change is what moves people beyond that starting line. In a field where learning is the key, and ultimate goal, it would seem as though those who aren’t changed, are missing out on something inherent within DH. As the people within it are continually changing, DH itself changes right along with it.
I do think this idea of fundamental change underlies the apparent anxieties within arriving at any kind of definition for DH. Its difficult to define something that is constantly evolving and changing as people who make it up are learning and changing themselves. Its difficult, and some might argue ineffective, to define something that can’t and won’t always remain the same. This is where the risk is involved in defining something that can, and often is, fundamentally changed. However, I think the majority of this anxiety is caused by those within DH who aren’t don’t agree about who should be included and who shouldn’t, inhibiting the production of a definition. The different definitions within this chapter show that divide, and until this divide is settled, in whatever sense, I think that anxiety will continue to exist. Oddly enough, I think that what causes the anxiety will also ultimately be its solution.
A person’s prior knowledge of the digital is an interesting aspect to bring up. I agree with the idea that those on the lower end of the spectrum have a lot more fundamental changes to take away from the digital humanities. Moving away from changes in individuals, do you think that collectively, as a society, we are fundamentally changing as a result of the digital humanities? As you pointed out, people can pick up knowledge of the digital (as well as any other topic) while studying something that is not digital humanities. Could some of the societal changes that we might recognize as a result of the digital humanities actually be a consequence of another discipline entirely?
I like how you say that people who aren’t changing, “…are missing out on something inherent within DH”. It would seem that change is the only way to really progress in the field of digital humanities, especially since it’s a field that’s still gaining traction. The relationship you bring up about this need for fundamental change in the digital humanities and the lack of any solid definition for the digital humanities itself is evident. Do you think the fundamentals of the digital humanities will ever be set in stone? It seems as if many other areas of studies are constantly changing (but maybe not as fast as the digital humanities) and yet they can be defined. Is this a result of some kind of consensus of what the basics should be?
Something went a bit wacky with this post (perhaps the result of your having composed it in Word and then uploaded it to the blog?). At any rate, Matt and I were unable to offer comments by paragraph and so had to be content with offering comments on the whole post (as is no doubt obvious …) See if you can play around with format / settings when you upload your next post to ensure that the comment functions are enabled.
Anyway, I like your point about “fundamental change” being linked to a wide range of “anxieties” about where humanities disciplines — and where higher education in general, one might argue — might be headed. We’re going to delve deeper into those “anxieties” throughout the second half of this course, but I’m left wondering what you see as the sources of those anxieties? Are people just nervous about having to learn new tools and alter their traditional ways of doing scholarship? Or are there larger stakes here, and greater risks associated with all this “fundamental change”?