Defining DH: Definitions Response
¶ 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 1 Even though Stephen Ramsay is a DH428 certified crank, I found myself drawn to his definition. He pictures DH [in this snapshot moment] as people and scholars with broad ranging interests. “Practitioners are as likely to be adept at Java as they are post-structuralism; as drawn to the iPhone as they are Moby Dick; as committed to a kind of optimistic futurism as they are deeply skeptical of posthuman condition” (281). In this quotation Ramsay both balances and juxtaposes what might be “traditional” humanist subjects and DH subjects. But really, I think, those DH subjects are just people subjects. Any person is as likely to be adept at Java as they are interested in the iPhone, it’s only convenient in this moment to make those comparisons to literary subjects. Critical of the someone arbitrary picks Ramsay outlines, I still see a benefit in thinking of DH in this way. The way that gives scholars permission to be literate in both literature and technology. Anyone at this point in their education can attest that we get a lot better at a subject, field, whatever, once we decide what we like about it. The things Ramsay lists are, sure, scholastic endeavors, but also just things people like. In the way nerds like things, you know? Moby Dick? Apple fans? Creating a space for bridges to form between interests and research interests, hobbies and work, is what DH can offer in this space Ramsay opens.
¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 1
¶ 3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 2 The first part of Ramsay’s quotation is very inclusive still. I like that aspect too: “Digital humanities attempts to bring humanistic inquiry and the artifacts of human experience into useful dialogue with digital technology…” Then of course, there is building, “[DH is] a matter of building and theorizing the built.” (281) We could argue about what this last part means for the DH spectrum. It is building and theorizing. Does that allow you to be one or the other, or must you do both? The final part of Ramsay’s definition continues to warm up DH in a rosy light, “DH is also one of the most exciting fields in the humanities today, with a burgeoning community of enthusiasts ranging from undergraduate to senior scholars” (281). At first glance Ramsay is still being ever so inclusive, but he says “enthusiasts”. Enthusiasts are what we call cute old people who bird watch, not usually what we call experts in a field. We know Ramsay’s other comments on DH. This all seems out of character for him. Yet, we can still gleen something helpful here. DHers have broad interests, hopefully which allow them to be better scholars. They are “in dialogue” with technology, which is better than just using technology, I suppose. And then, DHers can potentially come from any standing in academics. Maybe all this DH has changed Ramsay as a person, just like Cody was wondering.
I, too, found myself “drawn,” as you say, to Ramsay’s definition, in part because it came across sounding so unlike Ramsay.
What might this inconsistency reveal about the extent to which Ramsay is “performing” a kind of critical identity with relation to DH? Is it fair, for example, to say that every field (and sub-field) needs a crank or two? Why? What function do they play?