Definitions: Does Not and Cannot Exist.
¶ 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 0 Digital humanities can be defined differently for each individual. This is what we learned while reading chapter twenty and twenty-one. I think that if digital humanities were to have a solid definition, the humanities would fall into a slippery slope of conceptions and fundamentals that are needed for us to use, work, and understand humanities in its entire form.
¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 0
¶ 3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 2 Alex Sevigny of McMaster University defined the digital humanities as “using digital media to explore, create, analyse and decode meanings in cultural products, current affairs and social life” [282]. I believe that this is a solid definition in the sense that Sevigny covers the basis of what we talked about in lecture a few weeks back with defining a humanist. We, as a class, thought of what being a humanist is/what they do. We came up with the ideas that humanists find meanings to various ideas, they explore culture and affairs, and they stay close knit to the problems of the world as humanists have to in order to survive. This also raises the problem of restrictions though. Does this definition not limit our possibilities to what defining can lead to? Does this not limit our sense of work in the digital humanities?
¶ 4 Leave a comment on paragraph 4 0
¶ 5 Leave a comment on paragraph 5 3 I think that putting a complete definition on digital humanities can be a problem that happens all too often. We, as human beings, have this perception that everything has to be defined. If it is not properly set in stone, then it is not at all a concrete fundamental. I think this is what is wrong with our perception of the digital humanities. If we were to add a complete definition to the word ‘digital humanities,’ we wouldn’t have anything to study because we would all be conformed to believe that digital humanities would all be under the same definitional function; we would have no variety.
¶ 6 Leave a comment on paragraph 6 0
¶ 7 Leave a comment on paragraph 7 1 Changing the definition of humanities will be a tricky and sticky ordeal (especially since we are dealing with the humanities in the first place). How do we properly define a COMPLETE categorical work of study? You can’t. There will always be problems or issues to face, you will forget part of the definition, or will have to add on to the definition in order for a complete definition to exist. This is why there is such an arbitury and ambiguous topic. Being so vague helps the humanities with being able to explore more options than what you would believe it could. All in all, I think that if the humanities system were to truly define what digital humanities consists of, we would live a life in conformity and living within a system that is already placed. We would be living in a system that defines everything we want and don’t want and that could lead to a slippery downfall of the digital humanities.
I don’t think it necessarily limits our sense of work and limits us from what can do because you are “exploring” these cultures and affairs. You don’t have to explore the same things and the same way. It’s broad enough so that you can explore and develop various ideas.
Of course, definitions (and imposed “limits,” for that matter) can be useful because they give people something to argue about. Look, for instance, at all the activity and energy that has been generated with regards to this one topic — that is, with regards to “defining” DH in general. The controversy that has erupted over questions of definition has forced humanities disciplines to likewise reckon with the ways that they have defined themselves traditionally. And this, to my mind, is all very beneficial; it’s healthy for a discipline to have its member interact and engage in this way (and it helps to prevent disciplinary inertia).