Get you a programmer who can do both
¶ 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 1 When I started Mcpherson’s essay, I was skeptical of the argument that our systemic values could show up in how we code programs. Programs don’t convey human emotion, they don’t have bias, they don’t have cognition, so what could they possibly have to do with racial divisiveness? As I read on, however, I realized that I’ve taken technology for granted as something completely opposite of the human—forgetting, of course, that our technology comes completely from the humans who create it.
¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 0 Mcpherson’s argument is rooted in her discussion of how programs are written and she provides evidence from what I believe are examples of codes or commands in certain kinds of programs—and I’d be lying if I said I understood any of it. In that sense, her argument didn’t seem to appeal to humanists so much as deeply-entrenched (and “appropriately” trained) digital humanists or computer science folk.
¶ 3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 1 This creates a barrier for discussing solutions because a humanist would approach this issue very differently. A humanist would likely introduce some theory to shed light on how our systemic values make their way into everything we do—including our coding of technology. A humanist would then use that theory as a way to shed light on how to combat this issue. (brief aside: I think this essay then brings to light some important issues about identity and how DH as a humanitites/computer science hybrid can end up alienating the very people it’s trying to reach—I’d be curious how a computer science person would read this argument and if they felt the same…)
¶ 4 Leave a comment on paragraph 4 2 That said, I do think that Mcpherson raises some good points about moving forward. The idea of “critical race coders” is the kind of DH crossbreed that we need as we move into a technological era. We need to have enlightened individuals writing code and also discussing the importance of writing code from a place of awareness. (in other words…GET YOU A PROGRAMMER WHO CAN DO BOTH).
¶ 5 Leave a comment on paragraph 5 1 What it boils down to—and what I think it would boil down to if Mcpherson were using a theoretical lens—is that we need to bring these issues to the surface because system values will always be taken for granted, always go unrecognized, and always influence our actions without us realizing it as long as they are sitting below the surface and not on top of it. It’s a matter of gaining new literacies, as Mcpherson points out, and this is perhaps one of the most important arguments for humanists to embrace and move toward the digital humanities. We need to be enlightened in everything we do—everything.
I appreciate this candid description of your reading / thought processes. It seems that a lot of folks wound up approaching this essay armed with a fair degree of suspicion, and I’m wondering why. Was it the title? Or was that suspicion caused by something that McPherson says / argues early on in the piece?