Golumbia Prompt
¶ 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 0 I think it’s really interesting that you picked the passage from page 172 because that was the passage I found most interesting and convincing. Golumbia made an accurate and cutting observation that implies that Digital Humanities may, in fact, not be as digital as it likes to claim.
¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 1 In order to argue, or counter-argue, that the word “digital” is a catachresis, we must first understand what “digital” means. When googled, digital has multiple meanings but the one used here is “involving or relating to the use of computer technology.” It’s rather broad but if we accept this definition, I would argue that DH uses digital to reflect their goals of using computer technology to either facilitate humanities studies or approach humanities questions in a new way. What’s interesting about this, and where Golumbia’s observation comes in, is that DH seems to spend the vast majority of their time, or at least their published time, defining, defending, or arguing the field of DH through “traditional” scholarship. So, even though the goal is to be digital and to build, the reality is that Digital Humanities is more like the humanities than DHers want to believe.
¶ 3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 0 Building off the assumption that though the ideal DH is digital the reality is not so digital, it would seem that a renaming of DH isn’t out of the question. As Golumbia points out, there are digital branches of linguistics that are accepted as valuable in the field and have specific names to reveal their function. He states that:
¶ 4 Leave a comment on paragraph 4 0 Entirely new subfields of linguistics have developed based almost solely on use of the computer—the broad collection of subfields called computational linguistics, which is itself comprised of more narrow subfields such as machine translation, natural language processing, and corpus linguistics—yet there is no sense of a rupture between these areas and (what is not called “traditional”) linguistics. (Golumbia 163)
¶ 5 Leave a comment on paragraph 5 1 Based on this passage, it would seem that what Golumbia is calling for isn’t just a renaming of DH but a breakdown of DH into specific subfields so that those fields can be named accurately. For example, the phrase “digital humanities” does not invoke a specific image like petroleum engineering or social work does. It is unclear to outsiders whether DH deals with applying digital methods to humanities question or with applying a humanities approach to this new digital age (and some would argue that DH does both). If Golumbia had his way, these two fields could be called Computer Analysis of Humanities and Technological Culture Studies, for example (these are terrible names but it’s a start).
¶ 6 Leave a comment on paragraph 6 0 He also notes in the passage above that the split between DH and the humanities is non-existent in the linguistic field. Perhaps this is because of labels like “traditional,” which have a more negative connotation. Both DH and the humanities have great value and they are definitely related so it seems foolish that the two fields attack each other.
¶ 7 Leave a comment on paragraph 7 0 If we were to label something in DH as inherently digital, it would probably be computer assisted data analysis of large quantities of books. That practice is completely unique to DH. Digital archives or other such venues are also DH practices but they seem to be digital elaborations on existing humanities or librarian practices. This overlap implies that the chasm between DH and the humanities is really just a trench and the two fields could work together if they put some effort into defining the functions they fulfill for each other (like building a bridge).
¶ 8 Leave a comment on paragraph 8 1 I agree with Golumbia that maybe renaming DH, or splitting it into subfields, would help reduce the animosity between DH and the humanities. While I don’t think the use of the word “digital” in DH is a catachresis, I’m not against clarification. If we could clearly define DH, its areas of study and, most importantly, how it furthers the humanities’ goals, it would alleviate a lot of the tension. Furthermore, it would be more obvious to a currently oblivious public what DH is about.
Can you give some concrete examples to support the points you’re making here? I think you’re right that DH spends a lot of its “published time” (an interesting phrase in itself) pursuing research agendas that look very “traditional.” But where have we seen that so far this semester?