McGann Response [LS]
¶ 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 0 The discussion of subjects and objects by McGann is highly relevant to the tools we as digital humanists use. The way we interact with the humanities is a constantly changing and evolving sphere, especially when it involves the use of technology. We use DH as McGann says “to publish and to peer-review online – to carry out the major part of our productive educational work in digital forms” (McGann 55), broadening the audience in which we share our research, our analyses, and more.
¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 0 As humanists we are rooted in this process, and it’s becoming increasingly difficult to distance ourselves from scholarship that employs some form and/or functions of technology. Because of this, McGann says “we do better to recall that as we are characters in these events, we bear a responsibility toward them” (McGann 50). Therefore, just as technology shapes how we interact how we work in the humanities, we influence what direction and shape it takes.
¶ 3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 1 Using a tool constantly is likely to lead to mastery, whereas learning is a persistent endeavor; it is not possible to master ‘learning’ – there will always be more to discover, but tools have a limit to their complexity, even when they assist in that learning. That’s not to say, though, that the way we use these tools stays fixed – and DH’s tools are becoming complex in their own right. We can counteract this change, and develop a mastery of these new tools, “By designing and building the materials and applications tools that alone can teach how best to make and use these things” (McGann 52). The difference then, between humanists as people, and the humanities as a set of tools is that they can be mastered – people cannot.
Great point (re: “mastery” vs. “persistence”). I think this discrepancy carries over into our discussions of Golumbia’s arguments, too, since Golumbia is pointing out that DH does not value the kinds of skills that have been the bedrock of traditional humanities scholarship. The word “mastery” suggest benchmarks and metrics, but learning in a broad sense cannot be neatly measured, nor can it be concretely “mastered.”