McGann Response
¶ 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 4 McGann uses a line from Swinburne about humans being the masters of all things to argue that despite its digital form, digital humanities is just another thing for humans to master. He suggests that digital humanities should be seen as another tool, like paper or pen, to better conduct research and/or convey literature to the audience. He claims we need to restore relationships between literarians and librarians because a good relationship between the creators and the created (or the people who maintain the created) can only improve literature by pointing out what works and what could use improvement. McGann’s argument is that the extensive use of digital means in the humanities is inevitable and that we only hinder ourselves by shying from it. In order to stay relevant, scholars must accept digital humanities and learn to master it, as we have mastered every tool before. And we must do so quickly. Just as sword-carrying soldiers who refused a gun were fast obsolete, scholars who refuse to get involved in digital humanities will find themselves left behind as relics of an older age. The tools, too, will eventually change and then the field will (they must) adapt to the new tools. Every change is a step to making the process of accessing literature and research simpler and more convenient. Resisting change will not do the individual or the field as good. In addition, McGann also states that humans are masters of objects, not of people or life events. This means that digital humanities will not restrict the variety of literature in any way, as people and life will continue to be as chaotic and as inspiring as they were before the internet. It’s just that now, with digital humanities, we have an improved medium for finding that chaotic, inspiring information and reaching out to the public with the created literature.
Your comment about librarians as the maintainers of our scholarship made me think of something we haven’t really discussed in class: why have Librarians been so ready to embrace the digital? The stuffy, traditional librarian stereotype certainly doesn’t fit the tech savvy librarians of today. When you think about what their job entails–keep track of all those cumbersome paper artifacts–it make sense that they would embrace a more streamlined system. Scholars who are resistant to a move toward digitization are perhaps taking for granted the resources that they have and how/why they are so readily available. We assume that librarians are happy to continue on with inefficient methods just because scholars are “uncomfortable” with a new order. Looking at it from a maintenance and service point of view makes those resistant to the DH seem pretty crummy and selfish.
I might hypothesize here that it is political. Libraries are under attack, right? They have to digitize to “stay with it”. It doesn’t take an introspective humanities professor to realize that the world needs computers. I think the readiness to find a way towards survival is the librarians passport to the digital. In order to appear relevant to people outside the fields needing a library or archive, the library and archive need to stay fresh and sexy.
I like your weapon analogy and I agree that those who refuse to solider on and embrace digital technology will eventually be left behind. However, it’s difficult to see how this change will come about. As we discussed in class, it’s extremely difficult for new PhDs to gain tenure and after so many years of hard work, it’s unlikely that they would be willing to stray from the system that promises them the job they’ve been working toward. But that’s assuming that the University continues on as it always had–which we know is not likely the case. Already Universities have changed a lot–embracing business models and working toward being more efficient and cost-effective. As a result, most departments have shifted to rely on cheap graduate and lecturer labor. If the University continues to change in terms of its faculty makeup (and as some are even eliminating tenure all together) there will be more room for digital humanities. The move away from tenure and/or having more faculty not working toward tenure might be the movement that makes space for DH to take hold.
I’d like to see you separate your thoughts into concrete paragraphs, Allie, so we can do a better job of commenting on distinct parts of your response.
That said, I’m not sure that I follow your reasoning re: “humans are the masters of objects … This means that digital humanities will not restrict the variety of literature in any way.” What are you getting at here? Are you trying to argue that people, as subjects, create the objects / tools for which they are responsible as “masters”? And that literature, as object, will therefore continue to flourish? I’m not sure what “stakes” emerge from such a claim — has McGann argued otherwise in his essay?
Some more specific references to the text would really help me to see your thinking here.