Responding to McGann
¶ 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 2 McGann’s image of the humanist—and a kind of humanism—seems to be at the heart of his approach to this shift in our field. As the line McGann lifts from Swineburn reveals, McGann believes it is fundamentally human to work with things, to build things, to see ourselves in ripples of the pond after tossing in a stone. Here we see interesting echoes, perhaps, of Hegel’s slave whose power derives from his building. And these echoes seem to reveal something implicit in McGann’s argument that the digital humanities represent just another “thing” that man can and should master: a basic understanding of man that is fixed and traditional. In other words, McGann’s subject is relatively stable in his understanding, and his object is that which seems to change.
¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 3 Clearly, there are some issues with this. McGann, unwittingly or not, breaks one of the cardinal rules of humanities inquiry: to not be aware of one’s own assumptions and biases. His view of the humanist, as one who holds man above all else, neglects the complex and shifting relationship between subject and object. That is, he oversimplifies the subject and the object. And this provides the foundation for what might be the most basic counter-argument to McGann’s thesis, which is that as it moves forward, study in the digital humanities must be especially aware of conceptions of the humanist and humanism, of the nature of the subject. It is a sloppy oversimplification to assume an unchanging subject, or to avoid turning our critique on the subject.
¶ 3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 0 Still, McGann’s gaff might be forgiven if we understand that his argument prioritizes the empowerment of the subject. In fact, it is that very tentativeness, that self-subversive tendency, that McGann criticizes as being unproductive. I think we can grant him that; we all recognize the urge in the humanities to perpetually criticize and destabilize our perspective, trying to claw our way outside our subjective experience in order to critique our perspective. Instead of wringing our hands and re-thinking and re-orienting, McGann urges praxis—a moving forward into the unknown. There is great value in this, especially considering the apprehension with which so many humanities scholars approach technology and the digital humanities in the more traditional corners of the discipline. McGann holds up the ethic of the perpetual learner, and that is a crucially important value in any field, and perhaps especially the humanities.
¶ 4 Leave a comment on paragraph 4 1 As long as we move forward into the unknown with open eyes, and full awareness of our complex position as the subject, there is little risk in venturing forth. McGann appropriately quotes Shelley: we must “learn by going where we have to go.” Although McGann decries the apocalyptic tone of humanities gatherings, his call to action seems to make use of the same urge, but to his credit, we do risk much by standing still.
It is interesting how you use the idea of ripples in a pond after tossing in a stone. The ripples in waves are consistent at first, but slowly they descend into nothingness (Which is my response to McGann’s article).
Ahem. That’s Swinburne with an e, of course.