Why all the squabbling? Anxiety erupting from change; resistance and definitions
¶ 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 1 Definitions are important because they provide a frame of reference. They also dictate inclusivity, and that seems to be a fundamental issue with DH studies. There seems to be some amount of anxiety about whether or not people are “doing it” and whether or not that changes/challenges their identity as humanities scholars. Based on the definitions presented in chapter 20, it seems that some people don’t suffer from this anxiety. They see DH as the natural progression of the humanities—humanities plus computers. Philip Burns takes this approach in his definition when he writes, “We don’t distinguish digital sociology or digital astronomy, so why digital humanities? Just because computers are involved doesn’t mean the basic nature of the subject area is any different than it has been traditionally” (295).
¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 1 However, others seem to take for granted the software and programming skills that they bring to DH. They assume that it’s merely something that makes their lives easier, but they forget perhaps take for granted the anxiety that others may have for not possessing these skills. Tara Andrews, for example, writes that “Most of my programming and scripting is less about consciously defining new digital paradigms for humanities research and much more about ‘eradicating the boring and repetitive research tasks, making my life easier thereby’” (282). Note that Andrews has programming experience and for her there does not seem to be any anxiety about inclusion/exclusion. She possesses some of the skills prized by many in the DH community so when she “does it” it’s something that comes naturally to her. Simon Mahoney echoes this skills-taken-for-granted-position when he writes that DH is defined simply as “what ‘we’ do” (285). Who is “we”?
¶ 3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 0 Gibb’s post categorizes and analyzes types of definitions (a very DH thing to do, in my opinion) and he found that digitization and studying the digital fell to the bottom in terms of frequency whereas “the application of technology to humanities work” far outstretched the rest (290). This means that most people are seeing DH as Humanities plus computers rather than the study of the human in the digital context or the study of digital tools themselves.
¶ 4 Leave a comment on paragraph 4 0 There’s clearly a divide that needs to be further discussed. What’s the difference between Humanities evolved to the 21st century by using digital tools and the study and creation of those digital tools coupled with the study of how humans interact with those tools?
¶ 5 Leave a comment on paragraph 5 0 I think that general resistance to DH might occur because there are those who do not want to learn new software or technologies in order to do what they’ve always done: work with texts. They are resisting the definitions that dictate that they must “make something” in order to keep up. The definitions that say that merely embracing and using emerging digital tools (built by others) is participation in the “new” humanities i.e. digital humanities, are more inclusive to those who are unwilling to change much about their current practice.
¶ 6 Leave a comment on paragraph 6 1 Circling back to the the issue of definition in general, I think it’s important to consider the ways in which certain definitions cause anxiety for those who identify as humanists and perhaps feel edged out by a new definition that doesn’t seem to include them. This may mean that two (or more) fields are emerging and all the squabbling over definitions is merely growing pains.
Too, I can’t help but notice the emphasis on “doing it,” per se, and on the verb “to do” in particular. We saw this emphasis in Ramsay’s blog posts; we saw it in Chris Forster’s “I’m Chris, Where Am I Wrong?” essay; and we see it throughout these Day of DH definitions. What, in your opinion, compels this obsession with “doing” and with using the verb to do as a proclamation that relates to action?