{"id":848,"date":"2016-11-07T15:42:50","date_gmt":"2016-11-07T15:42:50","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/sheilaliming.com\/428DH\/?p=848"},"modified":"2016-11-07T15:42:50","modified_gmt":"2016-11-07T15:42:50","slug":"golumbia-prompt","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sheilaliming.com\/428DH\/uncategorized\/golumbia-prompt\/","title":{"rendered":"Golumbia Prompt"},"content":{"rendered":"

I haven’t ever questioned the term Digital or Humanities in respect to putting the words together to name a study. And, even after Golumbia’s article made its case at saying the terms are wrong, I’m still not convinced. Not everyone who writes an eBook or designs a blog is considered a digital humanist, and I don’t believe they refer to themselves as that either. So, what’s the problem? Golumbia claims that professionals of other disciplines are getting into the DH mix: “The question I am raising here is why professionals who are not humanists should be engaged in setting standards for professional humanists”–Who? Who, out there, is making a case for DH, who isn’t a humanist? McGann = scholar on American literature and culture, professor at UVA. Terras = professor and director of DH at UCL. Gannon = professor of history (which counts as a humanist in my book) at Grand View. The people who are well known in the DH world are humanists. Even if they’re\u00a0not\u00a0<\/em>humanists, you know what they are? They are people. They are students (essentially) working\/studying in their field. They\u00a0quite presumably\u00a0<\/em>know what a computer is, and if they stem from the STEM fields, such as an engineer, mathematician, or technology professional, are\u00a0interested in talking about the digital world that they know about. How can Golumbia be so exclusive, by saying that nonhumanists shouldn’t be dabbling in his field? Sure, an English major might not have a lot of reason to be writing scholarly articles about studies in biological research. But DH is something anyone can learn about, study, and utilize.<\/p>\n

Golumbia points out, “That there is tension between DH and other modes of contemporary literary study is easily seen on the surface: these tensions are not merely noted but often enough endorsed by DHers themselves”; true, because every study wants to fight for their right to be known and respected. Isn’t there tension between every branch of academia? The engineers gawk at the theater majors because they will never make any money. The theater people laugh at the engineers because they can’t create worthwhile entertainment on stage. The problem with DH is the fact that too much time is being spent on\u00a0defining\u00a0<\/em>it, and arguing about it, and searching to be the best definer of it, rather than\u00a0actually utilizing the DH tools and doing it.\u00a0<\/em>Wouldn’t it be nice if, after 10 years of its existence, we could just let it go and do it?<\/p>\n

What is traditional? Tradition is always changing, because as each year, or decade, goes by, we lose more and more of the tradition from previous years. The difference between a traditional scholar and a DH scholar is that they are on different levels of the changes. A traditional scholar is on one side of the spectrum, where their study has been established after hundreds of years and they don’t need to worry about explaining every little claim they make. Where on the other hand, a DH scholar needs to back up everything they say with a reason and a fight and a definition–i.e. this exact article by Golumbia! Yes, it is a new discipline, and it is growing and shaping and finding its niche. Golumbia is correct, that DH is hard to define, and that scholars need to let it go that we can’t define it. The reason it can’t be defined is because instead of using it and studying its inner workings, scholars are still stuck trying to define it, which in itself is traditional. Traditional, because since forever, everything has been able to find a clear definition, and a place in the world. But DH is something that we can’t compare with anything else. Its creation came with the changing world, with the tools now available to us and this entire digital world that came into being.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I haven’t ever questioned the term Digital or Humanities in respect to putting the words together to name a study. And, even after Golumbia’s article made its case at saying the terms are wrong, I’m still not convinced. Not everyone who writes an eBook or designs a blog is considered a digital humanist, and I […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":11,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-848","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sheilaliming.com\/428DH\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/848","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sheilaliming.com\/428DH\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sheilaliming.com\/428DH\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sheilaliming.com\/428DH\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/11"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sheilaliming.com\/428DH\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=848"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/sheilaliming.com\/428DH\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/848\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":875,"href":"https:\/\/sheilaliming.com\/428DH\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/848\/revisions\/875"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sheilaliming.com\/428DH\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=848"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sheilaliming.com\/428DH\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=848"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sheilaliming.com\/428DH\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=848"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}