As with many critical fields in the humanities, Digital Humanities really wants to define itself yet also hates being pinned down. Infact, it is a debate within the DH about whether or not the field should even have a strict definition at all. The positives of keeping it ill-defined keep it largely accessible and open, free from being pidgeon-holed into one specific field, allowing colloboration from a variety of actors. However, proponents of the view that it should have a closed definition argue on the same metric. They believe that once you have a definition, that is actually the point at which you can branch off of the initial concept, while still retaining a level of specificity that necessitates critical discussion.The closest I have gotten to understanding an ethos in Digital Humanities is the idea of “construction” rather than just “critique”. What is “construction” itself was controversial, with some people arguing that in order to be a “real” Digital Humanist you needed to know how to code. However because humanities student don’t enjoy learning anything difficult, the definition became much broader, utilising any method of digital construction or “meaning making” to take part. Part of this ethos also has an emphasis on accessibility, bridging the gap between academic and reader, utilising digital tools and the digital space to “democratise” information and knowledge. Interestingly it does (in my view) end up creating a clash between the nature of scholarship and the project itself, which I suppose is one of the very things Digital Humanities attempts to uncover.
It is also not fair to say “critique” does not hold an important place in DH. DH’s love critiquing, they love externally critiquing, internally critiquing, constantly self critiquing. Like most humanist fields they stay committed to being quite intersectional and deconstructionist in their approach, attempting to challenge hegemonies of thoughts that pervase themselves socially, but quite often academically aswell within digital fields. The critique can be showcased through the projects themselves, or it can be a much wider critique of any digital projects or data collection. All this is to help us better understand our purpose and role (moral or otherwise) on digital spaces, what exactly is at stake, and what contributions need to be made. Perhaps I’ve missed something, but there’s a lot of accessible web blogs who attempt to define the same (with a lot more construction, ethos, and critique than I).
This is a great response and an enjoyable read.
I think I would agree with you on your take about the ethos in Digital Humanities being the idea of “construction” rather than just “critique”. At this point in what I’ve learnt so far, I do feel like DH is relational and heavily dependant on primary sources in order to construct a creative response. Wether that be graph, database, or an interactive tree transforming into a comprehensive database of Paradise Lost (https://darknessvisible.christs.cam.ac.uk/). I hope my mind gets changed on this.
I like what Eli said in their post: “In the methods of analyzing text, you can illustrate the texture of your intention.” I think this might be a part of the answer to the relational critique I’m making, but I’m not 100% sure where I’m going yet.
Your point on challenging hegemonies of thoughts that “pervase themselves socially, but quite often academically aswell” I would agree with. It’s certainly refreshing to see trends, or models of analysis represented in a different way to a lit review or essay compilation. Having a visual stimulus is useful for ease of learning. I imagine there has been some research on different outcomes of learning responding to analysing through a Digital Humanitarian (?) lens.
And… “All this is to help us better understand our purpose and role (moral or otherwise) on digital spaces, what exactly is at stake, and what contributions need to be made.” I’m looking forward to hearing more about this take in class. What about the omniscient tech bros? Does agency exist on the internet? Can we ever be moral on digital spaces? Just some light Thursday afternoon thoughts.
Indeed a compelling read. Your particular focus on the inconsistent nature of the field is rather interesting; it does rather seem inclined to cause arguments within itself. That being said, you seem reluctant to state a personal view on the matter, as to whether this internal inconsistency leads to more conflict or to more flexibility. That being said (whilst I am inclined to vote flexibility) I can very much understand wishing to avoid setting any statements in stone at this early period – it’s always a touch embarrassing to return to earlier work and change your view.
I was also rather intrigued by your notion of our ‘purpose’ within digital spaces, something I had ironically elected to avoid talking about. Are you personally of the view that we have a duty to act within certain frameworks or apply digital tools in a certain way, or is it more of a sense of needing to understand that the capabilities of digital humanities must be put to use? Would be interesting to hear your thoughts.
I am personally of the view that there must be some sort of moral duty to act within ethical frameworks online. Part of this comes out the fact that I don’t think any action is free from moral implication, and in this regard the online space I think reflects a sort of sandbox reality that is important to make ethical distinctions or judgements on. Now if you were to question me on what specific ethical duties we have I’m not sure I’d be able to give as concrete an answer. The biggest clash and place of confusion I see is that between preserving ownership over ur own work (and the right to make profit off that) and democratisation of information.
The work of the creators of Zotero, WordPress, VLC Media Player, Audacity, Internet Archive, Wikipedia, Neal Makes Fun, etc, is all work in digital spaces that I believe to be morally good. The question is whether or not the creation and ethos of these websites is morally obligatory, or if it’s just a supererogatory action that we should praise but not accept as the standard. It’s this space that I think is interesting to dissect and one I think both the study and application of digital humanities could be helpful to explore (both in understanding but also bringing about actively). I’d love to hear your thoughts too though, and why you chose not to talk about “purpose” as it seems to me so much of (atleast the introductory readings) spent time atleast implicitly discussing it.