Blog

This will make sense when I start talking about the nukes.

I’m still fresh off of the talks from Dr. Titus and Dr. Isherwood about the Jack Peirs and Vietnam War protests that we talked about today, and Dr. Isherwood made a point about the Peirs letters that kind of got my brain gears turning. He talked about how the physical letter itself can kind of tell the reader where Peirs is- if he’s on the line he’s writing in pencil from a notebook, and behind the line he’s writing in pen and on stationary. It’s interesting that we’re using that less now- it’s still present and there are sticklers for the written word vs. digital items, but at the end of the day the paper documents are being transitioned out by a generation who’s having trouble seeing their value.

I was also watching House of Cards this weekend and at one point, the nuclear codes are pulled out and there’s a paper binder of instructions enclosed in the briefcase. The person I was watching with remarked that he was surprised it was still paper and not digitized or on a laptop. I wasn’t- these are the nuclear codes, and putting this on paper reduces the risk of hacking or theft. If you also think about it, this system may have updated but it’s technically been around since the late 1940s, early 1950s. That also kind of got me thinking about more value of paper.

We’re moving into the digital age where we’re not sending many physical letters anymore unless it’s bills or random magazines that don’t have much as far as archival value. The things we send are usually emails or direct chat messages and if 2016 should have taught you anything, those can be deleted. Maybe not permanently to the extent we would hope, but still making them tougher to find. The problem is that if the worst happens and the internet blows up, or someone screws up and deletes a whole website, we may never get that stuff back. Then what? We have an entire era of personal accounts, photos, and correspondence of life just deleted, erased. Obviously paper can be burned or thrown away… but the archival and sentimental value of paper correspondence can lead to more preservation of it.

I acknowledge my own role in this risk too- most of my pictures are digital, and I have a blog that I’m not shamelessly plugging at all that documents my own thoughts on current events and personal experiences. Arguably the hipsters are helping with this problem with the return of Polaroids/instant film and printing photos on Shutterstock, but they’re expensive and decreases availability. And honestly, I’m awful at keeping a regular journal on pen and paper. The transition is making the documentation more elite, and that’s sad too.

Bringing it sort of back to the Peirs project, are people really documenting what goes on outside of social media, computers, and the internet anymore? Are people documenting personal accounts and wars and historical events this way, or again, is someone going to be able to wipe them off the internet or hack into it to delete it? Are we at risk of losing the personal and human aspect of history in the digital era?

If the worst doesn’t happen, what are archives going to look like in the future, and will they be at risk to hacking, ransomware, etc.? Is this what the future is of spy movie style museum theft?

Just wanted to get some thoughts out. Maybe we should look into somehow preserving blogs like this on paper for future viewership… just in case.

-Britt

After being part of this fellowship this year and aspects of it last year, I can’t help but think in terms of Digital Projects. The following are some digital projects that would be really cool to do.

• Easy Meals to Make for College Students
• Ways to Save Money as a College Student
• Fun Things to do and Places to Eat in Gettysburg
• More projects on Sheet Music
• Greek Life at Gettysburg
• The Social Implications of Twitter
• Campus Culture at Gettysburg
• A Website Dedicated to Blue and Grey’s Menu (and the significance of the names of the good).
• Comprehensive Sex Education Information Center
• The History of Sandwiches
• How Feminist are Disney Movies?

Those are just a few of my thoughts! Maybe someone will turn one into a project.

There is a question has been circulating the DSSF group and our counterparts at Muhlenberg for some time- can we define a hot dog as a sandwich? It does seem like a silly internet joke at first glance, and in some ways it is. However, I have been thinking about the question in regards to DH and how easily we may dismiss some scholarship simply because it doesn’t seem like DH.

In DH, it is often easier to define what isn’t DH than what is. Even then, answers vary. Is archiving and creating metadata not DH because it serves a different purpose? Or do they qualify because they require in depth scholarship and careful consideration of end users on digital platforms? There are many more questions of this nature in DH, all asking if something really has the right to be considered truly Digital Humanities.

I am of the mindset that we should include more in DH, not less. Like a hot dog, some forms of DH are not what immediately springs to mind when we talk of “Digital Humanities,” but like hot dogs, they share enough characteristics that excluding them would be ludicrous. DH comes in many forms, with all types falling under the larger umbrella of the term. It includes new scholarship that fits no where else but in DH. Including these “unconventional” forms of DH diversifies the whole, which is something that DH should strive for and pride itself on. Definitions do not have to be prohibitive.

 

Emma Lewis

The readings of the past few weeks have been thought provoking, to say the least. The focus of last week was “Neoliberal Tools (and Archives): A Political History of Digital Humanities” by Daniel Allington, Sarah Brouillette, David Golumbia. It was a criticism of the apparent pointlessness of DH as it is being practiced. While there are certainly problems with DH, it is not simply humanities using digital to seem relevant. However, since I have not experienced other DH programs, I was wary about speaking for all of Digital Humanities. Since reading more this week, I have found that more people do share my reaction to the original writing. Matthew Kirschenbaum’s “Am I a Digital Humanist? Confessions of a Neoliberal Tool” and Roopika Risam’s “Digital Humanities in Other Contexts” are just a few examples of other perspectives on the point of Digital Humanities.

Now, I cannot speak for all DH programs. The authors’ insistence that DH “is not about, despite its explicit claims, is the use of digital or quantitative methodologies to answer research questions in the humanities.” That comment excludes many DH programs, including my own. Roopika Risam’s critique of this critique pointed out some of my own problems in far more eloquent arguments than I could articulate after my first reading and blog post. Risam makes a point that I have to agree with. “I’m struck,” she says, “by the many other contexts for digital humanities that are noticeably absent from narratives deriding the digital humanities. What of the work of digital history, digital rhetoric, new media, and more? Whither digital humanities in India, Poland, or Nigeria? Can digital humanities be done without $1.5M grants?”

The short answer is yes, but when put against the criticism of last week, other forms of DH seem excluded. Matthew Kirschenbaum’s piece  deals with this idea a little more directly. The title begs the question of whether or not he is a Digital Humanist. “On the face of it the question is absurd,” he answers, “of course I’m a digital humanist.” He continues, later in his post, that “the question feels less and less relevant, to be honest.” DH can be defined in so many ways, with different names and titles for jobs that may functionally do the same thing. DH cannot be defined for all definitively.

I was asked to answer two questions this week. The first asked why I thought Digital Humanities provokes such strong reactions from both its practitioners and detractors, the second asked if DH should just be considered humanities. Truthfully, I think both questions have to do with this idea of defining DH for all. DH provokes strong reactions because it is different for everyone, and can be defined personally in ways that go against the common trends of the field. As for the matter of the digital in DH, I see it as a separate thing- for now. DH is not fully defined, and to try and put it in a definitive place now would further alienate forms of the practice which could prove to be great scholarship.

In my experience, DH is not the same between institutions, nor should it be. Honestly, I am more likely to side with Kirschenbaum on this point. “I came to the realization,” he writes, “that I’d much rather use my days to work on the things I love than the things I hate. And that, let me confess, has nothing to do with being a digital humanist. It has everything to do with being me.” I have a project to workshop and finish, and I need to focus my energies on that. My official title is not of consequence in the production of digital scholarship.

 

Emma Lewis

Digital Scholarship and Humanities, although a relatively new field, already has copious amounts of criticism written on the subject. This past week, the DSSF cohort had to look at “Neoliberal Tools (and Archives): A Political History of Digital Humanities” by Daniel Allington, Sarah Brouillette, and David Golumbia. It made a splash, and is an interesting read for anyone trying to understand DH and what it has the potential to do (if not in practice).  The basic argument of this piece is that DH is not really revolutionary, but a prime example of how colleges have essentially “sold out” to technology, using it without purpose. (For more on this look at “The Neoliberal Arts: How College Sold Its Soul to the Market” by William Deresiewicz- these criticisms can be quite scathing).

There are some things in this criticism I agree with. Their critique of empty “Silicon Valley” buzzwords is valid, and only serve to complicate an already ambiguous subject. Analyzing anything down to its true core cannot be done and should not be attempted, especially in a vast subject like DH.

I do take issue with their stance on DH trends as a field.”Digital Humanities,” they argue, “is not about, despite its explicit claims, is the use of digital or quantitative methodologies to answer research questions in the humanities.” Digital Humanities is not exclusively empty projects hosted on digital platforms to justify the existence of the humanities. That is not the DH I have encountered and that is not the DH that people are passionate about. Looking through the past blog posts on this site readers can find examples of other meaningful DH projects and initiatives to transform DH.

The DH I encounter does have a clear purpose and works to answer a humanities research question, because that is the nature of the Digital Scholarship Summer Fellowship. Over the summer, Fellows work to complete a project with a purpose, using the digital format to enhance their work in ways that are not possible with more traditional formats. The projects are born digital, but the tools do not control everything. Tools simply augment what already exists. Digital Humanities is not wholly one thing. While the criticism may hold true for some programs, it cannot hope to define the whole of DH.

That said, no criticism is written to only disparage. Lessons can be taken from criticism to improve on what exists. Digital Humanities, as a field, has plenty of room for growth and improvement. My DH experience is different from what is outlined in the criticism because the field of DH encompasses many different programs, including that which needs improvement. What this criticism hates about DH does not always have to be DH. By writing this criticism, Allington, Brouillette, and Golumbia hold a mirror up to Digital Humanists so the different programs may be examined in a larger context. Criticism should be taken in stride, and used to create better DH.

(There are many more issues raised in the criticism and responses to it that I cannot touch upon in a meaningful way, but can be read for your own enjoyment)

 

Emma Lewis

That’s not true / That’s a rotten thing to say / That’s a damnable lie

This week’s uplifting reading was about the liberal arts college political history of DH and how colleges have sold their soul to the neoliberal devil. As the friendly neighborhood fiery liberal (but not radical… this is best saved for a different blog post), I’m bitter and salty. Neoliberal economics is a dirty term, and I kind of advocate for more of a international relations approach of “Keynes at home, Smith abroad.” It ignores the important role government plays in regulation and making utilities safe and cheap for all to use.

Also, I’ll fight Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher and their stupid political bromance while angrily playing the Sex Pistols.

Okay, back to DH and college.

I’ve had limited exposure to other DH programs and admittedly, I see the author’s point that it’s being much more about teaching people how to use tools and just throwing them out into the world to see what they can do. This probably is a product of a school’s lack of understanding of what DH is, school priorities, and also that undergrad research isn’t taken seriously.

Colleges are a gigantic mess of bureaucracy that is currently at a crossroads. They’re trying to all facilitate the same allegedly desirable qualities of leadership and skills and trying to meet requirements, and not trying to stimulate their desire to learn, and that’s mainly market driven by how people keep saying there’s no money in the humanities and arts. As pointed out by Deresciewicz, most students are now going into vocational majors and not the stuff traditionally appreciated by most students. They’re not arguing and discussing to try and leave a mark on the field of their dreams, and instead just trying to get into something with more money so maybe one day they can get what they were promised, and they’re not being taught to do it either.

DH is a victim of that lack of arguing, shoving it to the bottom of the food chain of priorities. I think colleges are trying to get you a nice LinkedIn page with plenty of skills to endorse, and make students think they’re going to be leaders and top of the food chain so they can get more money. It gives you the tools, shows you what they’re used for, doesn’t give you ideas on how to use them or pique your interest in a way to figure out how to use them best, and then says “have a nice life! Go do something and make money so you can pay us back and also donate to our alumni campaigns!” They don’t care about the impact. They care about the money. Putting money into a niche field to do niche research doesn’t show immediate benefits and they have too many money-making problems to try and make more money to worry about instead of, you know, giving students money. And besides, it’s not like it isn’t taken seriously by the academic world anyway.

Finally, undergrads are only viewed as soulless, potential candidates to give a school hundreds of thousands of dollars that will be shouldered for years to come. They come in exhausted after a 12 year sprint through high school, and come in hopeful to engage their curiosity more until they get smacked with collegiate realities. A student has the right to ask to do research, but then there’s the question of funding for it and also time with the rest of classes. I remember a point being mentioned that no students were biting on helping with a project because they “wanted money or something.” This is a reflection of a societal mentality of millennials are spoiled and like money to you know, live, eat, and maybe enjoy leisure if possible. Oh, and avocado toast.

I don’t even like avocados.

-Britt

The syllabus for this past week focused on data, how it is archived, and how it can be sorted and shown. Visualizations- not necessarily management- can help users understand data better by making it essentially “digestible”. That is important to ensure an interpretation does not go over the heads of those who want to learn from it. Visuals can communicate more effectively than text in some cases.

I, however, am not using text or visuals- I am working with audio almost exclusively.  That does not mean I can’t use any visuals. The interpretation portion will rely on descriptions, but the website itself should utilize all available tools to make user experience easier. Maps, charts, tables, catalogues of sites- all can be used to create a site that is easily understood and still full of information.

At this point, I plan on using a map and charts to organize my information. Going forward, I now have a few more tools to investigate and explore to hopefully improve my user experience.

 

Emma Lewis

I’ve been watching Master of None, and this song is not relevant to anything I’m saying, but it’s a fun song anyway and you should check it out!

Reading the article “Debates in the Digital Humanities: #transformDH, Growing Up” created some thoughts that are still… kind of critical of this field. They will look selfish, and they will look a little negative. I agree with everything this stands for, but there comes a point where you need to start prioritizing where you put your energy.

I admit when I signed up for the fellowship I was merely hoping to do some research and create a digital project. I wasn’t expecting to be part of a bigger community, or bigger movement. Research, to me, has always been relatively isolating work because that’s what professors expect from you- you sign the honor code and remind everyone that this is your work and you did it on your own, right? Or else you get kicked out of school or at least get a bad grade?

DH, since I first defined it, hasn’t changed its definition much besides the possible addition of “interdisciplinary” to the word choice. The idea of politicizing it more kind of adds a bit more pressure to someone getting into the field who wants to do research and learn about how to make a great project, and get recognition for said project in the field the project is in. It’s very easy to get caught up in the politics of DH and act like you know what you’re saying when you barely have anything to show for yourself and credibility. While I do preach you should never disregard an amateur’s fresh eyes and lack of jadedness, there should be some basis to back up their points and minimize their ability to get attacked.

I also think that the DH community is trying to tackle too many things at once- making their own house safe for the queer and feminist community while also trying to get taken seriously by the respective fields digital projects are in while also trying to be politically active. There isn’t enough time to cover all of that, and there isn’t enough people too. We’re all human and have our own issues to focus on too.

The reading mentions utopianism in DH and trying to get more feminist and queer voices in the DH discussion, but I don’t think it will ever be perfect. There will always be a group that isn’t satisfied. I think the politics of it are important and reflect major issues that society is seeing in general, and even I don’t think that we will reach the agenda that radical queer groups and feminists are hoping to get. We keep mentioning castle in the sky, and building a log cabin instead- and no one seems to accept the log cabin.

I’ve accepted the log cabin. I don’t think my project will be that transformative- because I don’t want it to be. I think quality should speak for itself, and that’s what people are looking at my project for at the moment. It’s what I’m looking for. I want my audience to learn about cool art pieces, and literally while I was writing this Julia retweeted this:

The most important academia lesson I've learned: we are all smart, distinguish yourself by being kind and good.

— Emily Farris (@emayfarris) June 28, 2017

I like that. If we all just agree to be good people, and not a jerk, and work on our projects to make things accessible but high quality, that’ll be a good transformation. I think that’s a better pathway than trying to overthrow the system.

-Britt