Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 37, No. 231.
        Department of Digital Humanities, University of Cologne
                      Hosted by DH-Cologne
                       www.dhhumanist.org
                Submit to: humanist@dhhumanist.org




        Date: 2023-09-27 06:30:13+00:00
        From: maurizio lana <maurizio.lana@uniupo.it>
        Subject: Re: [Humanist] 37.226: words and implications

hi Willard,

what you write and the final question "What does all this have to do
with digital humanities, technically, intellectually, socially?" remind us 
that we are here to conceive and pose questions of the kind that ...
disturbs the maneuverer.

this is in principle easier when one is outside and this has to do with
the DH because the DH are yet fundamentally outside.

main problem is that DH - at least from my point of view here in Italy -
are increasingly and superficially becoming mainstream: everyone writing
a project about a humanities subject puts here and there some parsley
and sage of "digital", with no relation with her/his real knowledge of
what it means.

related problem is: do we want to continue to have this outside position
which allows a displaced point of view? and: is this still possible even
if the DH conquer a formal recognition in the academic realm?

Maurizio


Il 26/09/23 09:27, Humanist ha scritto:
>                Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 37, No. 226.
>          Department of Digital Humanities, University of Cologne
>                        Hosted by DH-Cologne
>                         www.dhhumanist.org
>                  Submit to:humanist@dhhumanist.org
>
>
>
>
>          Date: 2023-09-26 07:08:47+00:00
>          From: Willard McCarty<willard.mccarty@mccarty.org.uk>
>          Subject: words and implications
>
> The recent death of Evelyn Fox Keller took from us a mind that cut
> through whatever standard account was in her field of vision, bringing
> up questions which don't go away, which repel jargon. So, as a friend
> recently said, that mind was always worth 100% attention. For decades
> her dominant focus was on biology, but as one look at her Making Sense
> of Life: Explaining Biological Development with Models, Metaphors, and
> Machines (Harvard, 2002) will reveal, this goes very far indeed, even to
> the digital humanities. She, like many of us, I suspect, was an outsider,
> and paid for that, but being on the outside gave her the powerful
> detachment from standard accounts that I celebrate. See her last book,
> Making Sense of My Life in Science: A Memoir (Modern Memoirs, 2023)
> for the story.
>
> Of course standard accounts are useful, but at the same time they narrow
> down the scope of our thinking--and worse than that, they remove
> uncertainties and qualifications.
>
> This morning I came across an example of a word which exemplifies the
> problem, 'global'. Back in 1969 pioneer computer scientist George Forsythe,
> in "Computer Science and Education", wrote that, "the question 'What can
> be automated?' is one of the most inspiring philosophical and practical
> questions of contemporary civilization." (p. 1025) A bit overblown to my
> liking, but he put his finger on an important point, that the digital machine
> was (and is) unlimited in its application. What he omitted was the
qualification,
> 'within the constraints of its design'. What it affords, then, is a 'global'
> perspective--a perspective on everything everywhere but from a singular
> standpoint. It is, then, what I'd call 'panoptic'. Here's the OED to our
> rescue:
>
> panoptic
> 1. All-seeing.
> 2. In which all is seen: cf. PANOPTICON.
>
> panopticon
> 1. a. The name given by [Jeremy] Bentham to a proposed form of prison of
> circular shape having cells built round and fully exposed towards a
> central ‘well’, whence the warders could at all times observe the prisoners.
>
> As some here will know Michel Foucault made much of Bentham's design. I
> don't want to make too much of it here, only to sensitise ourselves to the
> dangers of a singular, 'global' perspective in the absence of genuine dialogue
> with others standing in other places, with other views on the world, “on the
> edge of things in a great ring of viewers”, as Greg Dening once wrote .
> Outsiders all, rather than cheerleaders.
>
> What does all this have to do with digital humanities, technically,
> intellectually, socially?
>
> Comments?
>
> Yours,
> WM
> --
> Willard McCarty,
> Professor emeritus, King's College London;
> Editor, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews;  Humanist
> www.mccarty.org.uk

------------------------------------------------------------------------

if we spent on prosecuting the rich
just one-tenth of the effort we spend prosecuting the poor
it would be a very different world
Bruce Schneier

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maurizio Lana
Università del Piemonte Orientale
Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici
Piazza Roma 36 - 13100 Vercelli


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe at: http://dhhumanist.org/Restricted
List posts to: humanist@dhhumanist.org
List info and archives at at: http://dhhumanist.org
Listmember interface at: http://dhhumanist.org/Restricted/
Subscribe at: http://dhhumanist.org/membership_form.php