Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 37, No. 258.
Department of Digital Humanities, University of Cologne
Hosted by DH-Cologne
www.dhhumanist.org
Submit to: humanist@dhhumanist.org
Date: 2023-10-15 11:11:30+00:00
From: Mcgann, Jerome (jjm2f) <jjm2f@virginia.edu>
Subject: Re: [Humanist] 37.257: an interdisciplinary common ground
Picking up on Willard’s lament about the absence of “old fashioned
. . .debates”, I suggest that digital humanists explain why we continue to use
IT tools to deliver/transmediate traditional “aesthetic” works as if they were
information delivery devices. TEI/inline markup cum relational databasing has
long been, as Willard long ago pointed out, a “dead end” for such work (Isn’t
it?). Yet our factories keep pouring them out and, worse, sustaining them as
such.
Is that provocative enough?
Of course such works ARE also information records. But primarily they are what
Do McKenzie (also long ago) pointed out: that they are “records of their own
making”. A very different animal.
X
Jerry
From: Humanist <humanist@dhhumanist.org>
Date: Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 1:54 AM
To: Mcgann, Jerome (jjm2f) <jjm2f@virginia.edu>
Subject: [Humanist] 37.257: an interdisciplinary common ground
Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 37, No. 257.
Department of Digital Humanities, University of Cologne
Hosted by DH-Cologne
www.dhhumanist.org<http://www.dhhumanist.org>
Submit to: humanist@dhhumanist.org
Date: 2023-10-12 08:25:14+00:00
From: Willard McCarty <willard.mccarty@mccarty.org.uk>
Subject: maintaining an interdisciplinary ground
David Graeber, in "Radical alterity is just another way of saying
'reality'"*, begins with the following lament:
> Old fashioned anthropological debates, of the sort made famous by,
> say, Edmund Leach or David Schneider, were once one of the most
> dramatic—and entertaining signs of the vitality of the discipline.
> They don’t seem to happen much any more. Perhaps this is the
> inevitable result of fragmentation: we no longer share enough of a
> common ground even to agree on what there is to argue about.
> Certainly, when anthropologists do engage in polemics nowadays, they
> more often than not seem to be talking past each other. If not
> shouting.
In our case, I would translate Graeber's "fragmentation" as the tendency
of digital humanities to be absorbed by the disciplines of those who
take it up, hence to lose its interdisciplinary standing point. For a
field that is intrinsically interdisciplinary (as I argue), this results
in a great loss for everyone--a loss of the conversation across
disciplines of which there is already too little.
As an economic necessity for the individual, yes, the dive into whatever
department has its doors open is simply what one may have to do. But it
is also an imaginative failure not to use a digital/computational
perspective to expand one's discipline of origin into as many others as
possible. (I paraphrase Northrop Frye, from On Education.)
One would think that the creation of academic departments in the field
would guarantee that other disciplines did not swallow digital
humanities whole. There are examples that suggest the contrary. Where,
then, is the best place--the best institutional form--for digital
humanities? Should we not be asking what's unique as a starting point?
Is the lab the (or an) answer?
Comments?
Yours,
WM
-----
*(HAU, Journal of Anthropological Theory 5.2 (2015): 1-41
--
Willard McCarty,
Professor emeritus, King's College London;
Editor, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews; Humanist
www.mccarty.org.uk<http://www.mccarty.org.uk>
_______________________________________________
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
