In the introduction of Bodies of Information, the author says the significance of field of digital humanities and how this filed can work with politics around the world in nowadays. Some critics say the logic of digital humanities will work for the perspective of neoliberalism and this idea would be served for traditional white male discourse instead of issue of class, gender, and race. What the author wants to say is that this idea would be possible to speak for the feminist perspective. The author explains in the field of digital humanities, the gender fluidity can be found in every aspect. For this reason, the author says that digital humanities would be possible to work with various discourses of political agenda nowadays. The author’s idea on digital humanities is that it has been examined with various disciplines including sociology, anthropology, and other fields. It has allowed expanding the boundaries of the concept of texts and instead of just focusing on an issue of technological sphere, it entails the issues of various political issues. The author discusses various issues on materiality, and values of theory on woman issue. The author also says that this idea of innovation by DH is important, but we also should think about how to maintain this perspective of DH afterwards. This idea reminded me of the article that I read “Using a Feminist Digital Humanities Approach Critical Women’s History through Covers of Black Coffee.’” This article deals with the music record of black woman, and examines the issue of feminism by the aids of digital technology. In this respect, we can find that DH would be able to use for political situations nowadays.
Lauren F. Klein’s article deals with how the examination of textuality can influence the understanding of the meaning of the text. She deals with the letters of Thomas Jefferson which has been sent to William Evans, and from this writings, she explains the relationship between Jefferson and people around him. The method of examining this issue is done by Digital Edition, and instead of focusing on the contents of the texts, it focuses on the extra-textual information to explain the meaning of the text and supports how using technology would be possible to examine the issue of class in that era. What he suggests is that although digital humanities are not yet prepared to answer the humanistic questions, it can actually aids us to decide how to respond to the questions around us. The depiction of arc to represent the frequency of contacts as to Jefferson and his acquaintance seems interesting, as it shows well how the social relationship around him can be examined through the help of technology. She also emphasizes the importance of visual aspect of texts and how this way of looking text can be helpful to understand the issue of race in Jefferson’s writing. Personally, focusing on the materiality of text seems important nowadays. As study on media has been emphasized recently, I want to ask whether this concept would be related to the idea of McLuhan’s study on media. As he also focused on the change of medium and contents of text also can be conveyed through medium, I would like to ask the possible connection between his idea and study on materiality of text.
I too was struck by Klein's article, especially her depiction of silences in the archive, her use of Foucault, and building on last week's discussion of postcolonialism. Her observations on data visulatization, especially her documentation of Jefferson's correspondences with the Hemings, shows the level of relationship that is so often untold and Hemings' work went silent until this rediscovery.
I also can't help but consider the fragments, ciphers, and silences in the archive. This is where I consider DH to have the most important work. As my final project involves correspondences, I can't help but think how I am reshaping the narrative and wonder if I am doing it justice. There are a lot of ways to repeat the sins of imperialism, rewriting the silences narratives again in a voice not their own and I think DH is evolving and trying not to repeat those mistakes, but rewrite fixed silences, show ignored narratives and create the active archive Klein alludes to.
I was particularly struck by how Klein discusses the idea of notable and observable absences in archival materials, such as the voices of slaves in Jefferson's archive. To me, it feels like a more concrete way of discussing and critiquing the selection bias I have been concerned about since the start of the semester and have kept coming back around to. Klein describes theses absences, saying "its shadowy form, the ghost captures a sense of what is palpable, yet cannot be fully grasped. In its lingering presence, the ghost conjures a sense of the haunting of the present by the past" (666). I feel like this is a perfect way to think about certain selection biases. For example, we discussed last week the idea of post-colonial digital humanities and the default archival of canonical writers and voices. In instances such as that, the absence of voices and perspectives from people of color and other minorities is aparent, and we can usually pinpoint that something feels off, even if we aren't consciously sure what that something is. This is also an instance of the past haunting the present, in a way, as decisions made to exclude these perspectives from the archive and the canon have carried forward into the present, consciously or not, and could potentially harm the discourse. I can see how digital humanities and network maps are particularly useful here, as showing the communications networks between Jefferson and his aquantances highlights the gaps and degrees of separation between himself and the enslaved people in his sphere of influence.
In reading Wernimont and Losh, I found myself consistently saying "Where's the info?" They made a lot of claims about stuff like a purposeful white-washing of DH history and ignorance of the feminist and antiracist work that went into building DH, but never actually gave examples of ignored people who should be considered the cornerstones of DH work. I found myself wanting to stop reading their intro and just jump to the pieces in the book, were they offered in the reading, because then I would get some kind of hard information. I would be hypocritical if I were against Moretti and Jocker's broad claims about DH's importance, and I sat back and let Wernimont and Losh say things like "our argument is that feminisms have been and must continue to be central to the indentity and the methodologies of the digital humanities as a field" without at least pointing out the same type of forceful language. Especially someone like myself whose field includes professionals that utilize any number of theoretical lenses, including race/feminist/queer theory, and views the field as all the better for it. To argue for one central theory that all of a particular discipline must center around is...too much.
The Klein was particularly great because it deals with a particular concern of mine in my DH project. I am currently working on making a record of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn's membership rolls and minutes, so that I can easily digitize them from the record provided in Gilbert's book The Golden Dawn Companion. There is enough information there that I can do a few cool things that will illuminate the membership of the Golden Dawn and show the general idea I have for my "Artistic Network of the Golden Dawn." However, as I'm going through the data, I am consistently struck with the fear that there are people on the rolls that I will simply never know anything about. There are people that are simply lost to time, or more simply the very poor record keeping of the Golden Dawn, and my archive will not be able to rectify that. I was sincerely worried about how I could fix these potential problems, but the Klein reading put my mind at ease. Sometimes I will be able to trace the histories of these people. Sometimes I will not. Both of those outcomes are fine. Ghosts don't have to be solved. They can be allowed to exist. Just as you cannot force more information about characters from a novel or drama or poem, you cannot wish up an extensive background on every single person that has ever lived.
While I enjoyed both of the readings for this week, I found myself especially drawn to Klein's archival work. For me, Klein's discussion of the interstices of the archive illuminates the potential of DH not only to combat hegemonic master narratives but also to challenge our conceptions, as Klein writes, "of what it truly means to know" (665) as well as what it means to archive. I think, for me, one of my main difficulties in this course correlates to how entrenched my English-brained conceptions of learning and reading are. Klein's project provides an important reminder that DH is/can be much more than an subfield of English literature. Indeed, the symptomatic reading that I have come to rely on in many of my projects here serves as a form of violence rather than of cultural recovery and sociopolitical praxis.
I'm quite fascinated by the dialogue between this weeks' readings, or, well, to be more precise, between our actual readings and the additional articles by Nan Z. Da and Ted Underwood that Dr. Drouin sent our way. Not that I didn't appreciate Ted Underwood's guiltily satisfying teardown of periodization in the other article of his we read, but I think I'm just at the point in the semester where I'm hoping to start bringing my thoughts together into something resembling coherence, and, although they oppose one another, these two though pieces seem related to our other readings precisely because they are trying to get at the heart of what exactly the "Digital Humanities" are. The interesting thing to me is that both sides seem to be remarkably astute in both their criticism and their defense.
Personally, although it was not one of our key readings this week, I found Nan Z. Da's criticism of the field in "The Digital Humanities Debacle" refreshing, especially because she hits upon something I've felt since the get-go but couldn't put my finger on: the tendancy of DH to redefine terms at will in a way that rather fundamentally changes their meaning. Taking Da's "close" and "distance" reading example, for instance--it sounds quite nice to argue for the necessity of "distance" reading, as Moretti has done extensively in Graphs Maps Trees, and yet this close/distance dichotomy presented is not what the literary act of "close reading" actually means. "Close reading" in literary studies, as Da points out, simply functions "as a description of smart, attentive, original exegesis", in other words, insightful analysis that actually says something about what is being examined. This insight almost always moves from very "close" to somewhat "distanced" as one attempts to show what these findings mean for either the individual work, the author's body of work, or some corpus at large. Although of course I understand the argument of Frank Moretti and other's that looking at something from a great distance can reveal new and interesting things about it, certainly it is a bit, well, tricky, to suggest that "close reading" in its traditionally understood sense requires a viewed-from-way-far-away component in order to be sound. This is rather like manipulating the language to prove a point, although I suppose this is what we are all doing on some level or other, and is DH really to be condemned for playing the same game?
How does Da's scathing criticism (although tempered by some rather sensible recommendations of accountability and so on towards the end) square, though, with the enthusiasm of Ted Underwood and Roopika Risam and many others we've read who truly feel, as argued by Risam in "New Digital Worlds", that "The potential for digital humanities lies in its capacity for world making--for using digital humanities scholarship to create new models for knowledge and the world" (142). These are lofty statements indeed, and yet seem, in some cases as when one is exploring the possibility of "A digital cultural record that puts social justice at its center" (Risam 144), to not be wholly exaggeration. Is the discrepancy perhaps between ideal and real, potential and actual? Da looks closely and finds actual dificiency in DH scholarship as it is currently conducted, and which I am sure this is not a pleasant accusation for anyone, it doesn't necessarily devalue the potentiality of DH to accomplish "world making" asserted by Risam, either. I wonder if, in tempering its eagerness to claim itself the Absolute New Method of Criticism, as Da suggests occurs naturally in any critical movement, DH will not (or has not already?) become a much more useful tool in the process.
If there is one thing this week has taught us, it is that the debate of computational studies in literary analysis continues to rage. Underwood's argument (March 27 2019) argues that "advances in computing" are going to create a new opportunity for the field, an avenue that makes us marketable to undergraduate audiences, rewrites the 20th century model that leaves the fun, new questions to the scientists and creates an arena that is interdisciplinary. His article changes the perspective of the humanities losing ground to the sciences to one where the disciplines can work together to reward curiosity of the past. Underwood's position seems optimistic to me and in reality, I agree with Da a little more than Underwood. I think we can use CLS to enhance learning systems, but I think we need to be careful about how we use CLS, especially big data (everyone recently in the sciences seems to be turning to big data to do more (I'm having doubts, clearly). I'm thinking about how in petroleum engineering, there's a call to use big data to process complex questions that traditional computational analysis lacks for conventional drilling and I think there's danger there because even if it is using a thousand variables, with so many, we lack the ability to suss out the specific complexities that yield to new form and new discoveries; that's my biggest beef).
I also found Underwood and Risam's articles illuminating. In Underwood, he takes up the issue of periodization and the potential of historical continuity. Underwood (164) speculates the reasons for the objections to quantification in literary science, but what I find interesting is that by end of his argument addressing Romanticism (169), I agree with him. Perhaps periodization fails to acknowledge the complexity of certain cultural trends and moments and quantification offers an opportunity to reexamine old questions. Well, I fell in love with Risam's description: "the opportunity to intervene in the digital cultural record--to tell new stories, shed light on counter-histories, and create spaces for communities to produce and share their own knowledge should they wish--is the great promise of digital humanities (5). That is the most optimistic description I've heard, especially since many--as Risam later notes-- compare it to the cultural wars (theory) and have DH killing humanities. Risam also takes up the issue that the issues prominent in post-colonialism--exclusions and biases, a refusal to acknowledge politics and racial privilege--have reproduced in digital knowledge production (139); his work shows how groups are beginning to combat that and I find that uplifting as well as enlightening. I must admit I found the debate more fascinating, but I found these pieces integral to my understanding of how complex the field of DH is becoming and how it has the potential to revolutionize our discipline.