After having read several articles providing an overview of the Digital Humanities and their histories, philosophical values, and motivations, I have come to at least a preliminary understanding of what they are and how they interact with my traditional notions of the Humanities. Many texts have emphasized the importance of using digital programs as a means of bridging social gaps, allowing individuals to share their work with a wider variety of readers and making diverse perspectives accessible. Most would contend that this is a valiant effort, and I would agree wholeheartedly, but I also believe that more can be said about how such communication can be effectuated.
For example, Lisa Spiro, in the article “‘This is Why We Fight’: Defining the Values of the Digital Humanities,” puts forth a set of guidelines, or values, that she believes should provide a basis for all DH work. The fact that four of these values (Openness, Collaboration, Collegiality/Connectedness, and Diversity) directly relate to building a community, while the fifth (Experimentation) also contributes, indicates Spiro strongly considers the importance of communication between people within DH. She argues that “[h]ow the digital humanities community operates – transparently, collaboratively, through online networks – distinguishes it” (Spiro), implying that this type of community-building is particular to DH, which provides an incentive for the particular values she chooses. Moreover, she claims that “articulating a set of values for a community should be done by the community” (Sprio), which seems like an excellent method of incorporating communal discussion into the foundations of the academic field, and preventing DH from becoming limited by institutional bureaucracy, like much of traditional academic work. While such a system risks endless argument, resulting in many headaches and countless hours wasted to minute details, Spiro (optimistically) argues that “if the process of developing values is handled fairly and openly, conflicts can be defused and healthy discussion can move the community forward” (Spiro). How to ensure fairness and openness remains an open question, however.
When it comes to the actual values Spiro chooses to discuss, they all appear as worthwhile to develop and integral to forming a strong DH community, even if I have some small disagreements with her explanations. For example, regarding Openness, Spiro suggests that “[r]ather than cheapening knowledge by making it free, embracing openness recognizes the importance of the humanities to society” (Spiro), and I agree with this notion as an ideal. However, given the infamous potential for the internet to quickly spread misinformation, it is apparent that some level of moderation is required, which would, unfortunately, limit one’s ability to openly access and produce academic content.
Regarding Collegiality/Connectedness and Collaboration (which all seem quite similar), Spiro mentions the existence of “the need for people with a range of skills to contribute to digital scholarship” (Spiro), because the interdisciplinary nature of DH requires people with humanities backgrounds working with people from the computer sciences. One element left out of Spiro’s discussion, however, is that the level of cooperation involved does require collaborators to have a decent understanding of how the work of others operates (humanists should understand the foundations of programming and computer systems, while computer scientists should be familiar with some history and literary theory). Two academic groups not only working together but generally understanding the other’s work, helps facilitate discussion and progresses research. In effect, interdisciplinarity should not just exist within the academic field as a whole, but within each person.
Finally, Spiro’s discussion of Diversity seems brief, and rather ambiguous, as it does not incorporate any concrete plans for incorporating genuine diversity into the program. Specifically, Spiro discusses how several DH organizations, such as THATCamp SoCal and the Alliance of Digital Humanities Organizations, include diversity statements in their organizational materials, showing that “the community works toward diversity as a goal” (Spiro). However, the article makes no mention of how such practices are more than mere statements, which just enforces the notion that “the digital humanities community pays lip service to diversity but has not engaged with it on a deeper level” (Spiro), rather than contradicts it. As a mathematics major, I am intimately familiar with an academic discipline which sorely lacks diversity (even now, most of my math classes are at least seventy-five percent male), but as a consequence, there exist organizations which strive for improving diversity within the field, such as the Association for Women in Mathematics (AWM), as well as several research programs. While some of these efforts have drawn controversy (look here for an article and discussion), there are at least practices being put in place, which people from DH could look toward for inspiration.
Ultimately, I think Rafael Alvarado sums up this discussion best when he says that the Digital Humanities are a “social category, not an ontological one” (Alvarado), meaning they are defined by the community itself. Attempting to develop a singular definition for the DH would only prove exclusionary, and would counteract the field’s devotion to experimentation and novel perspectives, so it requires a multiplicity of definitions that allow for these diverse perspectives. In other words, as Amanda French says, “Digital Humanities is the thing practiced by people who self-identify as Digital Humanists” (“Day of DH”), and it is a field which functions best when it allows for as many forms of research and development as its digital tools can provide.
Works Cited:
Alvarado, Rafael C. “The Digital Humanities Situation.” Debates in the Digital
Humanities, Manifold Scholarship, dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu/read/untitled-
88c11800-9446-469b-a3be-3fdb36bfbd1e/section/c513af64-8f99-4e02-9869-
babc1cecc451.
“Day of DH: Defining the Digital Humanities.” Debates in the Digital Humanities,
Manifold Scholarship, dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu/read/untitled-88c11800-9446-
469b-a3be-3fdb36bfbd1e/section/550ab4e6-ca58-4840-acba-
ea555be32601#p1b5.
Spiro, Lisa. “‘This Is Why We Fight’: Defining the Values of the Digital Humanities.”
Debates in the Digital Humanities, Manifold Scholarship, dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu/
read/untitled-88c11800-9446-469b-a3be-3fdb36bfbd1e/section/9e014167-
c688-43ab-8b12-0f6746095335.
Another Digital Humanities Blog 