As all four authors have indicated, “digital humanities” is a difficult term to assign an all-encompassing and complete definition to. Kirschenbaum provided the history of the terminology as well as its initial location within academia.
I did not realize that for a while, prior to the now well-recognized term “digital humanities,” that this field was previously referred to as and then synonymous with the term “humanities computing.” Reading on, I was glad to see that I was not alone in thinking that the term “humanities computing” seemed unappealing and distant. Though there may not be a fully tangible reason as to why I dislike the term, only that it sounds less than inviting, especially for those not well-versed in information technology or computer science. The term invokes a feeling of disconnection. It may be superficial, but “digital humanities” has a nice ring to it! Kudos to John Unsworth for (contributing to) revamping the terminology.
I also did not know that many recognize digital humanities as an area born out of English departments. Digital humanities seems to be everything and nothing, an enigma. Common knowledge yet terribly difficult to describe.
Kirschenbaum notes that digital humanities is more of an outlook and social understanding, in other words, it cannot be contained and is all-encompassing. Collaborative, public, and accessible.
Compared to Kirschenbaum, Fitzpatrick expressed more concern with determining what is and what isn’t digital humanities. The author notes that there are tensions within the factions that identify as or with digital humanities. Additionally, once again, the importance of appeal also appears in Fitpatrick’s article (citing Kirschenbaum and Unsworth in their eventual firm declaration of the adopted term “digital humanities).
Fitzpatrick goes into further detail, declaring that the change in terminology from “humanities computing” to “digital humanities” was a good move, with the latter adopted term sounding more relatable to humanists or digital humanities professionals.
I appreciate their attempt to break down and discuss these ideals in layman’s terms, providing reasons as to why the new term fits better as well as its definition. If we can’t talk about it plainly and openly, how are we to move forward and be as inclusive as possible?
Fitzpatrick ends by declaring the usefulness of these debates, how it promotes productiveness and interdisciplinary collaboration amongst fellow digital humanities practitioners. That finding a balance is key to moving forward, and completely agree.
Spiro discusses the misfits vs. the “in crowd” issue within the digital humanities. They focused on wanting to stop the fighting and cliques, noting that digital humanists should feel like they are in an open and welcoming environment longing for a sense of community, cohesion, and collective support. Digital humanists should discover and cherish the commonalities amongst themselves.
Of note, both Sprio and Fitzpatrick bring up Kirschenbaum in their discussions on how to define “digital humanities.”
Due to the variety of ways digital humanities can take form, Sprio believes that there will never be one true sole definition of “digital humanities.” Instead, they can focus on, “a community that comes together around values such as openness and collaboration” in the form of a core values statement. By creating this core values statements, digital humanists are better prepared to craft “a more coherent identity.”
Svensson defines the issue at hand in the following way: “there is a basic tension between a tradition invested in technology as a tool and methodology and a range of “newcomers” starting out from other modes of engagement between the humanities and the digital.”
They question what should be included under the “big tent,” and what can be left outside; in other words what aspects of digital humanities should be solidified or dismissed. Like Spiro, Svensson is also concerned with the digital humanities community, asking whether or not the inclusivity movement within the digital humanities is problematic.
Svensson ends their piece suggesting that the community may benefit from a “no tent” approach to the digital humanities and that “trading zone” (Galison) or “meeting place” may be useful, alternative structuring devices and ideational notions.
Kirschenbaum and Fitzpatrick seem to be more concerned with a specific and/or technical definition while Spiro and Svensson are more occupied with inner-fighting, spatial, and community aspects of the digital humanities. All of their discussions have a place in the greater goal of determining what is and what isn’t digital humanities. I believe being open, honest, and inquisitive will help the field come closer to what they’re looking for, though too, I also believe that it might be less tangible than they are expecting it to be.
Amber Sophia 