On Sunday, I had an interesting exchange on Twitter with none other than Duke professor and HASTAC founder Cathy Davidson. At issue was the tone of her recent blog post, “How Digital Humanists Can Lead Us to National Digital Literacy.” I wasn’t going to write anything about it, but you know, it’s been bugging me a little bit. Allow me to quote her introduction to the post…
“Here’s the entrance exam question for 21st century literacy:
QUESTION: If SOPA/PIPA had been passed into U.S. law in 2002, would Wikipedia exist today? If either law had passed in 2012, would Wikipedia exist in 2022? Why or why not? Discuss.
If you cannot answer that question, you are not literate nor are you in control of your life—even if you think you are.” [my emphasis]
Now, I don’t know about you, but when a leading scholar (the leading scholar?) in the digital humanities argues that a nuanced understanding of SOPA and PIPA are necessary conditions for both literacy and personal autonomy, it strikes me as hyperbolic at best, and elitist and condescending at worst. I, for one, have no idea what Wikipedia would be like in 2022 if SOPA had passed. Apparently, I’m an illiterate slave to the system. Surely, Davidson doesn’t really think that personal autonomy is a function of how Web-savvy we are. Well, I posed the question and she responded: ”If we live our lives on the Web and don’t understand its positives AND negatives, we do not control our lives. All of us.” This is equivalent to saying that if we do control our lives, then either we don’t live on the Web or we do understand the positives and negatives of the Web…or both (which is weird).
Logic aside, I have trouble getting behind the belief that the personal autonomy (i.e., the ability to make informed, rational decisions free from coercion) of Web users is predicated on their ability to understand specific, Internet-related legislation. Now, maybe I could see it if Chris Dodd succeeded in becoming a Sith Lord and really could control our minds, but that seems unlikely. Tying autonomy to specific domain knowledge is just patently absurd. Can you imagine someone arguing that if you vote and you don’t understand Citizens United, or if you’re gay and don’t understand the implications of the Defense of Marriage Act, then you’re illiterate and have no control over your life? It’s not just absurd; it’s bordering on offensive.
"Can someone please tell me what this fortune cookie says?"
Hyperbole aside, Davidson goes on to explain that most of us can’t answer the question posed, because most of us are “inheritors and perpetrators” of an educational system rooted in misguided Industrial Age theories about labor, consumption, and social progress (here’s Ken Robinson on the issue). As it turns out, if you’re an educator, you are actively participating in an antiquated educational system that favors the elite and is designed solely to prepare the rest of us for the workforce. Oh yeah, and don’t forget, you have no control over your life…that is, “unless you happen to be a Digital Humanist” [original emphasis]. That’s right. According to Davidson, you are “inheritors and perpetrators” of a corrupt system “unless you happen to be a Digital Humanist.” Suck it, physicists, philosophers, engineers, art historians, and the rest of you: your only option is to join the Digital Humanities.
Now, I’ve got no problem with the Digital Humanities. As defined by Kathleen Fitzpatrick, ‘Digital Humanities’ refers to:
“a nexus of fields within which scholars use computing technologies to investigate the kinds of questions that are traditional to the humanities, or…ask traditional kinds of humanities-oriented questions about computing technologies.”
This is a great field of study. An important field of study. In fact, I admit that a lot of my work falls under this definition. Sure, I’m baffled by the silliness of some of the Postmodernism 2.0 stuff like “Critical Code Studies”, “The Ethno-Hermeneutics of jQuery” or “Postcolonial Client-Server Architecture”. But, that’s just me objecting to a certain methodology, not to the importance of studying the digital as a part of the humanities. Like I said, I’ve got no problem with the Digital Humanities.
However, when a leading scholar like Davidson makes patronizing and divisive comments to the effect that if you don’t get SOPA, then you “do not control your life”, and that you’re perpetrating a broken system “unless you are a Digital Humanist”, well, something is amiss. Yes, as Web users, we should learn more about SOPA and its effects. Yes, as educators, we should think carefully about educational reform for the 21st Century. But one thing we should not do is hold SOPA and education reform up as litmus tests for literacy, autonomy, and effectiveness as teachers.
So, what do you think? Should familiarity with SOPA be used to measure literacy and autonomy? Are educators outside of the digital humanities perpetrators of a corrupted system? Am I just being overly sensitive?
I think digital humanists, like most folks obsessed w/ the digital lifestyle, forget that there’s more to life than this.
Yeah, passion often breeds narrow-mindedness. I guess I’d just expect more from our most well-known and respected digital humanists.
Hi Lane,
I posted your article on our Welch Medical Library library FB page.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/William-H-Welch-Medical-Library/88530767144
I liked your perspective.
Alonzo
Thanks Alonzo.
Should I be freaking out over the extremely narrow definition of “life” that Davidson is using? “If we live our lives on the Web…” Who defines their entire life as being lived on the Web? OK, that dissonance aside, you’re absolutely right that we all need to learn more about SOPA and any other legislation that gets rolled out that affects the transfer of information. Government always needs to be watched. However, I can’t help but think that someone who defines what happens to be their own area of interest and expertise as the One True Way has, at the least, lost all sense of perspective. You aren’t being overly sensitive; you’re suspicious of the Kool-Aid.
I thought about raising the very same issue: the vast majority of people don’t live their lives on the web. Honestly, if a person’s sense of self or autonomy comes from the Web, then SOPA is the least of their problems. And thanks for the reassurance: Kool-Aid is nasty.
I just went to read her blog post after reading yours…There is a lot that she writes that sounds really good, even a great deal that I agree with. However, some of the language comes off sounding exclusive and elitist, even though she’s defining it as broadly inclusive. If we take some of her ideas and apply them to the larger world of higher education, I think there is evidence of many places moving to a more holistic approach to education – people are making attempts to move away from the idea of industrial education.
I recently picked up her book, Now You See It. It will be interesting to see how her ideas come across after reading her blog and this blog post.
I absolutely agree. Some of what she writes seems pretty good, but then she undercuts her credibility with her tone. As to the applicability of her ideas, I think that the digital humanities have something valuable to offer, though the field is too ill-defined to be a major game changer…yet. I also think that we need to reconsider our educational paradigm, though it remains to be seen whether the current system is failing due to its theoretical design or due its shoddy implementation. So, I guess I’m not ready to throw out a system if it isn’t clear how, exactly, its broken.
I think the current climate surrounding education allows for a pretty big “tent”. However, you wouldn’t expect someone who proposes such creative ideas regarding the humanities to sound like such a classist. I hardly think she can pull-off “If you don’t know you’re stupid,’ with an audience that was practically in her corner to begin with.
I’m sure, like most things, that the failure of the current system is due in part to both its design not being adapted fast enough to changing realities and factors such as lack of funding for wages, training, infrastructure to support optimum implementation and change. Sometimes these real-world issues are not given enough weight when considering and discussing theory at the upper echelons of research and study. Davidson’s views have their place but they can’t define the conversation. As you say, the digital humanities have a valuable part to play but they don’t rank divahood yet.
[...] background-position: 50% 0px; background-color:#4f429e; background-repeat : no-repeat; } senseandreference.wordpress.com – Today, 6:13 [...]
[...] Join the digital humanities…or else [...]
[...] On Sunday, I had an interesting exchange on Twitter with none other than Duke professor and HASTAC founder Cathy Davidson. At issue was the tone of her recent blog post, "How Digital Humanists Can… [...]
[...] See on senseandreference.wordpress.com [...]