Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 13, No. 358.
Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
<http://www.princeton.edu/~mccarty/humanist/>
<http://www.kcl.ac.uk/humanities/cch/humanist/>
[1] From: cbf@socrates.berkeley.edu (10)
Subject: Re: 13.0354 research in the humanities
[2] From: "Fotis Jannidis" <Fotis.Jannidis@lrz.uni- (16)
muenchen.de>
Subject: Re: 13.0354 research in the humanities
[3] From: Wendell Piez <wapiez@mulberrytech.com> (60)
Subject: Re: 13.0354 research in the humanities
--[1]------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 22:50:41 +0000
From: cbf@socrates.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: 13.0354 research in the humanities
Willard's reference to straw men jogged my memory, of an argument that I
used to have with one of my colleagues in graduate school in illo
tempore. He was a strong proponent that graduate students needed a better
knowledge of litrary theory, while I would argue that you had tohave
something to theorize _about_.
He used one argument that I found very powerful: If you're going to study
architecture, you don't really have to know very much about the
combination of clay and straw that's used to make bricks.
Charles Faulhaber Department of Spanish UC Berkeley, CA 94720-2590
(510) 642-3782 FAX (510) 642-7589 cbf@socrates.berkeley.edu
--[2]------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 22:51:11 +0000
From: "Fotis Jannidis" <Fotis.Jannidis@lrz.uni-muenchen.de>
Subject: Re: 13.0354 research in the humanities
> From: "Norman D. Hinton" <hinton@springnet1.com>
> Now I 've been in "humanities computing" since the early 1970's, and
> have been using stat and suchlike tools in my research in historical
> linguistics for about the same length of time, and Willard knows I've
been an
> enthusiastic member of Humanist off and on for a long time--but much of
what I
> read here these days just seems irrelevant to anything I do or care about
> doing.
>
> I regard that as a shortcoming of many of the writers to the List, not
mine (so
> there).
Interesting point, maybe you could describe in little more detail what
shortcomings you
are talking about?
Fotis Jannidis
--[3]------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 22:51:36 +0000
From: Wendell Piez <wapiez@mulberrytech.com>
Subject: Re: 13.0354 research in the humanities
Willard and HUMANISTS:
> Why is it, do you suppose, that research methods are often given
> such a short shrift?
Because they are the elephant in the living room. I think a strong history
of Humanities disciplines (in particular, English and Literature programs)
would have to focus on the evolution of methodologies as a core aspect of
the generational churn between different schools of theory ever since the
New Criticism slew the Titans.
> What is the argument, if any, against a strong methodological
> component to the postgraduate curriculum?
Probably not much. In my experience, however, when the argument in favor of
the methodological component has been made, it has failed in the face of
the considerable political problem of what that methodology should be, and
by what rhetoric it should be formalized and prosecuted. Since (to extend
the well-worn analogy) we are all wearing blindfolds and can't agree on
what the elephant really is, it is easiest to agree simply to let the
students figure it out for themselves.
In the best case, the students may be provided with a survey of
currently-fashionable approaches (each of which does entail a methodology),
buffet-style, and then left to gravitate, by personal and political
affinity, to those faculty who practice something they might learn by a
kind of *Imitatio* (which is not a bad way to learn, either).
> What do we gain, if anything, from ignoring the technological
> vehicle, be it codex or hypertext, as if the artefact were simply
> words without specific material embodiment?
One less thing to worry about. (Willard, as you know, to my mind the
"specific material embodiment of the artefact" is a crucial aspect, though
not the entirety, of the text as a subject of study -- which is one reason
I do the work I do, having sought refuge from my own confusions about these
things, unwilling to take sides.)
Interestingly, the growing importance of technological literacy in the
curriculum may, in some places, make room again for this concern.
Especially since the material embodiment plays such an important role in
our arguments about media.
A: "I find a bound volume comforting, stable, intimate."
B: "Hypertext is so exciting, fluid, responsive."
A: "But it's so loud, so hurried. A book is much more interactive, so much
better for listening."
B: "Dead trees."
> Subtracting the straw men and women, what sort of a battle do we
> have here?
The Cynic would say: Go ye to your Dunciad (Book IV), and ye shall know.
(That's Alexander Pope's allegory on the Court of Dulness--admittedly not
something everyone has read.)
The Romantic would say: the only battle that really matters. How is the
past, such as we know it (its material and its mentality), an objective
legacy, a cause-and-effect whose necessities we ignore to our peril? How is
it a mere projection of our personal and collective psyches, our
resentments, aspirations, anxieties and hopes? Can it be both? In its
glass, what do we learn about ourselves, and how?
Respectfully,
Wendell Piez
======================================================================
Wendell Piez mailto:wapiez@mulberrytech.com
Mulberry Technologies, Inc. http://www.mulberrytech.com
17 West Jefferson Street Direct Phone: 301/315-9635
Suite 207 Phone: 301/315-9631
Rockville, MD 20850 Fax: 301/315-8285
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mulberry Technologies: A Consultancy Specializing in SGML and XML
======================================================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 18 2000 - 23:02:41 CUT