William Cronon, the Frederick Jackson Turner and Vilas Research Professor of History, Geography, and Environmental Studies at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, spoke to the British Academy on the future of the disciplines of history and geography, and the “hybrid discipline” of historical geography, with an emphasis on the political-economy of scholarly publication. Full audio of the lecture is provided on the British Acadamy site.
William Cronon’s personal website is http://www.williamcronon.net, and he can be found on Twitter with the username @wcronon.
(This entry was created from a poster I presented at this year’s DHSI. Unless you are interested in the digital concordance, go ahead and jump down to the note on tools and skills.)
My dissertation is a study of early Chinese historiography, focusing on the Shiji 史記 [Historian’s Records] by Sima Qian 司馬遷 (c. 145—c. 86 BCE) et al. and the Han shu 漢書 [History of the (Western) Han Dynasty] by Ban Gu 班固 (32—92 CE) et al. Together, these two massive historical texts have more than a million words in 230 ‘chapters’ [juan 卷] (in Classical Chinese, a very terse language). Thus these great histories would be the ancient equivalent of ‘big data’ if anything were, and they are fine candidates for DH methods.
While there are pre-packaged tools available for text analysis, they do not always play nicely with Classical Chinese. The Chinese script demands that tools comply with the Unicode standard, but not all do. At the same time, the digital versions of my sources that are available online seem simply to have been machine-read (OCR) and pasted into a website, without any attention proper structural markup (e.g. as described in the standards of the Text Encoding Initiative). There is a standardization shortfall on both ends, and useful, pre-packaged tools for Chinese texts are as rare as a unicorn’s horn, to borrow from a Chinese proverb.
But why choose XSLT? … These problems were on my mind when I attended the XSLT workshop at the Digital Humanities Summer Institute (DHSI) last June, but my motivations for enrolling in that course were different. Having some experience with XML and some of its applications (TEI, HTML, and KML), and having already begun to offer XML workshops for historians, I thought I should develop my skills in that same area: to level-up in the same skill tree, so to speak. XSLT, a particularly powerful XML application well-suited for working with encoded literature, seemed a good choice. So I went to DHSI last year without a specific project, just the goal of expanding my knowledge of XML. One week later, I had a prototype of a keyword in context (KWIC) visualization tool for early Chinese texts. Over the past year, I was able to work out the bugs, and now I have a working version.
Overall, the process is fairly simple. It takes a lightly marked-up base text and produces a report that shows the concordance list.
The XML Input (A)
Assuming an electronic version of the text exists, the input file requires very little preparation. At a minimum, it should be well-formed XML, and the text should be divided into chapters, each with attributes to label the chapter’s number and title, both of which will be included in the output file. That’s it. Because the input is very simple, it is a trivial matter to run the transformation on any early Chinese text.
The XSLT Transformation (B)
The XSLT file transforms the input text into the output concordance. The transformation can be run from Oxygen XML Editor or the command line (with Saxon); currently, I’m using Oxygen. It is here that the keywords are entered (two at a time).
The Output (C)
Once the transformation is run, Oxygen produces an html file that can be opened for perusal in a web browser. With some adjusting of settings in the browser, useful add-ons such as Chinese pop-up dictionaries (e.g. the Zhongwen Chinese Pop-up Dictionary for Chrome and Perapera Chinese for Firefox) can be used to aid the reader.
My ultimate goal is to combine this project with a mapping tool and a word-frequency tool, the prototypes of which I created two summers ago, into a multifaceted research tool for early Chinese historical texts. The combination of these tools will mean I have to step beyond the capabilities of XSLT alone, and so I’ve been learning the query language xQuery (designed to work with XML) and the eXist-db open source XML-based database platform. XML, XSLT, and xQuery together will give me everything I need to make a research tool that suits my purposes. Eventually, I hope to make something that is useful to others as well, and to put in up on the web for free use under a CC license.
A Note on Tools and Skills
Now, I must admit that this digital concordance is not particularly innovative or ground-breaking as a tool. It won’t usher in a new age of scholarship, it won’t revolutionize research, and it won’t make any money. But none of this matters, because it does what I need it to do.
This year we saw the publication of a special issue of the journal differences discussing the meaning and value of the digital humanities, including essays by DH scholars and critics alike. Responses, many and various, quickly proliferated. Among these, Matthew Lincoln, a PhD student in art history at the University of Maryland, penned an insightful blog post, “Tool Trouble,” which noted that an overemphasis on ‘tools’ tends to obstruct any discussion of methodology and theory. This is something that I have been pondering as well, both in the context of this project and more broadly, and I think there is something to be gleaned from my own experience as a workshop leader and event organizer, as an attendee of workshops and unconference sessions, and as a researcher using digital methods, on the topic of tools and skills.
My point is less a theoretical one than a pedagogical one—for those academics who wish to use DH in their own idiosyncratic research, it is better to learn skills than tools. In other words, teaching pre-packaged tools, no matter how good they might be, is less helpful than teaching skills, literacies, or competencies, such as languages (from XML to Python) and programming concepts (e.g. data structures). Why? Because these are extensible. That’s the X in XML, and it makes all the difference. This is not to say that there aren’t reasons to learn specific applications. When a researcher is brought into a project that uses a certain tool extensively, then of course it makes sense to learn it. Pre-fabricated tools can be extremely powerful for certain projects, but they are rarely extensible. Speaking purely from my own experience, for idiosyncratic research of the type that PhD students conduct for their dissertations, I think extensible skills are the better investment of time and effort, and these should be emphasized in DH pedagogy.
* Trout fly image adapted from one found on the website of Grays of Kilsyth.
With “The Differences between Digital History and Digital Humanities,” historian Stephen Robertson, who became the director of the Center for History and New Media last year, added to the slew of responses to the recent differences special issue “In the Shadows of the Digital Humanities,” which included deep criticisms as well as staunch defenses of the digital humanities, and Adam Kirsch’s troll-piece, “Technology is Taking Over English Departments: The False Promise of the Digital Humanities.” In similar terms to suggestions by Ryan Cordell (“On Ignoring Encoding“) and others that Kirsch (and Fish and Marche before him) unduly conflates digital humanities with digital applications in literary studies, especially those in English literature, Robertson suggests that we separate out what makes digital history distinct from digital literature, further suggesting that “DH” is (and ought to be) digital literature, and digital history is something separate from DH altogether. Should we have two different DH-es? One for history, and one for a humanities that is defined as primarily literature?
n.b. I intend this post to be a broad response to the recent controversies, and not just a critique of Robertson’s piece. I wholeheartedly endorse his basic goal of enhancing our understanding of what is digital history. That said, I think it is a bad idea to isolate digital history from the rest of DH. Here’s why…
1. DH vs. DH, or Why History should not be an Isolationist Discipline
My first reaction was a desire to highlight how the absence of digital history produces an impoverished vision of what digital humanities is. On reflection, in the US at this particular moment, fighting to get inside the big tent of digital humanities does not seem the most productive response. Instead, more can be gained from taking the debate as an opportunity to emphasize what makes digital history different from digital literary studies and ‘dh.’
Personally, I wish he had followed his instinct on this one, but instead we have the hint of a controversy: digital history is not digital humanities. My reactions to the main objective of the piece, and of the conference it advertises, are as follows.
Historians don’t have to fight to get into anything; Robertson’s predecessors at the RRCHNM, Roy Rosenzweig and Dan Cohen, along with other historians such as Peter Bol and Timothy Hitchcock, have ensured that DH includes history. They have not been shunned by the humanities–far from it. In Spring of 2013, Cohen held an Avenali Departmental Residency Fellowship at the University of California, Berkeley, a prestigious award granted by that school’s Townsend Center for the Humanities. That fall, Hitchcock was invited as the Lansdowne Lecturer in Digital Humanities at the University of Victoria. These are not isolated examples. Historians are in the DH tent already. If there is any dissonance between DH and history, the problem is instead that the digital has taken longer to get into the tent of history. But that’s an issue for another time.
If the recent media controversies about the meaning and value of DH have excluded history from anywhere, it is the battlefield over distant reading. Interestingly, distant reading easily appeals to historians, so why have digital historians not come under fire? The answer is that the fight is a turf war over methods in the study of literature. That historians should want no part in this is true. However, this is no reason to cordon ourselves off from DH at large. For my explanation of this, see part two, below. But first, let’s take a look at Robertson’s argument. Why does he think we should separate history from the rest?
Robertson quotes Tom Scheinfeldt:
Calling our work “digital humanities” has made it more difficult for us to make it understandable and creditable in disciplinary context: the unified interdisciplinary message may be useful with funding agencies or the Dean of Arts and Sciences, but it may be less so with one’s departmental colleagues.
Be that as it may, we all know that we should describe our projects to different audiences in different terms. Moreover, if historians are less interested in hearing about digital humanities, perhaps it is the ‘digital’ that has turned them away. When you are explaining your GIS query to a historian who doesn’t understand or appreciate digital methods, it really isn’t going to matter what H you put in DH. The “D” is the disconnect.
In any case, the disconnect between historians and DH is given as a reason to explore the differences between digital history and “‘dh’/digital literary studies” (as Robertson divides things). Two main differences are suggested.
The collection, presentation, and dissemination of material online is a more central part of digital history.
A quick look at the list of projects which encoding standards maintained by the Text Encoding Initiative (TEI) shows that the collection, preservation, and dissemination of material is not endemic to digital history alone. The Perseus Digital Library and the Women Writers Project are typical examples, and in terms of the digital skills and tools that such projects require — XML, SQL, Saxon, html, css, etc. — they are no different from the Old Bailey Online, directed by a group of historians.
In regards to digital analysis, digital history has seen more work in the area of digital mapping than has digital literary studies, where text mining and topic modeling are the predominant practices.
To me, this seems like splitting hairs. Different disciplines in history could be divided up by those who have more work in digital mapping and those who don’t. More importantly, this supposed difference obscures the fact that beneath the surface of the technologies, under the hood of digital mapping, text mining, and topic modeling, are a collection of computing languages and competencies shared by all: XML can be used for for mapping (KML) and text mining (TEI); understanding databases will help you on all counts; query languages such as SQL are used in all cases. Beneath superficial differences, a big set of underlying technologies are shared by all.
Robertson explains why historians haven’t been using text mining and topic modeling as much as their counterparts in other fields:
Part of the explanation for why more historians have not undertaken text mining and topic modeling projects lies in the limited availability of machine readable texts: historians more often rely on unpublished sources than literary scholars, and on handwritten records that it is not yet possible to effectively use OCR to transform into machine readable text.
Some historians spend their lives rooting around in the archives for handwritten notes. Others, especially those whose periods are further removed from our own, rely heavily on published sources, many of which are available online. The Perseus Digital Library is helpful to ancient historians as well as to classicists of a more literary persuasion; the same is true in my own field, early Chinese history, where we rely heavily on electronic sources such as the CHinese ANcient Texts CHANT database (paywall).
If fields like nineteenth-century English literature enjoy the lion’s share of digital editions, this is not an accident or a gift of the gods. It is because, at least in part, scholars saw the value in building these resources, and proceeded to do so, creating institutions like NINES. In the process, they developed technologies and standards that are useful in all disciplines.
Moreover, and in any case, few DH projects like the ones I’ve cited here would present themselves as belonging to any single discipline. Linguists and legal theorists might find use in the Old Bailey Archives; Sinologists of all kinds use CHANT; cultural historians and anthropologists can benefit from the Women Writers Project; these are just a few examples.
I’ve gone to great lengths to respond to Robertson’s piece because I think it would be a mistake to try to divide up the digital humanities or for historians to withdraw from the DH accord. At best, the whole exercise misses the point that the digital technologies being used are often the same, whether one is making maps or mining texts. At worst, it threatens to evoke the animosity of scholars in other humanities fields, especially in languages and literatures, who already feel that they are being attacked by a host of disciplinary, political, and economic forces. The last thing we should to do as historians would be to toss our colleagues from literary studies to the sharks.
That said, Robertson makes some good points too, and I hope these will be the springboard for the conference this November.
As Tom Scheinfeldt has pointed out, these practices do not originate in humanities computing, the dominant origin story for digital humanities, but in oral history, folklore studies, radical history and public history. I’m not saying that the presentation of material online is not part of digital literary studies: electronic scholarly editions and manuscript collections such as The Shelley-Godwin Archive are longstanding parts of that field, but, as the current debate indicates, at present they are not its predominant focus.
This is an excellent point, and historians would be right to remember that DH tools and techniques don’t spring uni-lineally from humanities computing. But why should this necessitate drawing a firm line between history and DH? In another context, I was once told by a historian skeptical of DH that “historians are not librarians.” Dan Cohen notwithstanding, this is basically true. But for us who use digital resources, tools, and skills, we should remember that many are developed in libraries and maintained by librarians. It is through interdisciplinary engagement that they come to us. Putting up disciplinary walls would stymie potentially fruitful interactions.
To return to the issue of sources:
Historians more often rely on unpublished sources than literary scholars, and on handwritten records that it is not yet possible to effectively use OCR to transform into machine readable text. And a wealth of printed, published texts have been digitized, only to be gated, available only to the small number of institutions that can afford the subscriptions, and even then without the API needed for computational analysis.
These are problems, but the solution is not to jettison history from the humanities. On the one hand, literary scholars also deal with manuscripts, and all such researchers would benefit from working with computer scientists to take advantage of developments in OCR, crowd-sourcing, and related technologies. On the other hand, if our sources aren’t digitized, the solution would be to get them digitized. In no small amount of cases, I imagine that this could be done more easily through cooperation with people in other fields of DH. As for paywalls and APIs, these are most certainly problems that would be better addressed by a broad coalition of scholars from many disciplines, as the economic forces behind the paywalls are strong, to say the least.
In all cases, I think pulling history from DH is a big mistake, counterproductive at best. Now, what about all of the recent attention to DH? Why does it seem as if history were absent?
2. Moretti’s War
Robertson’s piece comes in the wake of another blow-up about DH which views it as a threat to the health of literary studies. Let’s step back a moment and ask why this criticism is so persistent in the first place. The most corrosive vitriol splashed at the digital humanities by the likes of Fish, Marsh, and Kirsch is — I believe — a distillation of sour grapes left-over from the early 1980s, not from humanities computing circles, but from theoretical controversies in literature departments. This is Moretti’s War. Before Graphs, Maps, and Trees made a splash in the discussion of Digital Humanities, Franco Moretti lamented in Signs Taken for Wonders (1983) what he saw as the abuses of certain theoretical trends, the “lexicogrammatical euphoria of the last few years” (24), and he was looking for a way to put literary studies on a quantitative footing, to make it more scientific and less new-agey. His answer at the time was to suggest reviving genre studies. But the battle didn’t stop there.
In “Conjectures on World Literature” (2000), Moretti set his famous concept ‘Distant Reading’ in unabashedly polemical terms, attacking the method most cherished in literature departments–not just excessive theory, but close reading itself was now a problem:
The United States is the country of close reading, so I don’t expect this idea to be particularly popular. But the trouble with close reading (in all of its incarnations, from the new criticism to deconstruction) is that it necessarily depends on an extremely small canon. This may have become an unconscious and invisible premise by now, but it is an iron one nonetheless: you invest so much in individual texts only if you think that very few of them really matter. Otherwise, it doesn’t make sense. And if you want to look beyond the canon (and of course, world literature will do so: it would be absurd if it didn’t!) close reading will not do it. It’s not designed to do it, it’s designed to do the opposite. At bottom, it’s a theological exercise—very solemn treatment of very few texts taken very seriously—whereas what we really need is a little pact with the devil: we know how to read texts, now let’s learn how not to read them.
Now, a charitable interpretation of Moretti’s article might say that he laments those who practice close reading at the expense of all other methods. Would that it were merely that, but I understand it to be more. His target is the predominance of national narratives in comparative literature (presumably with implications for other fields), a situation for which he blames close reading. He goes on to conclude:
The point is that there is no other justification for the study of world literature (and for the existence of departments of comparative literature) but this: to be a thorn in the side, a permanent intellectual challenge to national literatures—especially the local literature. If comparative literature is not this, it’s nothing.
This is achieved, apparently, through distant reading.
So Moretti suggests that close reading as a method of comparative literature reinforces the national and local literatures and undermines the very basis of the field’s existence. I think he is barking up the wrong tree. If the problem is the predominance of national canons at the expense of world literature, the cause is not close reading, which as a research method cannot alone result in the selection of some part of ‘world literature’ at the expense of another. Rather, I think he should be looking at the social, political, and cultural forces which result in the existence of a canon in the first place. I am reminded of a Comp Lit conference at NYU in 2008 entitled “Age of Comparison?” It was hosted by Zhang Xudong, a prolific translator of western literary and social theory into Chinese, and many of the participants were studying non-Western subjects. Some participants were surprised (and noted their relief) at the relative absence of French and German literature from the panels, and yet G.W.F. Hegel still loomed large in the discussions, such that one participant wondered, exasperated, “why is it that when we look back, we always see Hegel staring back at us?” The problem here was very much the sort of thing that Moretti would like to challenge, but it had nothing to do with the method of close reading.
It’s tempting to go into a deeper critique of the article on other points. But it order to stay on topic, I will say only that I think Dipesh Chakrabarty’s Provincializing Europe (2000; see especially chapters two and three) is more powerful than “distant reading” as a critique of those Eurocentric comparisons or analyses which take as normative the western European historical experience.
In the end, by promoting distant reading as a superior alternative to close reading, Moretti distracts from his goal here (i.e. to critique nationalism in Comp Lit). Meanwhile, he manages to alienate some scholars of literature who might otherwise be sympathetic to the new methods he advocates elsewhere. And this article also fails here to acknowledge the contributions to digital methods by literary scholars interested in canonical texts and close reading, from at least as early as the 1980s. For example, studies of authorship (in the canon) and meter (the closest of readings) have been common in the journal Literary and Linguistic Computing (established in 1986), and scholars doing this kind of work, such as David Hoover at NYU, have been seeking to put the study of literature on more quantitative grounds–similar to what Moretti was advocating in 1983. But he misconstrues the problem by posing it in needlessly divisive terms of distant versus close reading. The result is that he (but not only he) manages to make DH into something that many see as the dragon threatening to destroy the humanities. Thus Stanley Fish sullenly concludes that “whatever vision of the digital humanities is proclaimed, it will have little place for the likes of me and for the kind of criticism I practice” (NYT Jan. 23, 2012). For those whose scholarly authority (not to mention livelihood) rests on close reading, the misleading dichotomy that Moretti has created implies to them that DH something to be slain, lest they be destroyed by it.
So, in short, Moretti’s distaste with the excesses of literary theory and national literatures saturated his advocacy of new methods. Because he had phrased this advocacy in polemic terms, a Morettian take on the digital humanities is one where DH is in direct conflict with the approaches to literature that dominated the late 20th century literary departments, linguistic theories and close reading. As a result, so many criticisms on DH are in essence, or at least in part, attacks on distant reading. They conflate a part of DH for the whole, and they see DH as a distinct threat to now traditional methods of literary study, but they didn’t fire the first shot. This is Moretti’s War, and DH got dragged into it.
I am convinced that there is no conflict between close reading and digital tools (even when used for distant reading). In general, the best approach would be a combination of all available methods of research and discovery; in particular cases, the approach should be selected based upon the nature of the questions and sources involved. I think Moretti’s polemic stance against close reading is a problem because it drives a wedge between two methods that should work very well together, and for no good reason.
What does all this have to do with Robertson? Perhaps it is natural that historians find themselves out of place on the the battlefields of Moretti’s War. But putting forth the suggestion that digital history is not digital humanities just expands the polemic war to a new front. But I think, given that the tools and skills of DH are still quite new, and that many of the technologies in all branches of digital humanities and social science research are shared, to divide up the territories of DH would serve none of us well. What’s worse, we might end up squandering the electricity of the moment, when institutions like THATCamp and DHSI are showing just how much we have to gain from cooperation and collaboration.
Having said all of this, I agree that we should ask what all of these technologies and tools have to offer history as a discipline. But let’s not define digital history negatively, as ‘not DH’ or ‘not literary studies.’ It should suffice to ask: what do historians do, and how will these digital things help us do it better?
What should we do about Moretti’s War? Let’s just agree that there is no inherent conflict between DH methods and other methods and that the needs of individual research projects should determine what methods ought and ought not be used, and then we can get on with the work of scholarship.
Well, I’ve been neglecting this blog, but I haven’t neglected blogging altogether. Last academic year, I contributed six writings on digital-humanities topics to the Townsend Blog at the Townsend Center for the Humanities, UC Berkeley. Here is a quick summary, with links.
- Digital Humanities Profiles: Innovations in the Capital Region (2012 Sept. 20)
This entry profiles three DH institutions, all in or near the Washington D.C. area. I don’t venture to guess why DH has flourished there, though the proximity of these institutions to one another can’t have hurt. (In this so-called digital age, the ability to meet face-to-face is still valuable.)
- Some Rights Reserved: A Brief Introduction to the Creative Commons (2012 Oct. 15)
Though not explicitly or primarily DH, the Creative Commons project is something like a close cousin. In this post, I muse on the affinity.
- All Mimsy were the Borogoves: A Brief Introduction to the Unicode Standard (2012 Nov. 15)
To those of us who use non-Western languages, the Unicode project is extremely important. Here, I discuss a bit of its history and the nature of its contribution. Also, this entry and the next one underline the sometimes overlooked importance of standardization to the recent generation of DH-related technologies.
- The Text Encoding Initiative: Allowing Preservation and Access to our Textual Heritage through Digital Means (2013 Jan. 22)
Following in the vein of institutions and standards, this post introduces the Text Encoding Initiative, which endeavors to maintain standards for marking up our textual heritage.
- Three Weeks with Dan Cohen: A DH Microcosm (2013 March 1)
In this post, I reflect on the delightful experience I had with Dan Cohen, during his visit as the Townsend Avenali Resident Fellow in History.
- Creating Collaborative Data Space: a Profile of the New Social Sciences Data Laboratory (2013 April 18)
Dan Cohen’s visit coincided with the opening of our new Social Sciences Data Lab. I was happy to have a small role in D-Lab’s inaugural semester, and in this post, I celebrate D-Lab’s opening and reflect on the relationship of humanities and the social sciences, especially where digital research methods are involved.
In the fall, I focused on institutions that have made contributions to the digital humanities:
In the spring I shifted gears, discussing some exciting DH events closer to home:
If I had to sum up these posts, I’d say their central themes are the importance of standardization, the role of community and collaboration, and the merits of a ‘big-tent’ approach to DH.
Vote for your favorite new DHSI logo here!
The explanation for “Aristophanes’ Androgynon with Hats” starts with the old DHSI logo, which was meant to invoke the digital humanities through a human and a measuring stick. I’ve heard it said that the human figure was given wide hips and narrow shoulders in order to make it look androgynous, but many have complained that it still looks very much like a man, which is especially problematic because technological fields tend to be male-dominated. The original designers were apparently sensitive to this imbalance, but they didn’t quite succeed in androgynizing the human figure.
The DHSI logo changed when balloons were added in celebration of the institute’s tenth anniversary. Personally, I like this logo, and I wear my t-shirt proudly. But by losing the measuring stick, it has become divorced from its original meaning, and the problem of the male-looking figure remains. So, because the DHSI folks are interested in creating a welcoming community, they asked people to submit new design proposals. “Aristophanes’ Androgynon with Hats” is mine.
In the famous discussion of love, in Plato’s Symposium, Aristophanes describes his idea as follows:
Man’s original nature was different from what it now is. It had three sexes—male, female, androgynous; all globular in shape and with double limbs and organs; derived respectively from sun, earth and moon.
Man’s woes were due to the pride of these primal men which stirred them to attempt to carry Heaven by assault. In punishment Zeus sliced them each in two, and then handed them to Apollo to stitch up their wounds. But, because they then kept dying of hunger, owing to the yearning of each for his other-half, Zeus devised for them the present mode of reproduction, altering the position of the sex organs accordingly. Thus Eros aims at restoring the primal unity and healing the cleft in man’s nature.
Each of us is a split-half of an original male, female, or androgynon; and the other-halves we seek in love are determined accordingly.
(The Symposium of Plato 1.8, tr. R.G. Bury 1909. Digital edition: Perseus Digital Library.)
Ignoring the peculiar sexism of Athenian society, I think this ‘androgynon’ can help overcome the problem in the original DHSI logo, by representing the female and male figures together. Thus, I have put the silhouettes of two heads back-to-back, united. This is meant to say that DH should not be male-dominated.
It also says that together we are stronger than we would be apart. So the humans are united, and the “D” and the “H” are joined as well. In my opinion (and speaking generally), digital technology and humanities research both arise from a common human desire to better understand our world and to improve the human condition. Though they may arise from this same goal, in practice they are divided into their separate fields and departments. DH, then, and DHSI, attempts to return these two to their original nature, combined and strong, able to better understand the world and improve its condition.
Secondly, I wanted to preserve elements of the original design. Though the composition has changed, the font remains the same. More importantly, “Aristophanes’ Anrdogynon with Hats’ is also a measuring stick, hence the tick-marks along the left side.
But what’s up with the hats? This is to say that we DHers wear several hats: computer programmer, humanities researcher, designer, teacher, etc. And we are often expected to switch among these roles, to change our hats. (It’s also an inside joke among my DHSI flat-mates.)
Finally, perhaps in a bit of nostalgia for my old rock-and-roll days, I wanted to make a design that would look good on t-shirts, flyers, and coffee mugs, so I kept the colors to a minimum, and contained the design to a simple rectangle.
In short, I wanted to create a DHSI logo that wasn’t gender-biased, but which maintained its connection to the legacy of the original design. There is still the human, there is still the measuring stick, but we’re also now a community, bringing disparate approaches and perspectives together.
Elizabeth Eisenstein, Professor Emerita of History at the University of Michigan, speaking for the “Books and Beyond” series at the Library of Congress, on the subject of her recent book, Divine Art, Infernal Machine: The Reception of Printing in the West from First Impressions to the Sense of an Ending (Philadelphia: The University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011).
I just learned of this series of webcasts through the sometimes bewildering but not quite endless metonymy of the web. Highly recommended.
Thursday, April 12, 2012, 4:30-6 pm
370 Dwinelle Hall
University of California, Berkeley
An ongoing speaker and workshop series with events once per semester, Computing and the Practice of History explores the possibilities and challenges that come with the use of digital technology in historical and other humanities and social science research. Our speakers will discuss how they use computing technology in their own research, and they are also invited to address larger questions regarding the future of computing in the humanities and social sciences. They are selected to represent a variety of fields and a variety of technologies, so that our series might offer the broadest possible introduction to the ways that historians are using computing technology today.
For the spring iteration of Computing and the Practice of History, our guest is Peter K. Bol, the Carswell Professor of East Asian Languages and Civilizations and the Director of the Center for Geographic Analysis at Harvard University, and our topic is historical geo-spatial information systems (GIS).
Professor Bol is the chair of the China Historical GIS project, and also the China Biographical Database Project, a joint project of Harvard University, Academia Sinica, and Peking University, the goal of which is “to include all significant biographical material from China’s historical record and to make the contents available free of charge, without restriction, for academic use.”
This lecture is free and open to the public, sponsored by the Department of History at the University of California, Berkeley, with support from the Mellon Foundation.
Monday, Oct. 3, 2011, 4:30-6 pm
370 Dwinelle Hall
University of California, Berkeley
An ongoing speaker and workshop series with events once per semester, “Computing and the Practice of History” will explore the possibilities and challenges that come with the use of digital technology in historical and other humanities research. Our speakers will discuss how they use computing technology, and they will also be invited to address larger questions regarding the future of computing and humanities research. They are selected to represent a variety of historical fields and a variety of technologies, so that our series might offer the broadest possible introduction to the ways that historians are using computing technology.
The inaugural event will feature Timothy Hitchcock, Professor of History at the University of Hertfordshire, and Director of the Old Bailey Online and of London Lives.
Sponsored by the Department of History at the University of California, Berkeley, with support from the Mellon Foundation.
2011 July 6
I am very excited to announce that the second annual San Francisco Bay Area THATcamp will be held Oct. 22-23, 2011, at Google’s Crittenden campus. Applications will open later in July.
For announcements and more information, see http://bayarea2011.thatcamp.org/, and follow us on twitter @THATCampSF. For general information on The Humanities and Technology Camp, see the main website, http://thatcamp.org/.
2011 March 21
Google Books is mired in controversy. Nevertheless, Google’s archivists have added another wing to their digital storehouse. And this time, they seem to have done it right.