Monday, May 4, 2015

I wish I had a cool last title

The digital humanities can be described simply as the collaboration of technology and the humanities. While they go hand in hand, the humanities are greatly benefitted by technology, specifically social media. For me, the digital humanities are crucial towards my success in any future career. It's just not enough to be a "good writer" with an English degree anymore. Students who graduate with a degree in the humanities will need to know about this field because it makes them more marketable in the career world. According to Svensson,  "Humanists are exploring differing modes of engagement, institutional models, technologies and discursive strategies". Digital humanities brings this desire together in perfect harmony with writers. 
Svensson writes again, "The complexity of digital humanities as a "field" comes partly from its disciplinary and institutional diversity, and its multiple modes of engagement with information technology". If we immerse ourselves in digital humanities as writers, we become knowledgable on both spectrums of the brain. Through technology, we can practice the "left-brained" analytical side of us that we often practice in formal essays. With digital humanities we prove that we are more than just people with a degree in English. 
Post-structuralism can be quickly defined by deconstructing its own name. This is a time past structure and the importance of meaning. Technology truly has no borders. Blogs like these can go on and on without any true border or meaning. Technology is where we can truly become involved in post-structuralism. Post-structuralism also argues that there can be no "sole meaning" to any work. Digital humanities follow this theme of ambiguity because there can be many meanings to one online text. An example would be clicking on different hyperlinks in one text that can change your perspective of the text depending on what peaks your interest to click on. 
My theory on theory is that theory started out with an obsession of an answer, and we have realized that there truly is no answer. In this way, I fear for the life of literary theory because without a means to find an answer, there is no incentive to ask a question. < That was way more depressing than I intended, I apologize
Thanks for a rad class.

1 comment:

  1. "I fear for the life of literary theory because without a means to find an answer, there is no incentive to ask a question." Whooooooo. That is SOOOOO provocative. I don't think I agree, but I totally see your point....