ARCHIBALD POST 4: THE “SITUATED IMAGINATION” THAT ENABLES AND LIMITS DH INFRASTRUCTURE

Patrik Svensson always seems to elegantly and lucidly set out the state of the DH landscape in his scholarship. In “The Humanistiscope—Exploring the Situatedness of Humanities Infrastructure,” Svensson introduces us to the notion of the “humanistiscope” as a new mode of viewing infrastructure that is created for the specific needs of the humanities. I’m interested in the discord that arises due to his identification of the opportunity, indeed the need, for DH as a ‘field’ to creatively and uniquely forge its own infrastructure, whilst adhering to the larger cultural, social, political, and technological frameworks around us. This tension is most obvious when we situate the goal of “unlocking infrastructural making and doing” alongside the practical necessity to “relate to the notion of infrastructure established by the policy makers, funding agencies, and institutions of higher education” (337, 344). A number of DH commentaries have expressed the desire to completely re-imagine processes and tools rather than merely revitalize the old, but realize that they must be grounded in real-world institutional politics. Svensson’s phrase the “situated imagination” helpfully combines these ideas, and he acknowledges that “making a case for [rethinking DH] infrastructure is one of politics and packaging as well as ideas, people, and equipment” (338).

Recent trends that Svensson identifies as imbedded in DH’s situated imagination are viewed in real-world spaces and methodologies; for example, they are all encompassed in the package that is the newly established University of Sussex Humanities Lab. Officially opening this month, the SHL is still developing its first projects, but aims to “re-launch the humanities” through the digital. Their mission statement claims to “re-imagine the humanities” without relying on “inherited disciplinary approaches,” and to this end the Lab is directed by an interdisciplinary team with backgrounds in media studies, philosophy, politics, sociology, performing arts, cultural studies, and coding and algorithms (https://humslab.wordpress.com/). But the SHL website also demonstrates the institutional expectation that has shaped the initiative. The £3 million investment demands longevity, and PhDs are the only individuals invited to apply for funded research positions at the Lab, in specific fields of study. Svensson considers the digital humanities lab an ideal model that can bring together different humanistiscopes, but the SHL shows that such a space, whether digital and/or physical, is largely formulated under a policy-driven rule of thumb. The policy itself is not necessarily undesirable, but it certainly limits the DH’s potential explosion in scope and innovation by setting out expectations based on traditional methods of study and evaluation.

As a side note, I’m very much in support of Svensson’s claim that “The [DH] challenge is also one of moving from critical sensibility to creative, if conditioned, making, which often does not come easy to the humanities” (337). His statement reminds me of the irony that when bridging the “two cultures” in a humanities lab, the humanists are often viewed as bring the creative element to the more structured workspace traditionally favored by the scientific community. However, except for specific programs such as creative writing degrees, we could argue that the humanities often find it difficult to integrate the creative into the academic. This is of course a gross generalization, but I think it’s worth considering the fact that the humanities still largely consists of disciplines defined by strict practices, making it all the more bizarre that humanists are viewed as compellingly more creative forces when undertaking work with STEM collaborators.

Works Cited:

Svensson, Patrik. 2015. “The Humanistiscope—Exploring the Situatedness of Humanities Infrastructure.” In Between Humanities and the Digital, eds. Patrik Svensson and David Theo Goldberg, 337-353. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2015.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “ARCHIBALD POST 4: THE “SITUATED IMAGINATION” THAT ENABLES AND LIMITS DH INFRASTRUCTURE

  1. I find this an interesting tension/concept as well. How are we as scholars to mediate our experiences between disciplinary expectations and founding a new non-disciplinary specific approach that supposedly revolutionizes learning without specific support? The lab is a great start but what opportunities exist past it? Are there post-docs? Are there undergrad classes to teach? What are the real impacts of doing such a degree? I guess it is something I’ve been struggling with personally.
    I noticed there are only 4 EU/Home spots and 1 International spot. Maybe it is because I come from a country where higher education is encouraged/more affordable but the size of these programs for interdisciplinary study doesn’t leave a lot of room for collaboration. In order to have a truly interdisciplinary, collaborative opportunity, shouldn’t they include more students? Furthermore there are “strands” in each of the labs such as “digital archives,” and “digital performance.” Are these just fancy ways of saying library and information science and MFA/performance art? I’m not sure that immediately creating “strands” or programs within an interdisciplinary structure is the best way to approach creative learning.

    Like

  2. georgie a says:

    Hi Jaime, your question “How are we as scholars to mediate our experiences between disciplinary expectations and founding a new non-disciplinary specific approach that supposedly revolutionizes learning without specific support?” neatly captures the issue I was trying to explore. It seems a catch 22, complete with the problem of ‘who’s in’ regarding research levels and field specificity. I wonder if the limited number of folks involved as researchers at a Lab is a problem; small physical numbers for collaboration would seem to be mitigated by the increasingly virtual nature of humanities labs and their wider communities, particularly due to the increasing trend for labs to undertake partnerships and affiliations with similar organisations. I’m interested in how these labs go about setting up partnerships – is it by research interests, location, geographic/project proximity, directors who are colleagues with one another? Likely a mix of many factors, and a good question for me to ask Lori with regards to the MAL’s affiliations.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: