But why should Life be boring?

After making a “dad joke” or doing something ridiculous, my dad always laughs and says “why should life be boring??” That’s how I feel about the social sciences and academia in general. Why can’t we make intellectual engagement and involvement in current events fun?

Things I Like:

Twitter

Touché, AAAS108x. You win. Though I am still not sure whether my tweets are worth following, I probably will create my own Twitter account (not just tied to this class) at the end of the semester. While I find myself getting more annoyed with insufferable facebook statuses, Twitter at least expands networks beyond our “friends” and thereby can allow you (if you make the effort to follow people you wouldn’t normally be in contact with, ala Ethan Zuckerman’s advice) to feel a more accurate pulse of what is going on in the world. Also, thank goodness for the 140 character limit.

Humor in Social Science / Digestible Social Science- Sometimes, humor is the best way to point out an uncomfortable truth without making people defensive and closed off. Also, it is one of the best ways to engage our generation on important issues; if young people are in a place where keeping up with the news does not lend itself to social acceptance, then humorous sources such as the Daily Show or the Onion allow one to stay informed and be funny at the same time. I think TedX and Kickstarter, books like rewire, are also great ways of upping public involvement in important projects and ideas by making the content fun to participate in.

Things I want more of:

Discussions about the Speakers

In terms of this class, I think I would have liked more time to let the presentations of our many amazing speakers sink in, and then to discuss them in class. I often found it hard to come up with questions I really wanted to ask right away, and I always learn best from speaker when bouncing ideas around with professors and peers afterwards.

Social Engagement Theses & co.

I am tired of academic buzzwords. I want to see academia grounded in purpose, and actions grounded in evidence. This class is just one of a handful in college that I feel has really engaged current issues in both a practical and academic way (you know things are bad when “practical” and “academic” can be used as two opposing adjectives). Even worse, I remember that in high school, little attempt was made (or it was not done effectively) to make our studies seem relevant to the real world. Luckily, in the digital humanities, we have to be concerned with current issues; but with history, or literature, there is always a way to tie these events back to their real world context. In my case, I am especially interested in conducting research or studying subjects that directly impact the way that I and others view the world, and hope to eventually convert this type of knowledge into impact.

People Who Don’t Take the Internet at Face Value

Sometimes I don’t understand why everyone isn’t fascinated by the Internet. At the very least though, this class gives me some hope that a healthy skepticism about online environments and digital technologies is slowly making its way onto the Harvard scene. In particular, I thought the video about how Google search works was a great example of how generally-accepted-as-normal things on the Internet are also, at the end of the day, designed by a group of people. (When people roll their eyes at “social construction” I want them to understand that when social scientists mention it in reference to coding or biology or other hard sciences, we aren’t saying that it isn’t real or effective, but just to keep in mind that these are not god-given ways that the world works.)

However, I think that the idea that the Internet holds more power than it actually does — to connect us, to break down class lines — is still very prevalent, and I hope that we can change that. Because, to reference my favorite sociology concept, if people believe something is real, then it is real in its consequences. For example, if we believe that we are getting all of the information (about an event, a presidential candidate, etc.), but only are exposed to a fraction of the story, then we will act upon that information with more certainty and entitlement.

Because no one doesn’t like Julie Andrews….

These are a few of my favorite things that are related not only to this class but also the intersection of race and technology more broadly.

Initiatives to diversify the production of new technology

We need more people like Omar Wasow and organizations like Black Girls Code because one of the things I think is most important about the future of technology is the explicit effort to diversify technology creators. We need more Black Planets, more JackandJillPolitics.coms, we need people from diverse backgrounds, who because of those backgrounds have diverse ways of thinking, can create diverse products. I, for example, suggested to Ethan Zuckerman last week during our workshop that he should maybe consider involving people of color who are used to having to follow more than one kind of news to help design the products that diversify users’ newsfeeds he is interested in. I also like these kinds of initiatives because I am a firm believer in  marginalized groups of people creating content and safe, counter-hegemonic spaces for themselves without the interference of privileged groups.

Apps that help address structural issues like the wealth the gap

“Around The Way App – Android Apps on Google Play.” Around The Way App – Android Apps on Google Play. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Nov. 2013.

This is a project that we did not talk about in class but I personally would love to see more projects like this.

Around the Way is a mobile app that helps users locate black owned business around them. Though many people, myself included, have experienced problems with its functioning, I think the idea behind it was absolutely wonderful because support of black owned businesses can have many positive ramifications with the expansion of black wealth and promulgation of diverse representations of black people being just a few.

Ways of circumventing traditional access to power in production

Bread Pig can help people who may get missed by crowd funding sources like Kickstarter because of engrained user preferences for white aesthetics, more standard uses of the English language and intimate know how on structuring successful campaigns. I like this project, and would like to see more things like it, because it provides people who may be on the outside of more traditional informational networks to be able to self-publish. Like Around the Way, Bread Pig can aid in the visibility and success of black entrepreneurship.

People using preexisting, ordinary sites to makes extraordinary things happen

I love watching black Twitter lay the smack down on blatantly racist actions and creating tangible social change. I love that because of her web series on YouTube, Issa Rae is going to be working on a series produced for television by Shonda Rhimes. I find this kind of utilization of already existing technologies to create space for marginalized voices inspiring.

Applications of traditional humanities to push back against traditional cannons

I would like to see more institutions take advantage of social media and developing technology as they pursue social justice initiatives like justpublics@365. I also am enamored with scholars of the digital humanities who work on expanding traditional ideas of scholarship by moving away from institutions and sharing knowledge more freely. Since I have already gone on about how much I love sites like the Crunk Feminist Collective, I will refrain from doing so again and just direct you here.

Rihanna on Youtube and Proposals on Education

Things I like…

Digital music. More specifically, Youtube. To me, Youtube has been an exploratory outlet for music. Unfortunately, it’s been known to waste a lot of time (cat videos and laughing babies). But under my semi-strict control this semester, I’ve been able to accomplish a few things with Youtube: listen to John Legend’s most recent album Love In The Future on replay in preparation for his awesome concert this past October; educate myself on Rihanna’s music videos; look up “exorcism” on Google because of Rihanna’s most recent music video; and as a bit of an aside, explore JennaMarbles’ vast amount of knowledge about… stuff. There are so many possibilities! I think that tools like Youtube are very highly efficient cultural educators.

Blogs. Before this semester, I used to think that blogs were a space where clever young adults spewed out their frustrations about life and existential questions. Basically, I was basing this off of the few links that I ran into at some point, posted by lonely, answer-searching teenagers on Facebook. In joining this class, I have discovered so much. I have contributed to this blog. I’ve also started a Tumblr account (something I thought I would never do). And I’m using my blog as a personal archive of photographs mostly pertaining to African American culture.

Things there should be more of…

Comfort with online and offline discussions about race. There have been many attempts at serious, open discussions about race both online and offline. Although we have made so much progress, I don’t think that any attempt has been fully successful; if not, our society wouldn’t still be in its present state. We need to be more open. Small administrative steps will not achieve this. Extremely opinionated blog posts that are open for comments also will not do the trick… example here. I think that people need a different state of mind all together. We can’t make progress if everyone stands by his or her own ground. We will not make progress if everyone tries to have his or her point be heard—too much effort is put towards the wrong goal. We need a fundamental comfort. We must be willing and able to listen to each other.

Unique education. The surrounding community and not a nation’s or the world’s standard should model education, at a higher degree than presently. Of course, for most, basic algebra is necessary in a curriculum. And we actually already have unique education patterns: in history courses, our children learn about figures and events that pertain to their cultural origins (in the US, Christopher Columbus, the American Revolution, etc.). However, we are lacking in some areas. For instance, African American history is very briefly mentioned in many curriculums. I don’t think that this is fair, especially for children who grow up in predominantly Black communities. By developing unique minds, children can bring more to the world as adults. Rich education comes from rich culture, which is something that every community has—we just need to expose it.

Image by Flickr user Giorgio Minguzzi /Creative Commons licensed BY 2.0

Creative online spaces for children. We should have more creative spaces on the internet. Blogging exists, but not everyone is into it; and some find it hard to navigate. We need creative spaces that are easy to use for children. I imagine a tool that is presented like a children’s book. With each new page, a child gets a new idea, and by the end of the book, he or she has reached inspiration. To take this even a step further, it should be structured like Kickstarter without the monetary element. (I’m not even sure how that would work, but it doesn’t hurt to share the idea…) I think that our society is so tied up in all the wonderfully complex tasks that a computer and its network can achieve, that we often overlook simple ideas that are possible.

The Burden of the Subaltern

I found Ernest Priego’s short piece to be extremely compelling and drenched with powerful ideas, so much so that I wish it had been longer so that I could have gathered a deeper understanding of the platforms on which his arguments were made. My main takeaway from this reading this article was that a subaltern, with a masterful handle on the English language and access to technology has a responsibility to contribute to the way in which their segment of the population is represented online. Priego coined this idea, online self-determination, and defined it as “the freedom of misrepresented individuals and communities to determine their own online content”.  Priego painted a picture of a “community of communities”, which he himself acknowledged may be a bit idealized, in which multilingual hyperlinks and tags connect different subaltern communities in a universal effort of online self-determination.

To read more of Kayci’s post, visit Let’s Take Heart.

What Blogs at the Margins…

“In the 1990s, the rallying cry of proponents of the Internet was the democratization of knowledge made possible by the developing technological infrastructure” (Earhart).

Maybe one day when I read about the high hopes rich, white men had for the internet in the early 90s- a place without race, gender and class, an uncolonizable space- I won’t roll my eyes. Unfortunately, today is not that day.

What makes the fantasy about the internet so deserving of a looping eye roll is the idea that a digital space that exists in a physical world ruled by patriarchy, homophobia, ableism and global white supremacy can be Utopian and equalizing.

 This eye rolling also extends to the idea that in changing the way information is presented or disseminated without first trying to address inequities in the way knowledge is formed and what information is deemed important, said knowledge will somehow become representative of diverse experiences and information. What a prefect segue into a discussion about digital humanities and three of this week’s readings: Digital_humanities, “Can Information Be Unfettered? Race and the New Digital Humanities Canon” and “Can Digital Humanities Mean Transformative Critique?”

A+

The very formats of “Can Information Be Unfettered? Race and the New Digital Humanities Canon?” and “Can Digital Humanities Mean Transformative Critique?” embody the value of digital humanities. The former is published on a website that encourages collaborative readings and understandings of the piece via a built in note taking/highlighting feature- users “can select and mark passages to express interest to the community, or help tag sentences for [their] index” (Earhart). The latter includes links and images (not unlike this blog) to provide additional tangential information and create more interactivity with its readers. Both articles focus more on directly addressing and solving the racialized, classed, and gendered discrepancies in representation within the field. Earhart seeks to accomplish this through collective work to reimagine traditional canons and Lothian and Philips curate a group of really interesting digital collaboratives that provide a space for the perspectives of marginalized groups that are often silenced. Thinking about the Earhart more specifically, and the encouragement of recovery efforts I was moved to recall Without Sanctuary, the digital companion of the book about American lynching with the same title.

The following quote succinctly brings into focus all that digital humanities have the potential to accomplish: “The spirit of #transformDH is not to arrest this momentum, but to channel it in truly transformative directions—to avoid trading whiteness for more whiteness, heteropatriarchy for more heteropatriarchy, one imperialist hierarchy for another” (Lathian and Philips). In short, #iamallaboutthesetwoarticles.

E for Effort

I found Digital_humanities remarkably counterproductive to the discussion of digital humanities. It provides an extensive history of humanities that I feel distracts from the possible future of the field. It also skates past the marginalization of certain groups that plague digital humanities (and society in general) and in a round about way goes on to blame those groups demand for inclusion for the decline in “sharing common references or approaches” and for “add[ing] ammunition to the forces that want to de-college the American populace” (23). I do however appreciate the work it does in trying to create a standardized understanding of the field.

Can we talk about the question and answer section:

Whose questions are these? The format of this publication, its stock questions and answers, seems antithetical to the interactivity that the digital humanities are rooted in. The text is resistant to questions from actual readers. The question answer section offers very stagnant answers that impose very strict definitions of the digital humanities; that they necessitate institutions and assessments, and attempts to strictly define who can be involved in projects and how. This discussion of digital humanities is unimaginative and does not acknowledge ways that current projects are advancing the field and leaves no room for individuals or people who are not part of the academy (122-130).

Things to ponder:

> Can inclusion of diverse aspects of the humanities ever be achieved when the academy is necessarily based on exclusion?
>I’m very much interested in the idea of the core curriculum that gets raised in the Burdick et al piece. How can we build a core curriculum that encapsulates enough breadth to prepare students “to steer their democracy through the challenges and opportunities that this highly networked, globalized, mobile, and ecologically fragile century offers” (Burdick 24)?
     ~ Personally, I think that having a framework that uses honest, accurate, integrative information about the ways systematic oppression operates established by a diverse group of humans to contextualize various works that fit under the “humanities” umbrella is the way to go, but I am also very interested in what everyone else thinks. (Full disclosure: I believe adequate representation if diverse experiences is the solution to most problems.)
> How can the digital humanities keep moving away from institutions and towards individuals?

Works Cited

Burdick, Anne, and Johanna Drucker. Digital_humanities. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2012, pp 1-26 & 122-130.
http://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/content/9780262018470_Open_Access_Edition.pdf

Earhart, Amy E. “Can Information Be Unfettered? Race and the New Digital Humanities Canon.” In Debates in the Digital Humanities. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2012.  http://dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu/debates/text/16

Lothian, Alexis, and Amanda Phillips. “Can Digital Humanities Mean Transformative Critique?” Journal of e-Media Studies, vol. 3, no. 1 (2013)