[Humanist] 24.111 why all the old stuff?
Humanist Discussion Group
willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk
Mon Jun 14 08:01:39 CEST 2010
Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 24, No. 111.
Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
Submit to: humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 07:01:06 +0100
From: Willard McCarty <willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk>
Subject: why all this old stuff?
I suspect a certain degree of puzzlement over all the old stuff I've
been dishing up in messages over the last several months. Or perhaps
not. Perhaps a sense of irrelevance is closer to the mark. In any case
while being fascinated at such dazzling imaginative activity in the
early years of computing, I also remain puzzled. I have a conceptual
file into which I put all the historiographical points made, from
wherever they come, and one day soon, like a crow, will dig up all the
shiny things I've nicked, spread them all out and at least admire them.
The basic notion is historia magistra vitae, history (as) teacher of
life, to the living -- conditions are not absolutely perfect, so we look
to the past for lessons, advice, exemplars. I take to heart Geoffrey
Lloyd's examination of the discipline of history in Disciplines in the
Making (Oxford, 2009): 58-75. The interests the historian brings to the
past -- in my case a very recent past, within living memory and so
subject to its distortions -- make the reader more suspicious the more
they are manifest. But having no such interests means no history at all,
just data that could be historical. More serious yet is the question of
what one hopes to gain, really. There is, Lloyd says, "an obvious risk
of making the general's mistake if entering the next war brilliantly
equipped for the last one, but quite at a loss in the face of the new
enemy. You learn from the past about the past: and that is not
necessarily a good guide to the future, however fascinating it may be to
ponder the reasons why the past turned out the way it did. To be sure,
history provides a rich, almost inexhaustible source of examples,
precedents, and potential analogies. But that does not get round the
problem of determining which are the ones that are relevant to the case
in hand.... Selection is inevitable and there is no algorithm for
In other words, he concludes, we cannot escape using our own judgement
-- and so examining our own motivations. Mine (I think) come from (but
are not entirely determined by) two senses: one, that research in
humanities computing has become industrialised (and cash-cow'd), and so
is research no longer; two, that back when literary computing got
started, it took a wrong turn that has led us to industrialisation. If,
I am thinking, historia is magistra vitae for us, it will help us by
showing us other possibilities. Why, I wonder, no doubt selectively,
were things so exciting then, especially in the arts, and so dull now?
Or is the beam in the eye of this beholder?
There -- cards on the table, inviting other readings of them, other moves.
Willard McCarty, Professor of Humanities Computing,
King's College London, staff.cch.kcl.ac.uk/~wmccarty/;
Editor, Humanist, www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist;
Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, www.isr-journal.org.
More information about the Humanist