What do you wear when you are late to the party?

Well, if you’re Joshua Clover, you certainly don’t wear socks, or at least that is the wardrobe decision he shared at the last Humanities On the Edge lecture at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. His question was, do we live in an age of exceptional crisis, and is crisis part of the structure of capitalism. Certainly, modern capitalism is seeded with crisis. Business cycles expand and contract, and during the bust, we are craving the boom, and during the boom, we fear the bust of the bubble. The housing market. Bear-Stearns. Lehman Brothers. Shorted puts. Collateralized debt obligations. All of these things are the poison pills to the economy. We are conditioned to this grasping, desperate participation in an economy that is rather like Fortuna’s wheel. One day we are at the top, the next, crushed under its weight.

Clover yearns for an end or at least a resolution of this continual cycle that enslaves people to its whims. Such a destructive end can be found in the riots and looting of the Occupy movement in 2009-2010. But wait. The port of Oakland was shut down by a strike. And yet it is still functioning today. Walmart has been hit by strikes and protests. And yet we can still buy scads of cheap plastic crap there. What happened to the revolution? Are we just more aware of our enslavement, or is our submission so total that we cannot see a way out?

Nostalgic yearning for a successful revolution forms the backbone of Clover’s collection of poetry, The Totality for Kids (University of California Press, 2006). Here, fueled by OxyContin and Google maps, Clover enjoys a schizophrenic Deleuzian cruise through the streets of Paris, waxing nostalgic for the riots and strikes of May 1968. He wants to join the kids of the Situationist movement, and he conjures their ghosts in one final dérive, drifting through le quartier St. Germain, over to the Eiffel Tower, then to the Rue des Blancs Manteaux, all the while alluding to poets and musicians–Apollinaire, Emily Dickinson, Elliott Smith, Hole, Joy Division. Not only do you feel like he knows them, you feel like he’s judging you because you don’t know them. You feel like you’re stuck at a cocktail party with him where you keep sipping your wine and nodding knowingly, hoping that he doesn’t grock that you think he’s a shameless namedropper. Then you notice that he’s not wearing socks.

The point of reliving May 1968 in this nostalgic wandering is perhaps to point out how impossible it is for such a revolution to happen in Paris today. Paris today is infused with money: money from culture, money from art, money from tourism, money from just being Paris. The transformation of the city by Haussmann in the mid-19th century has made it impossible to man the barricades. What are you going to barricade? The Champs Elysée? The Rue de Rivoli? Everything’s too wide, only the Marais has those labyrinthian streets and alleys that the revolutions of 1830 and 1832 exploited. And besides. Who wants to see the Louvre burned or the Eiffel Tower taken down with dynamite à la Gilles Ivain? The riots? Those are in the suburban ghettos of Nanterre and St. Denis. Why didn’t Clover drift over there? What, is the Place Nelson Mandela not aesthetic enough for him?

During the Humanities on the Edge lecture, Clover assured us, “Hey, cars are going to burn.” I guess you gotta break some eggs if you want an omlette au fromage. His Situationist sentimentality makes him look fake, like a poseur who is all, hey, do you know my friend Chris Nealon who listens to Elliott Smith? Hey, have you heard Hole? Hey, so last week I was up at St. Suplice and. . . Josh. You’re trying too hard. Go meet some of those kids in Nanterre, in St. Denis, in Longwy, in Metz, in Thionville. Start that revolution there, and see it spread, because they’re ready and waiting for you, and they’re not interested in dropping the names of hipsters and profs. The profs don’t like them.

Pulling the Emergency Brake

A Thousand Plateaus, illustrated by Marc Ngui; http://www.bumblenut.com/drawing/art/plateaus/

A Thousand Plateaus, illustrated by Marc Ngui; http://www.bumblenut.com/drawing/art/plateaus/

My class schedule is a mess, and these readings are not making my choices any easier. I am stuck between a desire to do what Douglas Rushkoff advocates in the introduction to his quasi-Talmudic “Program or Be Programmed”, namely, learn to program, and a desire to return to literature texts in an effort to better define my own scholarship. My thoughts are following three movements:

1. Being and not being a servant;
2. Articulating an ethos and a critical stance;
and
3. Fumbling towards a better understanding of the value of digital humanities.

I have seen digital humanists work as servants. They transcribe and encode texts for larger projects, they write software, compose style sheets, and do research for digital archive projects. Our work exists as a service for other researchers and frees information from for-profit websites. The Cather Archive and the Walt Whitman Archive both serve the needs of scholars and researchers, as well as provide research opportunities for young scholars. The Civil War Washington project made emancipation compensation petitions available to the public; the results of this project’s efforts liberated information from behind a pay-wall at the for-profit site fold3.com. While I can understand what Alan Liu advocates in his plea to digital humanists to avoid being “merely servants at the table whose practice is perceived to be purely instrumental”, I can also understand how this instrumentalism is important and indispensable. The trick, it seems, is that the task of the servant in DH is to deterritorialize and decenter the source of criticism and text, of coding and programming, of end-user and creator.

The best role of the servant, then, is not to “only stand and wait”, as Milton admonished, but to go out and criticize and theorize, while creating at the same time. And that’s where the emergency brake comes in.

I want to learn all the things. I want to read Moretti and figure out how to do what he does. I also want to be able to read closely, embracing the values of Stringfellow Barr and Mark Van Doren and Mortimer J. Adler, where all I need is the gray matter between my ears, a few good friends, and a text in common, to make sense of difficulty. I want to be able to move from the plateau of text, to the plateau of code, to the plateau of the internet, to the distant reading plateau of dendrograms, and then move to the nodes of the SGML tree.

A better understanding of the digital humanities comes from a desire to be of service in different ways because of a willingness to be decentered. Decentered from a field and focus (anathema to traditional scholarship); decentered from one’s self; decentered from the hermetic environment of the hallowed halls of academia; decentered from obfuscatory scholarship. Instead, this decentering makes projects in the digital humanities that are of value to the public. Interested in letters and how they both articulate and destabilize ideas of spatial and temporal geography? Then check out Stanford’s Mapping the Republic of Letters. Itching to see how the schizo-affective vision of revolutionary thought works? Take a gander at Marc Ngui’s online Bumblenut Pictures of Deleuze and Guattari’s A Thousand Plateaus. These sites represent the public value of the digital humanities. Certainly, they are end-user products, but looking at them is a source of momentum, a momentum that destabilizes scholarship and makes me think: what do I want to do? What do I want to create? How much more programming? How much more coding? How much more will I need to do?

I think about Rushkoff’s directive to “program or be programmed,” and I realize that it’s also an invective: he is inveighing us to understand our own limitations if we do not become creators. We will only have at our disposal the resources that others make available to us as scholars. We then want to research more for the sake of showing it to others, not necessarily to show off ourselves, but to show off the works, the data, the structures, the forms, and the designs.

Pulling the emergency brake means being able to stop for a moment to stand on a plateau for a moment, get oriented, scope out the other plateaus, and take a breath before careening forward. The goal is to both be of service, and to have something serviceable. In order to do this, it’s necessary to slow down, look around, and watch the flow.

Coding as Inquiry

Thoughts from a digital humanist on the day to day of DTD

Gabi Kirilloff

Writing, as many of us know, is a form of inquiry. Ideally when we write, and when we teach our students to write, we are not simply enacting an idea we have already had, we aren’t just putting our preformed thoughts down on paper. Rather, writing itself, as an activity, is a process – a process through which we learn, think, reason, create, and adapt. Sometimes this is hard, it is much easier, much more comfortable, to write what we already know. However, writing what we already know defies why many of us were attracted to the humanities in the first place. If we write what we know, how will we learn?

This idea is in fact important enough to merit the creation of a course here at UNL entitled “Rhetoric as Inquiry,” the goal of which is to move students beyond the idea that in order to write successfully…

View original post 621 more words

The New Totality for Kids

Music: The unless of a certain series.
Mathematics: Everyone rolling dice and flinging Fibonacci, going to the opera, counting everything.
Fire: The number between four and five.
Gold leaf: Wedding dress of the verb to have, it reminds you of of.

Joshua Clover, The Totality for Kids, U of California P, 2006.

Legends have their uses, as distillations of the wisdom of events, as ways of passing on a knowledge of situations. History as a discipline dissolves the event back into the archive, turning history (event) into history (text), consigning it to the past. The legend is a way of making the summation of past events present to future ones.

McKenzie Wark in Steve Anderson’s “Editor’s Introduction” to Totality for Kids, in Vectors Journal, 17 October 2013, http://vectors.usc.edu/issues/7/totality/#annotation=0;page=1

I decided to do something a little revolutionary and a little scary. I decided to look at some of the texts that N. Katherine Hayles cites in her treatise on digital humanities and academic work and cognition How We Think. What makes this so revolutionary? Well, for one, Hayles is really challenging us to think about digital publication and the digital humanities as something that is more living, more vivacious, more engaging, than traditional print humanities. As McMullen said in his blog, “As far as I know, none of my regular seminar papers are being (frankly, nor should be) used to teach college literature classes.” Indeed, those of us who assiduously revised our graduate seminar papers for publication received not a few letters of rejection, a smattering of revise-and-resubmit, and the rare, coveted acceptance for publication. Who is going to read our publications? Certainly hiring committees. Probably our advisors (we hope). Maybe our friends. Our parents might muddle through them and then send us a gift card to Ben and Jerry’s for a free cone. No one is probably going to read that paper that you publish. Really. It’s probably boring and dry as dust. No one in academia is going to tell you that, though, and if they did, you’d probably do your best to repress the growing panic of ohmygodtheworldischangingundermyfeet, and work on yet another revision of your paper tracing the renegado texts in the literature of the Renaissance levant. Have fun. Better yet, have a scotch.

You know what’s scary? Not knowing. Not knowing enough code. Not knowing enough book history. Not knowing enough about game theory. Hayles saves the day. “As a subversive force, the Digital Humanities should not be considered a panacea for whatever ails the humanities,” she cautions, but then she uses the rest of her book to both reassure us and terrify us at the same time. Digital Humanities are in their nature collaborative and creative. The real revelation comes in the emergence of Digital Humanities as a productive endeavor.

Up until now, my career had seemed limited to either reporting or proposing, but not creating. Sure, I could report on Cather’s bibliography. I could propose a new way to approach her literary apprenticeship. Now, I can see the intimidating prospect of inventing and creating a new way to present or form information. The fear and intimidation is somewhat mitigated by the opportunity to work as a team on a team of similarly minded DH people. Collaboration makes DH less scary.

Let’s go back the beautifully designed Totality for Kids. The work represents design and programming by Erik Loyer, text by McKenzie Wark, illustrations by Kevin Pyle, all accompanied by music by the Love Technology. Wark, a professor of Culture and Media Studies at the New School, has written extensively about DH, including The Hacker’s Manifesto (2004) and Gamer Theory (2007). The article, published just this October in Vectors Journal, speculates in an interactive way, on the effect of the Lettriste International and the Situationist International on the Left Bank culture of 1950’s Paris. Accompanied by music, Wark and Loyer’s interactive illustrations and text allow the viewer to peruse levels of annotation and so experience methodical revelations. As the reader engages with the text, Wark’s thesis starts to clarify: that digital technology is an articulation of the politics of desire; that wandering, la dérive, is crucial to intellectual production that is not a commodity. Should we strip the imagery from the text, and present the text alone, the totality of the interactive essay would be lost. We would no longer be allowed to take part in a structured dérive. Strangely, this work does not appear on his page at the New School. It could be because it is very new, but for a Digital Humanist, this work should be listed and so legitimized. The text would be legitimized. The rich collaboration between Pyle, Wark, Loyer, and the Love Technology would be legitimized. As it is now, is it a curiosity? Does Josh Clover know what Wark has done with totality, how he has extended and modified it, made it more “total”, a gasamtkunstwerk?

This might be the source of my anxiety: the field of humanities scholarship is changing. It is changing at a dizzying rate. The day of the tweed coat and leather patches is over. But when digital humanists do not count their own work as legitimate enough to list on their institution’s site, we are a far cry from becoming a field where blogs, digital publishing, and creative projects are just as important as a monograph or an article in Studies in the Novel. We are pushing ourselves as digital humanists not just to comment on or report, but to create; not just to confer with, but to collaborate with; not just to theorize but to invent and manipulate. My job causes me anxiety: I want to do more than just “turn events back to the archive.” The strange solution to my anxiety is the possibilities afforded by DH: collaboration, intervention, and creation. At this point, anxieties can shift, from the haunting feeling that the article evaporates upon publication, to the urgency of creation and collaboration. Somehow, being part of a team is just as difficult as being alone, but a least I don’t have to face obstacles as a solitary scholar.