6 thoughts on “Every tool is a weapon: Why the digital humanities movement needs public history

  1. Thanks for this considered post — it raises a lot of the concerns that I have concerning digital humanities. I work in Engineering Communication which means that I teach Engineers how to write effective, concise and clear documents. I recently sat in on a lecture in which a Prof described the design of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles with no reference whatsoever to to ethical and political implications of designing such devices. I think this is precisely the kind of space where the interaction between the digital and humanities requires some form of public history to give students a framework for understanding the politics of their work. It is in this capacity to address the ethical concerns of their work and detailing the history of the relation between the academy and technology that I imagine digital humanities can be most effective.

    • Thank you for sharing your experience! I appreciate the specificity of the circumstances you bring up and their relevance for thinking about the relationship between the “digital” and the “human.”

  2. Bravo Mary on a succinct recounting of our memorable “DH & Feminism” discussion. I am glad you foregrounded shared insights about the implications of Authors Guild vs. HathiTrust. Also, it seems to me that you cover here the ever provocative distinction between techne vs. poesis, capturing how DH brings with it significant implications for the Public Humanities (and society).

  3. Pingback: Every Tool is A Weapon: Why the Digital Humanities Movement Needs Public History « Mary Rizzo

  4. Pingback: Every tool is a weapon: Why the digital humanities … – History@Work | VanRanke and Droysen

  5. Pingback: The Master’s Tools, 2.0 | Public History Commons

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *