Readings in prep for week 2

[benmiller314]

Hi, all! Turns out the permissions settings for GH Discussions is weird, so I'm transferring us to the Issue Queue. Traditionally, GitHub repos use Issues for things like bug reports and feature requests, but also for discussing ongoing work and brainstorming future directions. So it's perfectly legit to use it for our discussions in response to readings!

The main difference is that the Issue Queue adds only at the end: you can't reply directly. If you want to reply to someone's earlier post, then, you'll want to @reply with their username (and possibly quote or paraphrase what you're responding to).

Discussed in https://github.com/benmiller314/dsam2023fall/discussions/2

^{Originally posted by **benmiller314** August 27, 2023} After [watching](http://miriamposner.com/blog/how-did-they-make-that-the-video/) and [reading](https://miriamposner.com/blog/how-did-they-make-that) through Posner and [Risam & Gil](http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/16/2/000646/000646.html), use this forum to propose ideas you'd like to discuss further, ideally grounded in particular passages where possible. For example, you might... * Highlight new ideas or key terms, especially those that you expect will be useful in thinking about digital projects. * Highlight sentences, passages, or methods that struck you as especially well done, perhaps worth imitating. * Link outward to something a passage reminds you of, explaining where you're leading us. * Pose questions to your classmates about a passage, especially (but not exclusively) if something is confusing. * Respond to any of the above. While I say "grounded in a text," you should also include your own questions, confusions, connections, excitements, or incitements. If you aim to write at least 100 of your own words, that should give us a place to begin. Direct responses to other students’ posts are optional but encouraged; to make that more possible, please try to post by Friday evening when you can.

[SidraNArshad]

Risam and Gil lead us in a thoughtful discussion about “minimal computing” (a concept that I’m still grappling with, which this post will reflect). A point they raise in association with minimal computing is the choice (or choices) a scholar makes when creating a digital humanities project, in regard to selecting between more “maximal”, “cutting-edge” tools that require more time and resources to learn and use effectively, and more known, basic sites and tools that don’t require coding or other such forms of “digital literacy”. They believe that when making such choices, you have to be conscious of your own time and abilities in tandem with what you would like to accomplish with your project and how you would like to accomplish it. In the section of their article titled “Tense Origins”, they discuss the freedoms that more advanced online tools allow, while conceding that such tools tend to be characterized as superior to more basic tools, and how this mindset is rooted in a western-oriented, privileged mindset. Despite these realities, Risam and Gil urge us to understand that “maximal approaches to digital humanities” aren’t inherently wrong, especially when considering the fact that they often give scholars more control over how their content is presented, thus further ensuring their work is able to maintain its integrity. What we can glean from this as we move forward is what we are willing to forgo and what we deem as necessary to include in our own projects, and in doing so we will better understand what tools we must utilize, and learn to utilize, in order to bring our projects to fruition.

[Khushboobhutani]

Sidra’s insights above include a succinct account of Risam and Gil’s work that forces us to reevaluate our definition of resources in the face of technological constraints. While reading the piece, one can’t help but learn that this rationing of choices and the need to prioritize might end up underscoring the resources and knowledge practices native to the area. As Risam and Gil instantiate the above idea through various examples, I am also reminded of an Indian film, Katiyabaaz (2013) wherein faced with cruel periods of long power cuts and power theft, the protagonist derives new ways of illegal electricity connections using live wires.

The section, ‘Tense Origins’ is quite engaging as one encounters issues of ownership, access, environmental concerns, and technological literacy, ideas that are central when one is dealing with digital humanities in postcolonial nations or even regions of conflict. However, one interesting point that the text raises while it deals with various kinds of tensions is related to labor and its invisibility. Does that obscure alternate systems and practices of knowledge and access? And how does one perceive it? This is one of the questions revolving around technological development and ethical engagement that I am grappling with at present.

[amj169]

I’m trying to parse this out in a way that seeks to better understand how minimal computing in a broader methodological sense (a theoretical sense, perhaps?) within the digital humanities is different from something like anti-racist framework in the nondigital, but I keep returning to the ways in which I see that they are similar.

If we return to section 25 RE the inequities surrounding black data, the inequities surrounding knowledge production, publication, and access of course first existed before the digital cultural record, so I’m thinking of minimal computing as a method for checks and balances within the digital cultural record. “By advocating for minimal computing, therefore, we aim to create a more level playing field for the future of a digital cultural record where the voices of those who have been excluded can be heard and valued through a more equitable, collaborative approach to the labor of knowledge production that facilitates their engagement.” I’m imagining minimal computing to be sort of like a scholarly oath that would aim to uphold and work toward anti-racist practices in producing and sharing any type of work that will end up “online.”

I’d also like to talk more about the practicalities of application here. In some ways, minimal computing feels much more abolitionist than not, especially when we consider the increasing number of hurdles humanities disciplines are faced with (which are certainly not lost on Risam and Gil). It seems like the minimal computing campaign has to be just that, a campaign that would necessarily begin by addressing the broader issues in our white supremacist system that prevent all types of access. I do understand that correcting things on a systematic scale (like say, economic strife) would be a quixotic task. However, perhaps a more direct way to offer access to some of these privileged skills that would make entry more equitable, would start with institutions’ curriculum. For example, revising the foreign language requirements in programs with mandatory foreign language requisites to include programming courses in place of traditional foreign language classes would minimize the barrier to access to DH related skills. I’m also not very convinced that people will slow down and choose the medium that is “only necessary” to them. (4).

[MustafaKandil]

This week's assignments, particularly the readings, have engendered a sense of complexity within me. As a newcomer to the field of digital humanities, I have undertaken additional research to gain a better understanding of the concept of "minimal computing." In one of the sources I consulted, minimal computing is defined as follows: "Minimal computing is an emergent discourse within digital humanities that underscores the necessity for computing solutions in regions of the world characterized by limited access to internet connectivity and digital technologies." Authors Risam and Gil primarily expound upon the imperative of minimal computing, emphasizing the importance of equitable access to technology. However, in paragraph 19 of their discourse, they introduce the intriguing notion of colonial production and the convergence of new theories and practices in digital humanities, with the intent of affording a voice to historically marginalized, colonial, and smaller communities. This process, it is suggested, facilitates the production of their unique identity. In the contemporary era, the prospect of achieving true equality and collaborative efforts within the realm of minimal computing raises pertinent questions. Who shall assume the roles of data generation and documentation, and on behalf of whom shall these actions be undertaken? Is it genuinely feasible to equitably distribute and regulate power dynamics in this context? Alternatively, does the risk of speaking on behalf of others and potentially manipulating their narratives loom large? Nevertheless, I maintain a firm belief that digital humanities presents a significant opportunity to bolster and preserve distinct cultures, identities, and historical narratives. This issue, undoubtedly, embodies a nuanced and intricate discourse within the field.