Kate Crane
Knievel, Michael. “What is Humanistic about Computers and Writing? Historical Patterns and Contemporary Possibilities for the Field.” Computers and Composition. 26.2 (2009): 92-106. Science Direct. Web. 5 Sept. 2010.
Knievel traces the history of how scholars in computers and writing have argued for the field to be recognized as humanistic and a necessary component of the Humanities and specifically to English. He suggests that this debate goes back to post-World War II distinctions between the humanities and the sciences (which were better funded). This created a dichotomy where the two areas of scholarship were distinctly different and humanities thought of this distinction as “self-preservation” (94). As new technologies began permeating English studies, they were looked at by non-computers and writing scholars as a threat to the study of humanity (languages, art, literature, culture, etc.); specifically, the fear of stifling creativity, critical thinking, and active learning was the concern of traditional humanities scholars. Knievel explains that computers and writing had to begin forming an understanding of the field by closely aligning the use and study of technology in relation to writing and rhetoric with the values of the English humanities. However, since the turn of the century, computers and writing has begun to assert that the teaching and studying of multiliteracies is indeed a core component to humanities due to the nature of the social engagement and knowledge creating/sharing in online environments. Thus, not only is computers and writing advancing in the humanities for these studies, but English studies needs to begin looking at the field through this lens if they want to remain sustainable in higher education.
Knievel’s argument provides an excellent history of the definition of computers in writing in the sphere of humanities and the various forms in which computers and writing scholars have protected the humanistic nature of the field. In many ways, Knievel shows how important incorporating the humanistic approach is in the defining of the field.
It is kind of ironic that when personal computers began to become mainstream, one of the major concerns was that they would isolate people and rob us of our humanity. Yet, as computer technology has advanced, computers have actually promoted our humanity and inclusiveness by allowing so many opportunities to connect with one another. By implementing technology, the humanities sphere of influence is actually increased, as it is in the sciences. Perhaps we are learning that the humanities and the sciences can benefit from being integrated rather than segregated.
ReplyDeleteMy article by Carolyn Miller makes a similar argument for tech comm being part of the humanities. Tech comm is rooted in science, which is rooted in scientific communities, which have their own rhetoric and symbols for interpreting things, and therefore tech comm is part of the humanities.
ReplyDeleteConceivably, almost everything could be argued as part of the humanities using this line of logic. Since all human knowledge is generated by humans, then every field of study could be considered a humanity. Does this make the argument invalid, or is that simply a reality that all scholars must accept? What kinds of implications does this have for modern academics? Or am I making the term "humanities" too broad?
This isn't even a new idea, really. It's strongly postmodern. There is no objective human truth, etc, etc.