Blog Post #10: Revisiting/Revisioning the Historiography of "History in the Digital Age"

I will say this has been the most challenging blog post to tackle - it is one thing to study, critique, and review digital history projects and the visual synthesis of large data sets, but it is another to put it into practice. I don't know that I have yet trained my mind to see the large themes of digital history, themes that could be interweaved into some interactive visualization to show the progress of digital history into where the practice stands today. However, I think breaking the question down into simple ideas will help!

Can we create timelines, spatial histories, or network graphs that explore the "canonization" of certain pioneering scholars/centers/projects and the influence of more recent revisionist histories?

I think, to answer the "can" we create a visualization or digital project to convey these important aspects of digital history, yes. I think what is hard about this is determining the "canonization" - sure, we have talked about some very important figures, like Ed Ayers, important projects, like the Valley of the Shadows digital archive, and centers, like the Roy Rosenzweig Center for History and New Media, but I struggle with the idea that these are completely canonized within the realm of digital history. Just as in traditional historiography, we constantly break down methods and theories in lieu of newer thought processes, and as time goes on, no one method can be truly acceptable as the method. Maybe this is where the revisionist voices come in. I also do not think I could agree with one specific person, center, or project being considered the example of digital history. As such, a digital model would need to include a multitude of different, important projects and peoples, which could become cumbersome, and would require a model that could house this information.

Where would revisionist voices come in?

In "Complicating a "Great Man" Narrative of Digital History in the United States," Sharon Leon touches on some of the apprehension I have for making a digital history project surrounded by "canonized" practices. If we did focus on the digital history of big names, like Ed Ayers, Roy Rosenzweig, Dan Cohen, and Stephen Brier, what if we are missing the important contributions of women and other minority players? Leon claims these women were very much there, in the production of digital history, but are often not included in these large surveys.(1) Would a digital history project need to include a specific section or disclaimer for this lack of inclusion in the writings and surveys of our canonized players? Leon also calls for a broader definition of digital history work, as the current one may exclude important contributions.(2) 

Jessica Johnson brings up another concerning point in the treatment of black digital practice - in aiming to computerize and synthesize from the deaths of black slaves, the commodification and calculation of black bodies becomes a natural practice for the digital humanities; some things should remain unquantifiable.(3) How would we include pertinent issues such as these within our projects?

In Exploring Big Historical Data and the same issue of computational methods being used in information overload - where contextual information can become overlooked with a focus on big data synthesis. (4)

How might we "visualize" this historiographical revisioning of the field and its history?

Given these revisionist issues of inclusivity, unquantifiable subjects, and overload of big data synthesis, perhaps a timeline of projects, peoples, and centers, moving along chronologically would be a good way to show growth and discourse, as it was happening. Maybe you could start with the Valley of the Shadows, moving forward to include new canonizations, new revisions to the method. We can see how things progressed - and we can include the challenges that arose in a way in which the historiography makes itself known. Trying to visualize these large themes is challenging, but I do think a timeline could convey thought processes and methods better than a computational method alone.

Works Cited: 

1. LEON, SHARON M. “Complicating a ‘Great Man’ Narrative of Digital History in the United States.” In Bodies of Information: Intersectional Feminism and the Digital Humanities, edited by Elizabeth Losh and Jacqueline Wernimont, 344–66. University of Minnesota Press, 2018. https://doi.org/10.5749/j.ctv9hj9r9.22.

2. LEON, SHARON M. “Complicating a ‘Great Man’ Narrative of Digital History in the United States.” In Bodies of Information: Intersectional Feminism and the Digital Humanities, edited by Elizabeth Losh and Jacqueline Wernimont, 344–66. University of Minnesota Press, 2018. https://doi.org/10.5749/j.ctv9hj9r9.22.

3. Johnson, Jessica Marie. “Markup Bodies: Black [Life] Studies and Slavery [Death] Studies at the Digital Crossroads.” Social text 36, no. 4 (2018): 57–79.

4. Graham, Shawn, Ian Milligan, Scott B. Weingart, and Kim Martin. Exploring big historical data: the historian’s macroscope. 2016.