Dear all,
apologies if I'll offer my 2 euro-cents reflections on a previous exciting thread in a disorderly and lengthy fashion. Please skip at your ease.
1) Speaking of norms, normatives and our everyday struggle to make sense of the English language, when I read Craig's post I was not sure I understood 100% of what he was saying. However, I was almost sure (it happens everyday) that I was missing some linguistic and cultural nuances. Barbara's comment confirmed this impression. So now I'm sitting here in front of my computer, writing in language that I've been studying, reading and writing for twenty years, and I feel a bit stupid. I got my PhD from the University of Edinburgh back in 2000, but this will never save me from an ethernal sense of inadequacy. Do you know how many times I've looked up http://www.wordreference.com or equivalent websites for composing this email, or deciphering native speakers' messages?
I would like to suggest to all native speakers of this list, before sending messages, to consider carefully what language they use, and ask themeselves (or at least try): "will my [mostly] foreigner colleagues understand me?"
But of course I am not suggesting to exchange our frustration with your self-censorship... :-) Let's think about these not in terms of *limits* but of *constraints*. Just like a poet writing in verses who must respect a specific metric or prosodic pattern. Our effort to understand and communicate in English can be balanced by your excercise to improve clarity.
2) Dan noticed that in my Koln article one table showed a "Canadian", rather then Anglo-American dominance (at least in terms of people). But have a look also at the Figure 1 ("DH Organizations: Presence of Individuals by Country of Institutional Affiliation"): the histogram shows in a plastic way (look at those peaks) the overwhelming dominion of the first three countries - USA, Canada and UK. Those data were collected more than one year ago, and no one would be happier than me if the situation has changed. Anyway, let me say that I keep being frustrated at seeing that many colleagues concentrated their attention to that part of the article - the infamous tables - but tended to ignore the rest of it. Those reactions showed that what really hurts is the risk to be represented as colonialists. I can appreciate that, but how about the problem of standards? How about the discussion of knowledge commons? At the end of the text, I proposed to apply design principles for common-pool resource institutions to the DH organizations. Is our community mature enough to discuss these issues?
3) Barbara must have read my mind when she wrote:
I don't think that anyone is suggesting that there is a specific agenda to exclude non-English from DH, but I am also old enough to see that it wouldn't be necessary.
:-))
Yes, it is not - and in my opinion it will never be - necessary as long as ADHO will reflect organizations based in the Northern emisphere that: 1) include or impose discourses rather than share them (or give them up!); 2) assume that something called DH globally exists; 2) push or sell their own teaching programmes, summer schools, etc. as well as their "open" methodologies, standards and applications (i.e. TEI, which was designed in the 80s for the purpose of producing textual resources for the same people and textual cultures who invented it); 3) recognize the English rhetoric as their privileged discoursive tool.
I am sorry if this sounds a bit harsh -- but that's what more or less I think, although I'd be happy to change idea after twenty years of DH conferences, research and teaching around the globe. I am also convinced, as I said many times also in public, that 99% of my Anglo-American colleagues are respectful of all cultures and languages, and sincere in their effort to change the current mono-cultural situation. Their evident intellectual generosity is out of discussion. Our GO::DH SIG is certainly one first important step, although it still sounds - uncounsciously? - as an "octroyée" instrument. Our situation reminds me of Gregory Bateson's ironical paradox: "we want to change things, but using the same things we find in the world that we want to change".
4) Ernesto Priego pointed out the interesting problem of the local DH divides. It seems to me that "divides" are like club sandwiches, with layers of decreasing (or increasing, depending on which part of the sandwich you are) prestige. In fact, I always argued that using or not using English is a false problem. You can publish as much as you want in the lingua franca, but it is exceptional to be considered relevant by your "core" scholarly community. I've studied the phenomenon myself as for discussions and articles on the TEI-XML overlapping hierachies, and in general for the problem of the digital representation of texts. One of the most respected scholar in this field is Dino Buzzetti. But when has he reached "authority"? He has been publishing both in English and Italian for thirty years, however quotations of his work among peers boosted when he published his "famous" article in the "New Literary History" in 2002. This happened when Dino got on his theoretical side an American scholar of the caliber of Jerome McGann. Because it's not enough to have good ideas, work in the Northern emisphere and write them in English: you need good sponsors and authoritative venues.
5) Three years ago an American publisher asked us to translate our book "L'umanista digitale" in English. Our volume was recently reprinted and I think was a little best-seller in the field (it sold more than 2500 copies in Italy). We were very excited about the translation, and invested a lot of energies and money in the project. The publisher asked a sample chapter, letters of support from international experts, table of contents, detailed project, etc. We sent them everything and contracted a professional translator. Result: after six months from delivering, the book was rejected, and one of the main reasons was that "the tranlsation was not idiomatic". We were surprised. In fact, what is an "idiomatic translation"? Is it possible to translate "idiomatically" from one culture to another culture? I know that there are very few translations of non-English DH books out there, but what the American publisher was expecting? Probably an American book.
6) Can we change all this? And how? I insist: we have to imagine completely new intellectual tools. This include the structures of our current academic organizations: teaching, researching, publishing... Everything. But we will not be able to change if first we don't change are our attitudes, mentality, expectations, and HABITS.
7) Let me conclude this long email with a personal note. What does it mean to be multicultural? I am afraid I don't know the answer -- like may of us I guess. I can simply tell you my experience. I've been working since 2008 with an NGO that thirteen years ago created a school in a small village of Southern India. I've learned many things from this people -- both European and Indian --, but perhpas the most important one was "imparare a disimparare", or "to learn how to forget your learning" (Viola Padovani, founder of the group). They started (or at least try) to forget what they knew when they had to deal with internal ethnic, gender and religious conflicts within the village, where Muslim, Hindu and Christian communities did *not* cohabit in harmony. At first, they tried to mediate between them with "traditional" rhetorical strategies. But they soon realize that the roots of these conflicts were rooted deeply in the social and cultural fabric, and their/our concept of "negotiation" was not seen as an option. So, guees what? They avoided traditional discourses (I mean literally, "to speak"), and started... to dance! Yes, they invited all people to gatherings where music and dance were the only shared language (in all senses), and... suddendly a little miracle happened. First children, and then adults used this "language" to communicate between them. It was not enough for a stable peace, but they all started to accept the existence of the "difference".
This is just an example, limited to a specific context. And no, I am not suggesting to introduce Indian dancing in DH gatherings ;-). However, we should be aware that effective cultural exchange processes can take years and years, and in fact never ends. Will we be patient enough?
There are no ideal places and neutral cultures, but it is not possible to "feel" another culture without opening your arms -- and, to a certain extent, surrender to it. Western analytical understanding (call it "reason"(?), or whatever you like) will prove, in many critical situations, useless or counterproductive. You can't really "understand" another culture. You can just experience it.
Saluti cari a tutt*
Domenico
2013/4/30 O'Donnell, Dan daniel.odonnell@uleth.ca:
Very good points Barbara!
In terms of Anglo - Americans needing to be self-aware of assumptions that their way is normative, I think you are spot on. This is true of everybody to a certain extent, of course, but I think it is especially true in terms of use of English and especially assumptions about what is normal academic discourse. At the ADHO executive there recently was a discussion about multi lingual issues and somebody made the interesting observation that it might be the Anglophones that reed the most instruction in the use of English in the sense that they don't always realize the extent to which Native Speaker English and International English are not the same thing. That struck a chord with me as I am a serial offender.
I also agree on the centrality of exchange to this project. The. most important lesson taught to me at our meeting in Cuba is how important it is to believe in and value the opportunities for reciprocal learning: GO::DH will only work if it lives up to the claim that it is not an aid programme but a space for bridging gaps and especially discovering new learning and teaching and collaborations.
Daniel Paul 0'Donnell Department of English University of Lethbridge Lethbridge AB T1J 2X5 CANADA
+1 403 393 2539 daniel.odonnell@uleth.ca @DanielPaulOD http://people.uleth.ca/~daniel.odonnell/ http://dpod.kakelbont.ca/
Sent from Samsung tablet Tags:
-------- Original message -------- From: "Bordalejo, Barbara" bab995@mail.usask.ca Date: 04-30-2013 13:42 (GMT-07:00) To: "O'Donnell, Dan" daniel.odonnell@uleth.ca,"globaloutlookdh-l, MailList" globaloutlookdh-l@uleth.ca Subject: Re: [globaloutlookDH-l] A revolution yet to happen
Craig Bellamy's post impacted me in ways that I had not envisioned and I thought I should reply to that and to some observations by Dan and Ernesto Priego.
After thinking about it for a while, I have concluded that it is important to be aware of our deep cultural differences when we post to this list. If we do not take them into account, we run the risk of alienating other people and might even push them away.
Dan is right about stereotypes of "Anglo-American" domination, but it is up to Anglo-Americans not to behave (or write) in ways that might be construed as imperialistic. This does not mean that we cannot communicate in English or that we should give up the idea of working together. Instead, it means that we have to find the best possible ways to cooperate with each other. Provided, of course, this is our intent.
I am glad that Ernesto brought up the "'big two' London units," because I think he is correct that for many people these embody the "real DH," while many other scholars are just ignored even though they might be working on great projects just around the corner. This shows that even within environments dominated by white English-speaking (should I say it?) males there is a hierarchy. Often, centres with a long history and a good reputation attract a high percentage of funding, causing others to be excluded.
I don't think that anyone is suggesting that there is a specific agenda to exclude non-English from DH, but I am also old enough to see that it wouldn't be necessary. In countries devastated by poverty or with profound social problems, there is very little place to support DH. Anyone that protests against positive discrimination doesn't understand this: the inequalities in the world are so marked that we need to bridge the gap to integrate people from less privileged backgrounds. If you think that you are not privileged just because you are white, born in a rich country or a male; then take a hard look at yourself and think how different your life would have been if those circumstances had been others.
All that said, those of us who have a different background have something else in common... At least part of our education has occurred in English (in the UK or the US or Canada) and we want to jump to defend these systems. However, when we create those avenues for collaboration Isabel, Ernesto and Alex have talked about, I don't want them to be another form of hegemony. They cannot be some kind of charitably enterprise given like the rusty coin one throws to the homeless at the subway station. I want collaboration to occur because we truly need each other and can benefit in a symbiotic way, no because to have a "pet third world person" would get you a grant.
Craig Bellamy´s idea that:
The DH is about technology and if there are barriers to applying technology in all sorts of social or cultural contents then there are some really nice people who could be asked for assistance.
misses the point of GO::DH. Our objective is not that the "little people" come nicely to ask for assistance. Instead, we want to empower scholars in different environments to work together in an environment of equality and respect. When we achieve this, then we will have done an important part of our work.
Best,
BB
On 30 Apr 2013, at 08:01, Daniel O'Donnell wrote:
And I think also it is worth noting that globaloutlookdh was founded precisely to address this problem: which I think personally involves network, terminological, and cultural issues, as well as linguistic. Here are two of my statements of the background that led to forming the group: http://dpod.kakelbont.ca/2012/11/02/in-a-rich-mans-world-global-dh/ and the proposal to ADHO: http://ubuntuone.com/187LiVZpJKwFNaRV0lZJeD
At the same time, as Ernesto points out, you need to be careful about stereotypes in discussing the "Anglo-American" domination. As I recently pointed out in a blog posting, for example, Domenico's article in the Koln dialogues actually points to a Canadian, rather than Anglo-American, hegemony of the institutions he discusses. http://dpod.kakelbont.ca/2013/03/07/the-true-north-strong-and-hegemonic-or-w...
This is important because it suggests that academic cultures are really micro-environments and that you need to be very open to what makes things tick in each environment. I hope myself that this will be the way this happens.
The one great advantage we have, as people who are interested in the use of computers in the Arts, Humanities, and Cultural Heritage sectors, is that this interest can act as a paradisciplinary bridge: that is to say, that our interest in the common problem of how computing can be used in these environments seems to me to give us a great opportunity to find common purpose in a way that is often surprisingly difficult in the traditional humanities, where our networks are further broken down by the cultural, linguistic, and chronological specificity of our disciplines.
Because my background is in the study of Anglo-Saxon England, I come at this connection very much through the paradisciplinary aspects of things. One of the other things I've been really inspired by is the extent to which already we are teaching each other in (what I think is) an exchange of ideas and experiences that is breaking down previous disconnects.
Does this match other's experiences?
-dan
On 13-04-30 01:34 AM, Ernesto Priego wrote:
Hello everyone,
This is a debate I myself am very interested in. I have tried to do things about it, for example by doing bilingual interviews (http://4humanities.org/?s=redhd&x=0&y=0), or by participating remotely and IRL in events back in Mexico (http://disidenciacognitiva.wordpress.com/).
The effort it takes to individually do something bilingually, for example, is, literally, a double effort. Sometimes to little reward. At least immediate reward. I keep hopeful it will be useful somehow for someone in the future at least.
I'd like to say as well that a concentration of power or notoriety does not only happen between English-speaking academic cultures and the rest. It happens here in London (UK) too, for example. If you are outside the 'big two' London unis, it's like you don't exist. Plenty of people doing interesting stuff around/about/ digital technologies in the humanities and social sciences, but because our workplaces are not officially labeled as DH then it's harder to intervene, coexist or even get recognised by 'the centres'. This does not happen at the individual, social, human level though, it's more of a cultural phenomenon that often transcends individual wills or agencies.
I agree with Isabel there is a need to develop channels for communication. I'd also say we need to develop a culture of communication and collaboration. And more importantly, a *global* culture of communication and collaboration: that is, one that has an awareness of difference and that is willing to do things and think outside the box. This means doing stuff beyond the job description, and often in other languages than our own.
As a member of ACH and ADHO committees I can say that from English-speaking countries/institutions there is A LOT of interest in integrating/recognising/encouraging/acknowledging/getting to know/collaborating with non-English speaking scholars and their institutions. There is no anti non-English DH agenda at all, but a lot of good will and eagerness to widen access and participation.
As Alex has suggested, I also believe that those of us who also do or want to do DH-related research/practice in other languages than English need to reach out. Reach out to each other regardless of country or mother tongue. In my humble opinion there is both the need to develop 'literatures' in our mother tongues --as Alex also suggested-- but we also need to stop seeing the English language as the de facto enemy, "the language of conquest, the influx/of the language of hard nouns,/the language of metal," (Atwood).
In the same way that it is expensive, complicated and mostly impractical to host fully multilingual international conferences (maybe only the European Parliament and the United Nations have the infrastructure to make this viable) I honestly don't see a time in which it is not necessary to engage in scholarly communications in English at some point or another. Expecting DH to become completely multilingual (for example in a conference in Nebraska) seems very unlikely. If they don't come to us, we might need to go to them. If they ignore us, we need to make ourselves unavoidable, unmissable, ubiquituous.
Just my two cents...
All the best
Ernesto
globaloutlookdh-l mailing list globaloutlookdh-l@uleth.ca http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/globaloutlookdh-l
You are currently subscribed to this list in NON-digest mode. This means you receive every message as it is posted.
If this represents too much traffic, you can also subscribe in DIGEST mode. This sends out a single email once a day containing the entire day's postings. To change your settings go to http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/options/globaloutlookdh-l You can request a password reminder from this page if you have forgotten yours.