[This is the first post in a series on the benefits and advantages of digital writing and distribution over traditional scholarly inquiry. In you have thoughts, suggestions, questions, or contentions, please feel free to make them known in the comments.]
I began this project initially as a piece of formal academic writing. I realized, of course, the inherent irony in preparing a piece of academic writing dedicated to the weaknesses of traditional academic writing, but I felt at that time that my work wouldn't be taken seriously if it were presented as a blog. As I began writing, though, I realized that if I held to that same form that I sought to reform, I would be limiting my ability to adequately express my ideas in a way that would be meaningful and powerful. In the introduction to Yevgeny Zamyatin's We, Peter Rudy explains Zamyatin's belief that form and content must complement one another, "that only a heretical form could adequately dramatize heretical ideas" (x). Perhaps saying that scholars need to look at digital writing as the salvation of the humanities isn't as heretical as some of the claims being made in contemporary scholarship, but nonetheless, if the humanities are to remain relevant within a modern context, they must learn to thrive within the mediums of our day. And if the humanities are to survive the transition to this brave new world of the digital age, there must be a bridge built between formal and digital writing. Academia must broaden its scope and prove its grand potential.
But how can digital writing justify the usefulness of the humanities to a post-industrial, capitalist system? Academic writing within the humanities suffers from a number of self-perpetuating maladies. Insularity, fixation in textuality, and rigidity of copyright law all weaken the influence of the humanities and distance them from their central purpose of exploring 'what it means to be human.' The humanities answer, as they always have, some of the most important questions of human existence: the nature of man, of deity, and of beauty. The problem is that antiquated educational and academic paradigms have followed after a Shillerian model of isolation and have thus distanced the humanities from their very lifeblood: humanity. Hyper-specificity of subject matter and restrictive modes of knowledge distribution have made academic writing largely inaccessible to the general public, and as a result, the humanities as a whole have lost their sense of relevance within modern society. Aside from that, although recent years have witnessed phenomenal improvements in media arts and thereby in the capacity to convey ideas, the formal academic body has largely rejected or neglected novel forms of 'writing' in an attempt to preserve, if only momentarily, the already decaying academic information hierarchy. If, as Robert Garland asserts, one of the primary tasks of humanities writing consists in “furthering the cause and visibility of the humanities in society as a whole,” then humanities writing is ultimately failing in one of its foundational ends by limiting its relevance, accessibility, and form (306).
Digital writing and distribution, on the other hand, have the potential to address each of the weaknesses of traditional academic writing and thus serve not only in justifying the usefulness of the humanities but also in providing a way for the humanities to powerfully impact society as a whole. Digital writing's inherent social aspect and ease of reproduction and distribution give it distinct advantages over traditional writing in the modern setting and ultimately connect writing back to its central purpose of communicating meaningful ideas to the public.
Introduction
 |
Image Credit: Sporti
Creative Commons License: Attribution 2.0 Generic
|
But how can digital writing justify the usefulness of the humanities to a post-industrial, capitalist system? Academic writing within the humanities suffers from a number of self-perpetuating maladies. Insularity, fixation in textuality, and rigidity of copyright law all weaken the influence of the humanities and distance them from their central purpose of exploring 'what it means to be human.' The humanities answer, as they always have, some of the most important questions of human existence: the nature of man, of deity, and of beauty. The problem is that antiquated educational and academic paradigms have followed after a Shillerian model of isolation and have thus distanced the humanities from their very lifeblood: humanity. Hyper-specificity of subject matter and restrictive modes of knowledge distribution have made academic writing largely inaccessible to the general public, and as a result, the humanities as a whole have lost their sense of relevance within modern society. Aside from that, although recent years have witnessed phenomenal improvements in media arts and thereby in the capacity to convey ideas, the formal academic body has largely rejected or neglected novel forms of 'writing' in an attempt to preserve, if only momentarily, the already decaying academic information hierarchy. If, as Robert Garland asserts, one of the primary tasks of humanities writing consists in “furthering the cause and visibility of the humanities in society as a whole,” then humanities writing is ultimately failing in one of its foundational ends by limiting its relevance, accessibility, and form (306).
Digital writing and distribution, on the other hand, have the potential to address each of the weaknesses of traditional academic writing and thus serve not only in justifying the usefulness of the humanities but also in providing a way for the humanities to powerfully impact society as a whole. Digital writing's inherent social aspect and ease of reproduction and distribution give it distinct advantages over traditional writing in the modern setting and ultimately connect writing back to its central purpose of communicating meaningful ideas to the public.
No comments:
Post a Comment