For the mapping assignment, I created a map that displays some of the oldest sidewalk sheds (scaffolds) in the center of New York City. I have always been very interested in how scaffolds make the urban landscape very “ugly,” although they are already a prominent part of the city. Sidewalk sheds are not really an issue for temporary visitors and passers-by, but for tenants who live in apartments with scaffolds covering the exterior of their building, the story is different. The sheds lower their quality of life by blocking the light and fresh air, collecting garbage, rats, drug users, and drunks, and hurting local businesses. Unfortunately, some owners have the sheds up far longer than necessary (claiming high building repair costs), which led tenants to express their frustrations and anger over scaffolds.

From a bigger-picture perspective, NYC’s sidewalk shed problem raises some interesting questions. First of all, to what extent do we consider some space “public space”? Also, if it is a “public“ space, do other members of the community bear some responsibility of keeping safe and clean? The scaffolds are negatively affecting some people’s lives, but the ambiguous line between what is public and what is private raises the question of who should be advocating for their concerns and needs. Secondly, stemming from the previous question, this pushes us to consider the issue in terns of spatial justice and ask how, and to what extent, our awareness and recognition of the problem can help make our “public” space more equitable. Public space should make every member of the community feel welcome and acknowledged in it. The fact that only certain parts of the city suffer from this problem may be an indication of some deeper issue of discrimination against certain class.

The mapping experience was very interesting. I was surprised that virtually any topic can be mapped by incorporating digital tools. I truly had a wonderful learning experience in which I could directly apply my digital humanities knowledge (although little) to my own research interests. The digital humanities tools are powerful in this sense, in its ability to move traditional learning beyond the old, boring classroom. By mapping sidewalk sheds in NYC, I am confident that I was able to capture and generate some meaningful phenomenon that is worth circulating in the world.

Link to Map: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/69da40f1a37246aebe22459f15c2256f

Guiliano and Heitman’s piece that describes the complexities of indigenous data was very enlightening in terms of the way we treat the nature of knowledge and truth (epistemology). The authors basically appeals to the fact that the knowledge or data available to us are not value-neutral. Data are always subject to a particular system of knowledge production. In societies where the remnants of colonialism and imperialism still linger, the knowledge is colonial-centric. Therefore, it is important to recognize the cultures and histories of the indigenous (or other marginalized members) and make efforts to preserve and reclaim their cultures. The events experienced by the colonized and the colonizers can be very different. In other words, we should try to “see with their own eyes” such traumatizing history.

As evident from the example of comfort women and how the scholarly communities in Asia struggled to overcome lack of evidence to support their claim, which I raised in the last class, there is a need to recognize the possibility of missing, overlooked, destroyed, or hidden data we may never even have access to. I believe that the seemingly “nonexistent” knowledge still “exists” somewhere, because the set of knowledge that is available today could possibly be built upon the colonizer’s epistemologies. In this context, a broad societal awareness or strong initiative to help the traumatized define THEIR versions of the reality is vital.

The digital humanities can help visualize the reality of such data limitation. Just like how literary studies can benefit from using digital tools to visualize the presence of different revisions and editions of old texts, scholars who deal with indigenous data can greatly benefit from utilizing digital tools. For example, it helps talk about the realities of the oppressed in easy and accessible language and medium, which was not possible before. The complexities of data related to colonization history can be greatly overcome by visualizing the reality of the tradition of knowledge production and representation.

I attended a GC workshop titled Tools for the Digital Humanities on the 17^th of September, 2021. At the end of the workshop session, I was able to: 1) identify what types of project, research, and work  are included in the digital humanities; and 2) explore a wide range of tools and methods for research development. It also introduced me to Graduate Center Digital Initiatives, which does not only host workshops related to digital scholarship, but also hold consultations and working groups based around common tools or data sources and online resources.

The workshop was truly helpful in several ways. First, it gave me some idea about which topics to choose for my praxis assignment and final project for our course. There are so many useful things that one can do using digital methods or research, some of which are: producing data, processing data, utilizing existing digital platforms, creating community, collecting and displaying digital materials, and lastly, communicating my research in a digital environment. Personally, I believe that the last point is the most important of all. The power of this field of study is to bring modern chronological advances to benefit the study of humanities, which would then be used to better communicate the findings with other members of the community.

Another positive effect of digital humanities project is that in the collaborative research environment, we can incorporate digital tools into interdisciplinary research projects where we can maximize the efficiency and create a more meaningful learning experience. Furthermore, we are now able to make some interdisciplinary connections with other fields of study (even outside humanities) that were very difficult before the digital humanities as a field was created. Working in such a fashion with others lets us broaden our understanding of Humanities in general, since it pushes us to ask new exciting questions about old set of knowledge. Again, all of this is made possible with the aid of the new tools and technologies.

Defining the digital humanities is not easy. However, any attempt at defining something always begins with conceptualization, and the conceptualization process is all about making sense of related observations, feelings, or ideas around a concept. However, when a concept is something abstract, unfamiliar, or relatively new, there is no coherent set of such information. Therefore, the conceptual difficulty around the term digital humanities is understandable. In order for us to specify what we mean by the term, it may be helpful to dissect the concept and distinguish its sub-concepts or dimensions. It is not my intention to provide an exhaustive list of several different dimensions of the digital humanities and define the digital humanities in precise language, however, identifying important themes that are reflected in various site/projects that employ digital humanities methodologies can help us maximize our understanding of what digital humanities means.

One such theme that I was able to observe is social transformation. It seems very clear that the digital humanities values deconstruction and reconstruction of traditional practices and knowledge (that has wrongly been written), which are necessary to address concerns about distortions of certain people’s life experiences, negative labeling, undervaluing, and marginalization. A good example is the Early Caribbean Digital Archive (ECDA), which is a digitation or cataloging initiative created in order to revise, reassemble, and remix existing materials as well as to archive new materials. The purpose of this initiative is to “decolonize” the documentary materials about the colonial Caribbean, by retelling the stories of the past and promoting empowerment, inclusivity, and respect for the colonized. The use of the new form of knowledge now has the potential to transform the experience of the users, which can lead to changes in social forces that start to affect the whole society. More importantly, it can affect those who are studied- the former colonized or the historically oppressed. By recovering their own history, language, culture, and identity, their sense of self-determination grows. This, I think, is a key aspect of the digital humanities.

The fact that the existing archives of the early Caribbean are rooted in the dominant Euro-Western paradigm is alarming, since it has implications for the way we have been addressing the questions on reality, knowledge, and values of our society in general. Michael Foucault (1977) observed that:

What we know and how we know are grounded in shifting and diverse historical human practices, politics, and power. There are in the production of knowledge multiple centers of power in constant struggle; through conflict, compromise, and negotiation… whichever group is strongest establishes its own rules on what can be known and how it can be known. A non-power related truth game is not possible, thus humanity installs each of its violences in a system of rules and thus proceeds from domination to domination. (p. 151)

Thus, it is important for us to constantly challenge the system of knowledge and values that we have. The digital humanities, with the aid of the digital tools, makes this possible.

Another theme observed throughout the projects is collaboration of scholars in a large-scale “project” that helps to advance humanities advocacy. For example, the Colored Conventions Project (CCP) introduces itself as a scholarly and community project that uses “innovative, inclusive models and partnerships” in order to fulfill its purpose of archiving the documentary record related to the nineteenth-centry Black organizing. In addition, it further emphasizes the role of collaboration in their project: “The CCP brings together interdisciplinary scholars and students, librarians and independent researchers, national teaching partners, and media specialists, academic institutions, and members of the public.” Similarly, the ECDA also envisions an interdisiplinary project that “brings together scholars of literature, history, library science, network science, digital humanities, and public humanities.”

Reflecting on these two themes of digital humanities, it seems that the critiques of the digital humanities outlined by Gold (2012) – “a lack of attention to issues of race, class, gender, and sexuality”- seems to be something of a past. As the readings equivocally suggest, the digital humanities is definitely a field of study with a broad scale, which is methodological by nature and interdisciplinary in scope. However, the two themes discussed above should be emphasized and praised more, so we can come to define in our on terms what really is the digital humanities.

Reference: Foucault, M. (1975). Discipline and punish. A. Sheridan, Tr., Paris, FR, Gallimard.