1) There seems to be a recent interest in studying ‘Material Culture’: As opposed to what? Are there non-material cultures? Can one point me to a culture una(e)ffected by materials and/or materialities?
2) Spatial Humanities: How would one define and limit this field? Are there humanities that are not somehow fundamentally - or at least fundamentally touched - by the spatial?
3) Global Humanities: How would one (or, say, a university department...) define this one? When one tacks the adjective global onto the field humanities, how does this alter the discipline? Does this simple alteration encourage that we (as mostly Western-educated scholars) simply alter our previously non adjectivally-enhanced humanities by tacking a 'global' object onto our Western-oriented studies? Can we (as Western-educated scholars) ever actually call ourselves global humanities scholars if we do not actively interrogate non-Western, global metaphysics and non-Western ways of seeing/being as we study those global, non-Western materials and practices? Can we be global humanities scholars if we live only within the provincial Western paradigm? Or, to make an alternate argument, in our contemporary globally-connected world, is the 'global' adjective nearing obsolescence?
4) Digital Humanities: Again, who owns this term? And, really, how many different ways can we actually find to define this ambiguous (meaningless?) term?
Words just seem to be meaning less lately...
5) Same problem with ‘Visualization’: FlowingData.com lists the various terms we use to represent this idea: http://flowingdata.com/2011/09/29/the-many-words-for-visualization/
6) Following the recent excitement about 'material culture' is the growth of 'Object-Based research': And what were we doing before? Haven't we always studied - at some level - some sort of object? Nota bene for those who think these questions about 'material culture' and 'object-based' approaches are 'new': Weren't Heraclitus and Parmenides debating this long before even Socrates arrived?
...
And finally, why are the Humanities and the Sciences each individually and simultaneously fighting the same digital-age battle regarding digital scholarship, collaboration, digital publication? Why are we not coming together to figure this one out? http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/on_science_transfer/P3/
Update: On non-Western philosophy. Part 1 here: http://www.jehsmith.com/1/2009/12/what-is-non.html and Part 2 here: http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2011/11/non-western-philosophy-part-3.html#more
asg
Posts
"Words just seem to be meaningless lately"--
ReplyDeleteI can agree with that expression... So I'll take a juvenile stab at the question. I think it is less a question of materiality itself but of the changing form subject/object relations. There is this fundamental problem with knowledge or knowing or being seemingly instantly aware of a thousand things we cannot physically contextualize. I mean a friend sends me a text from Philly or from Hong Kong, similarly, a photographed suggestion.
It's strange but I've always thought the ethos of, vaguely stated, 'what is possible' is important to the decisions and lifestyles of a person, granted they are in some degree rational or within 'reason'. This is the palette of your imagination, your striving. Just how does one contextualize that in a modern world or for 'the more you know' generation ?
I think we'd both agree or at least like to believe the Internet is not just the extension of the letter or the telephone on hold. Yet even on more immediately divergent fronts, old ideas hold watch against new, it is, even if unfortunately, a bit like waiting to see what the delta actually teases out.
As to 'global', honesty a trash term of the moment... but yeah, as you say, weren't we aware before ? Religion is I think an interesting example, think of everything better or worse done in it's name-- I've already said I'm not, but for the moment that's passed what I find really amazing is that humanity is so capable. Might we find such another renaissance in alternate form ? Is it so impossible ? Faster, but better ?
As to science and humanities, you should check out this video of David Eagleman's, why brain scientists are best, and why we need more scientist poets: http://youtu.be/0VQ1KI_Jh1Q
I mean Kuhn, in the classic example, did make I feel a very valid point, but I don't think it's all relative either, but by degrees and means. Personally, the two subjects I feel are rather similar.