Manifesto?

Looking over Manifesto 2.0 again, I'm struck especially by the notion that Digital Humanities "is not a unified field but an array of convergent practices." That is, it's a action or a method, rather than a body of knowledge.

To my mind, a practice is a way of doing something, not a something. This falls in line with the authors' notion that curation need take the forefront in their nonfield of methods. It makes perfect sense that the leaders of a method would be those who develop ways of performing those methods. I agree that the curator has a big responsibility--if I think about museum displays for instance, who but the curator is in charge of what I see? It almost seems like a form of censorship: I can only see what they choose to show me, and whatever narrative I come up with after viewing an exhibit is based on the pieces they've laid out for me. It's like the difference between completing a jigsaw puzzle and creating a painting. One is an exercise, and one is an act of utmost creativity. That's an extreme example, to be sure, but I think the sentiment is right.

I've digressed a little bit from my intended point, but I think it's ok for blogs to ramble a little.

What I wanted to get at is their notion of the Digital Humanities becoming a "virtual department" and their notion of redefining the Humanities topography. I think I'm particulalry struck by this section because of a disconnect that I think happens between where they started and where they end up (but maybe they weren't sure where they were going at all, since the Manifesto itself is a work in progress only at version 2.0). If Digital Humanities is a method, then how does it become a thing to be reorganized? If Digital Humanities is a way of doing Humanities, then how does it become a department?

Maybe I'm being closed-minded. But it seems to follow more that Digital Humanities would overlay onto the current system. I'm not advocating for complete segregation of disciplines. There's a fair amount of cross-polinization that goes on already just through normal print media, and I also think that there are many many tools in New Media that would enable and even encourage further overlap between disciplines.

Something else I was thinking as I was reading this, is that it's a long way off (which I think the authors probably recognize). This isn't the kind of thing that's going to happen with an overnight revolution. I think the major limiting factor here is technology. Print isn't going to die until there's something as cheap and user-friendly as paper and ink that can be distributed to the masses. It's all well and good to say that something like Digital Humanities would open the University up to everyone, but it's something else entirely to buy everyone a Kindle.

Next: Blackboard vs. iLearn