Chapter 8

2023级2304班

I. Chapter Depth Interpretation
     The chapter on "Global and Other Divides" begins by tracing the historical "republic of letters," a network built on a common language (Latin) and physical travel. It rightly frames the digital as a modern extension of this impulse for connection. However, it swiftly pivots to the "digital divide," not just as a matter of hardware and bandwidth, but as a profound epistemological and post-colonial challenge. The text poses a crucial, uncomfortable question: In a world where the "pressing needs for economic and social development" dominate, are the Western humanities, even in digital form, "both an extravagance and an insult"? This forces a self-reflection that moves beyond mere access to question the very content and hegemony of the humanistic tradition being globalized. The chapter suggests that the digital can be a tool for both neocolonialism and for a new, porous cultural exchange, as evidenced by MOOCs and satellite campuses, though the outcomes of these experiments remain "mixed."
     This global perspective is complemented by the chapter on "Digital Humanities Theory," which scrutinizes the field's intellectual vanguard. It identifies a dominant theoretical strain—exemplified by Moretti, Ramsay, and Manovich—that it labels "humanities computing." This approach is characterized by its focus on computational methods (distant reading, algorithmic criticism, cultural analytics), its preference for data over close reading, and its roots almost exclusively in literary studies. The chapter offers a sharp critique: this theoretical framework often privileges "the power and promise of the machine" over "traditional humanist concerns," potentially reducing humanistic inquiry to a technical process best left to computers. This creates a new, theoretical stratification between the "well-theorized" computing advocates and the thousands of other humanists. It ends by questioning whether this "humanities computing" future is inevitable, or if a broader, more inclusive debate about the humanities' role, as advocated by Cathy Davidson, is still possible.
II. Cross-Textual Connections
· The Theory-Practice-Stratification Nexus: The rarefied world of "Digital Humanities Theory" (focused on algorithms and big data) directly contributes to the Stratification discussed earlier. It creates a new elite of "prophets and priestesses" who possess specialized technical and theoretical knowledge, distancing them from both traditional humanists and the digital practitioners focused on the hands-on work of building archives and editions. This theoretical turn can exacerbate the class divide between the tenured theorist and the project technologist.
· The Global Divide and the Sustainability Crisis: The "Global Divide" is the macro-scale version of the institutional "Sustainability" problem. While well-funded Western institutions grapple with preserving digital projects, much of the world lacks the basic infrastructure to even create them. The call for "Funding Strategies" based on consortia and deep institutional resources highlights how the digital revolution risks creating a new global academic hierarchy, where only a few wealthy institutions in the Global North can produce and maintain sophisticated, "sustainable" digital scholarship.
III. Personal Insights
     Synthesizing this entire body of text leads to several overarching conclusions about the past, present, and future of the Digital Humanities.
     The texts reveal that DH is fundamentally divided. One soul, "humanities computing," is technocratic, data-driven, and seeks to replace human interpretation with algorithmic process. The other soul is humanistic, infrastructural, and aims to use digital tools to broaden access, foster collaboration, preserve culture, and amplify marginalized voices (as suggested by the "reticulative" and "liberation" models). The former often deepens stratification and aligns with corporate-academic complex; the latter seeks to reform the academy from within. The future of DH depends on which soul prevails.
      The digital does not create new problems so much as it holds a mirror to the old, deep-seated pathologies of the humanities: its stratification, its gendered epistemologies, its institutional inertia, and its colonial legacies. The "crises" of DH—unsustainable projects, lack of credit, global divides—are amplified versions of the humanities' long-standing crises. In this light, DH is not the problem; it is the context in which the humanities' most pressing issues are becoming impossible to ignore.
     The ultimate insight is that the way forward is not to choose between theory and practice, or between the Global North and South, but to forge a new synthesis. This would be a Digital Humanities that leverages the scale of "big data" while remaining committed to the "thick description" of close reading and ethical inquiry. It would be a field that builds global digital infrastructures while critically deconstructing the Western canon they may propagate. It would develop HTP guidelines that reward the library builder as much as the monograph writer. This synthetic DH would be less a discrete discipline and more a transformative practice—a way of being a humanist in the 21st century that is simultaneously technically proficient, critically aware, collaboratively minded, and institutionally savvy. The survival of the humanities may depend on its ability to embrace this complex, contested, but ultimately vital, digital turn.