William G. Thomas II covers a new form of history, quantitative, as it created large datasets and attempted to construct history without relying on traditional narrative methods. In the 1960s, Fogel and Engerman produced the controversial Time on the Cross: The Economics of American Negro Slavery, which gained a great deal of attention, both good and bad. Much of the negative was because of their methodology and how it ignored the narratives around slavery in favor of an economic perspective.[1] This rocky start for digital history was part of what Thomas described as the three phases of historians’ use of computing technology. Advances in computing technology allowed groups of historians like the “Iowa school” to use quantification from social, political, and economic perspectives, as well as being able to study history “from the bottom up” in a new way.[2] Ultimately, the growth of the internet and availability of a common markup language would continue to move digital history to the fore. In 1999, Ayers choice to use the internet to help publish his Valley of the Shadow Project is what helped it reach so many people. As an archive it was “thoroughly captivating, technically savvy,” and “so complex and interconnected” that it seemed impossible to achieve without digital tools.[3] From its early “missteps”, digital history has experienced near constant growth and evolution as technology continuously speeds towards an uncertain future, prompting Thomas to ask the crucial question, what will we do with digital history next?
The readings this week are certainly part of a range, starting with Ayers’ which reads as very “techno-optimistic,” while still having a foot on the ground. His views range from a time when there are “virtual worlds that are more satisfying in some dimensions than these analog simulations,” to understanding that as historians we must take advantage of new tools in order to not allow “the erosion of our authority.”[4] However, when he speaks about the “effect of electronic media on writing…[bypassing] the historical profession” it is no longer the case, particularly with the advent of AI writing.[5] While I don’t agree with his idea to write history by mimicking fiction, I do think we could stand to gain much more readable histories, which would help with democratizing the audience he worries about. You can absolutely write interesting/readable history without a three-act structure; how does the line blur between fact and fiction when you’re worrying about an interesting narrative? I particularly enjoyed the discussion of tools in Art History; I think it’s one of the most applicable places to use digital history! The fact that we can x-ray paintings and other works is outstanding – it has allowed us to see more than we ever thought possible.
Sharon Leon, writing about the “Great Man” narrative that permeates not only history, but apparently digital history as well, seems to take more of a realistic approach, revealing what needs to change in the field. I very much appreciated the depth that her piece went into. Her suggestion of more clarity regarding who is involved in these projects, in order to get the recognition they deserve, feels like the bare minimum we could do.[6] By doing this, we may assist the balance in gender bias, as well as other statuses such as race and class, in who gets opportunities and funding. Richard White, writing on spatial history, also seems to be a realist, though possibly slightly more optimistic, discussing how this technology would allow history to be a much more collaborative field.[7] He may be an early adopter, as he states that some historians at the time may accuse him of “[deserting] the forces of light and [embracing] the forces of reaction,” but he readily admits to the drawbacks of things like ArcGIS at the same time.[8]
[1] William G. Thomas, II, “5. Computing and the Historical Imagination,” A Companion to Digital Humanities, ed. Susan Schreibman, Ray Siemens, John Unsworth. Oxford: Blackwell, 2004. https://companions.digitalhumanities.org/DH/.
[2] Thomas, “Computing.”
[3] Thomas, “Computing.”
[4] Edward L. Ayers, “The Pasts and Futures of Digital History,” University of Virginia, 1999,http://www.vcdh.virginia.edu/PastsFutures.html.
[5] Ayers, “Pasts and Futures.”
[6] Sharon M. Leon, “Chapter 19: Complicating a ‘Great Man’ Narrative of Digital History in the United States,” in Bodies of Information: Intersectional Feminism and Digital Humanities, ed. Elizabeth Losh and Jacqueline Wernimont (University of Minnesota Press, 2018).
[7] Richard White, “What is Spatial History?,” spatial histoy lab, Stanford University, February 1, 2010, https://web.stanford.edu/group/spatialhistory/media/images/publication/what%20is%20spatial%20history%20pub%20020110.pdf, 1.
[8] White, “What is Spatial History?,” 4.