The Purpose of a History Manifesto

            If there is one thing I have learned throughout my education it is that almost every published academic has their own way of perceiving society and the large-scale choices being made. In their book, The History Manifesto, Guldi and Armitage argue for the need for a return to viewing events in a long-term fashion rather than focusing solely on the short-term effect a choice will have (i.e. climate change, politics). As Guldi and Armitage argue on page 125, “It may be little wonder, then, that we have a crisis of global governance, that we are all at the mercy of unregulated financial markets, and that anthropogenic climate change threatens our political stability and the survival of species. To put these challenges in perspective, and to combat the short-termism of our time, we urgently need the wide-angle, long-range views only historians can provide.” This statement has the bluster and urgency one would expect in a manifesto, though I wonder why Guldi and Armitage only view historians as being capable of shifting this temporal perspective? Wouldn’t change be more expedient if it were a collaboration between different fields? Historians can play a large role in this, and may need to be ones leading the initial charge, however if they push forward alone they will be outnumbered by the rest of the population. Collaborating in this effort with anthropologists, sociologists, political scientists, environmentalists, and others would provide a stronger chance of success. Throughout the text are various examples of information distribution that attributes to society’s focus on the short term (i.e. online news sources, fake news). I do see their point – before the internet (and the corresponding increased flow of information 24/7) information could be released with slightly more order and news was fact-checked before being aired. With the internet and the rise of fake news, information is released the moment someone decides to say it with no regard for its accuracy and this can cause people to act out of fear instead of rationality.  

            This does not mean that their argument is accurate either, The History Manifesto received criticism after its release from the AHR Exchange. As they state in their review, “What we object to are the arguments (and where they present any, the evidence) that Guldi and Armitage offer in their attempt to persuade everyone else to follow their own chosen path. When the underpinnings of their manifesto are examined, the supporting evidence either is nonexistent or mandates just the opposite conclusion” (p.530). The main takeaway of this point for me is the need for supporting evidence, which is a cornerstone of social science research as well as all other branches of scientific research: any assertion requires evidentiary support. Also, their critique points out that The History Manifesto’s claim of the need to return to a long-term approach to history instead of focusing on short-term is unfounded because there are many already looking in the long-term. So what is the point of Guldi and Armitage’s argument? Why write this manifesto and offer it for free? In one response I found online, the authors remind everyone that the point of a manifesto is to provoke thought – which they certainly seem to have done.

            As I stated earlier, almost every academic I have seen throughout my education has a unique way of perceiving society and uses it in various ways: some inspire students to deeper thought, and some attempt to inspire as many people as possible to at least briefly see the world through their lens. While The History Manifesto does not follow a research structure that would have appealed more to my research senses (having a central premise, carrying out research, and evidence to support or disprove that premise) its overall purpose is still achieved: it inspires readers to think of how information is being used and is effecting society. An average reader could read this text and afterwards think more carefully in the future when looking through news websites and blogs to look for deeper trends and long-term effects instead of accepting the news at face value.

Website referenced:

https://academic.oup.com/ahr/article/120/2/543/45575

Kuhn – Understanding Structure of Scientific Revolutions

In Kuhn’s work, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, he reviews the history of the science field and the elements within it that culminate into the overarching field and the many subfields within it. Kuhn uses a metaphor of a constellation to organize science and those within it on pages 74-75: “If science is the constellation of facts, theories, and methods collected in current texts, then scientists are the men who, successfully or not, have striven to contribute one or another element to that particular constellation.” This combination of elements (i.e. people, research, publications, education) is not wholly unique to science, which makes Kuhn’s work even more valuable. When examining the history of most (if not all) academic fields there are similar patterns that can be identified: new theories are published that are either accepted or denied by those within the field, research on pre-existing theories is built upon, academic researchers and professors within the field build their careers on the research/theory they believe has the most promise. All of these are dependent on there being accepted paradigms within the field, such as Kuhn identified within science as “accepted examples of actual scientific practice—examples which include law, theory, application, and instrumentation together—provide models from which spring particular coherent traditions of scientific research” (p.111).

When contemplating this book’s relevance to the study of science, technology, culture, and society it is my opinion that its value is in its highlighting the key occurrences that happen within academia in general even while focusing it within the scientific field. Science has always been a highly valued field in terms of employment, prestige, and value to society – while other fields have not been as highly valued (i.e. Liberal Arts fields such as Anthropology and Sociology) because the applications of these fields are not as valued financially by society. One of the strokes of genius in Kuhn’s work is that he highlights the creation of paradigms (and their use within science) and in its essence I believe humanists see the similar use of paradigms within other academic fields. For example, within Linguistics, Chomsky’s work can be seen a largely utilized paradigm within Linguistics research.

In regards to my research interests, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions makes me think of how research within technology is almost like a race that is impossible to catch up with. Specifically in examining Digital Media research (and my intended focus on Augmented Reality and Digital Media), the research being done is often a blending of AR with pre-existing work/art/technology. In designing research within the Text and Technology program (and Digital Media/AR), my task usually involves researching pre-existing theorists within both technology (AR) and the humanities because the research is usually a blend of technology with humanities. As a result of combining these very different fields, it can lead to applying paradigms from one field to another field – resulting in interpretations of theory that do not always follow the framework within either field the research falls into.

For example, in a study measuring the effectiveness of a digital tour of a Peruvian Textile Museum and weaving community this would involve researching already established research in Peruvian weaving, digital curation and information systems design in order to have a well thought-out hypothesis before carrying out the study. As technology and science have advanced and the applications of these research fields have been realized, encouraging pursuing a college education has become more present in American education. A prime example of this is the STEM movement in education: Science, Technology, Information, and Math. It is important to also incorporate art into education (rather than cutting it out), which led to STEM becoming STEAM (Science Technology Engineering Art Technology). I see this as a subtle yet firm way to remind society that Art should not be undervalued (even though it is not as immediately profitable in the workforce as science-related fields are).

Ultimately, my takeaway from reading Kuhn is that the structure he outlines for science in terms of paradigms, achievements, normal science, the politics within that field – these are not unique to science. Instead, these can be applied to any academic field.

*Note: page numbers are based on the iBooks format

Is Technology Slowly Folding Us All into the Matrix?

Sven Birkerts’ work Changing the Subject: Art and Attention in the Internet Age focuses on how a person’s ability to pay attention has changed with the growing presence of technology in everyday life. Throughout the book, Birkerts insists that he is not against technology and sees the value of it, but he does think that technology has lowered a person’s initial ability to focus and notice everyday detail and beauty. In a way, it’s as though today’s population has allowed itself to be folded into the Matrix and only those who take the time to notice art is able to wake themselves up.

Birkerts uses a series of anecdotal stories throughout the book to relate his views about technology and its effect on a person’s ability to connect to the environment. In one chapter, Birkerts both cites and uses the strong statement “It’s not because I’m a cranky Luddite, I swear!” as a defensive statement in regard to his views about where technology is and is not necessary. In the use of this statement he makes a stance that he is not against technology, he just believes there are some places where technology does not need to be inserted into everyday life (though he is unlikely to win this battle). Even in asserting this statement, Birkerts knows this opinion is unlikely to be shared by the majority of the population.

Showing his awareness of this, he goes on in later chapters to describe the experience of flipping through a photography book showing different people posed reading books – and expressed how much less artistic this photo series would be if instead of reading physical books the subjects were reading on a tablet. He points out that part of the beauty in coming upon someone reading is in being able to see the cover of the book, the book jacket art, and in the connotation with the book in question (i.e. if they’re reading a classic, a Young Adult novel, a mystery) and that the artistic value is lessened when all someone sees is an individual looking at a kindle.  Seeing someone reading from a kindle (or any type of tablet) removes the romanticism associated with the actual book – there’s no way of knowing what a person is reading when all that is visible is the back of a tablet. This is one example Birkerts uses to illustrate his point that the growing infusion of technology into daily life is removing society’s artistic sense.

Turning Birkerts’ work towards technology’s use in the arts, I wonder how he would view augmented reality (AR). For example, one of Dr. Harrington’s AR projects focuses on the UCF Arboretum. In the project, the user is able to explore the arboretum in ways that are impossible in real life (users can travel off the trails in any direction they choose). To make this project even more impressive, a botanist was an active consultant on the project and collaborated with the artists to ensure that each plant was represented with a high degree of accuracy. This combination of art with technology resulted in a teaching tool that can enable users to appreciate the arboretum in a new way that was not previously possible: every inch of it can be explored, and it can be used to prepare for visits to the arboretum as well.

AR technology can be used to enhance the user experience, and provide a new way to engage with information. While Birkerts makes good points about how technology and its uniform outward appearance can create a sense of uniformity, but when the user engages with technology the experience changes. For example, there are AR apps being created that create a 3D experience with the book that creates new opportunities for the reader to engage with the book. In a course I’m currently enrolled in, we are developing AR app ideas that can be integrated into a local art museum. The central purpose is to create new opportunities for visitors to better connect with museum visitors. These are some examples that show how technology is being used to better connect users with artistic experiences.

Imagined Communities and Looking at Hogwarts

Benedict Anderson’s work, Imagined Communities, examines the creation of nationalism in order to create a sense of camaraderie among sweeping groups of individuals. Examples of this have been seen throughout history from when leaders ruled through dynasties, monarchies, and through religion – all of these have been sources for individuals to separate themselves into groups based on their choices (and in some cases, location). These self-imposed groupings have been the cause of hostilities, wars, and hatred – as can be witnessed through history with numerous examples of crusades, wars over territories (especially those in done in the name of a ruling house), and racial hostilities (from British colonialism to racial hostilities in the United States that is still seen today).

This idea of exploring nationalism as a human construct offers a new way of understanding the “Us vs. Them” mentality. Consider colonialism: European nations in their race to acquire the most land and resources spread their borders to African countries, India, and South America and declared the land theirs. Now groups who have lived in these countries for hundreds of years are fighting to keep their resources, usually with the European colonizers winning in the end (thanks to the possession of guns). Returning to the idea of imagined communities and nationalism, the British Empire is one example of a group that wanted all of its people to look and act the same, while looking down on those who did not fit their idea of a British citizen. For example, India was a British colony for almost two hundred years yet in that time Indian customs were not assimilated into the idea of British nationalism. Rather, British citizens that traveled to India brought their ideas of how to act as a ‘civilized’ citizen in order to maintain their imagined hierarchical status as a British citizen rather than following some of the local customs and dress (which might have been more comfortable given the climate difference between England and India).

While it is not my main research field, this idea of imagined communities as a way of expressing nationalism made me think of fandoms and how viciously some fans will defend their corner of a fandom. For example, when Marvel began releasing movies (beginning with Iron Man in 2008) it created a divide between fans who are only fans of the movies, and those who have read the comic books. This led to animosity between the two groups, examples of this being debates online on sites such as Reddit and Tumblr as fans debated what would happen in upcoming movies and what should happen based on the comic books (if Marvel decided to stay ‘true’ to the comics or not). Other fandom groups are created based on shows (i.e. Supernatural, Doctor Who, and Sherlock) with different fan art being posted online and at times being praised by fans of the same show, denounced for not featuring a preferred character, or heckled for not being the ‘right’ show.

In a similar vein to past individuals who defined their identity by religion or nationality, there are fans of a show, or book, or movie who make it a main factor of how they define themselves and how their view others. A growing example in my generation is Harry Potter. Twenty years ago it would have been the oddest question to be asked what your house is (or a person may have answered that they live in a 2-story townhouse), except now it is an almost commonplace question when learning about someone new. Families can explain their family to an outsider by saying, “I’m a Huffelpuff, she’s a Slytherin, my mom is a Gryffindor, and my dad is also a Slytherin” and it makes sense! In my experience, this is a generally accepted way of explaining a group of people’s personalities without having to provide more explanation, and it also implies that group’s status as big enough fans of Harry Potter that parts of the books lexicon have migrated into their personal lexicon.

Leonardo to the Internet – thoughts and perspective

In Thomas Misa’s work, Leonardo to the Internet, Misa takes the reader through an examination of how technological advances in history were valued by those in power and were used to maintain power. Misa starts in the Renaissance period when cutting edge technology was being created by artists such as Leonardo da Vinci who had varied skills ranging from painting, sculpture, to using engineering to create war machines. Artists and creators with skills such as da Vinci were viewed as assets for wealthy patrons and created symbiotic relationships with patrons – artists were able to pursue their passion to create, patrons benefited from what the artists were able to create by gaining new art and technology that increased their power and prestige at national and (in some cases) global levels. As the wheel of time continued to turn, different nations came into power, but the approach to maintaining power has remained similar: the nation with the more advanced and functioning technology has usually being able to pull ahead for a time in global power.

            Throughout Leonardo to the Internet it has repeatedly shown that the dominant nation in any given time period is usually the nation that is farthest ahead in technology. The Dutch republic aimed its technological efforts towards staying ahead in shipping and commerce, which resulted in the Dutch republic being renowned as the main power within that portion of trade. A key requirement of the power in developing new technology was being able to use that technology effectively before another nation also obtains the technology (or learns how to copy it). History has shown that nations that were able to create new advances in technology (while keeping these advances confidential) were able to hold onto power for longer periods of time.

            The importance of putting technology to work, not only having the technology, is seen in the British Empire: it is not enough to be in possession of the technological advances (or having more advances than others, as could be argued with Britain’s imperialist expansion into India) if that technology is not patented or kept protected in some way instead of being flaunted. While British scientists did make a number of discoveries that were not necessarily created with the purpose of capitalizing on the discovery, but for the joy of discovery. As a result, these discoveries spread to other nations more freely where others were able to apply the technology to a business and increase their power in that field (within the nation or globally).

            Within my own research field of augmented reality (AR), Leonardo to the Internet has been a lesson in the importance of staying aware of current technology. I have grown up watching technology advance at a startling rate and seeing its importance in daily life increase as the general public’s interest has increased. A key element of being a valuable employee is in understanding how technology is being utilized in a field and anticipating how that can change as new technology is developed. I am most interested in augmented reality technology and how it is being applied to pre-existing fields. For example, my primary research project is the development of an augmented reality fantasy game that is set within UCF. My main role is to research how this game can utilize educational theories to be a more effective tool for future UCF students for purposes such as feeling more acquainted with the campus and having a deeper connection with UCF. In order to answer these questions, it is important for me to gain a deeper understanding of augmented reality, and how it is currently being used in the educational field as well as in other fields (in case those applications could be used in education). As it was during the times of da Vinci, being able to blend creativity with science is one of the most important elements in obtaining power in today’s world: power and prestige goes to those who are able to think ahead and create the technology able to show how things could be done rather than how they have always been done.

Headrick’s When Information Came of Age

Through Headrick’s work, When Information Came of Age: Technologies of Knowledge in the Age of Reason and Revolution, 1700-1850, Headrick details six systems that were used for organizing and distributing information on a localized and global scale. Headrick highlights that during this period of history there was a large need for communicating information accurately and widely because people were moving to the Colonies and traveling more widely, and as a result different forms of documenting information were standardized and adapted around the world – or at least some would try to utilize them. Headrick highlighted the language classification systems used in science, statistics, maps/graphs, dictionaries/encyclopedias, and postal systems as the numerous ways human worked to fulfill that need to communicate the knowledge they had gained into an information system that could be readily understood by a greater amount of people (either their peers or the public).

Spanning events such as Linnaeus developing a taxonomic classification system, the use of graphs to visually communicate information to the public, to the implementation of the metric system – as people have grown and sought out ways to gain more knowledge they have also sought out ways to organize and share their knowledge in order to seek recognition from their peers and from the public. Before researchers had a desire to be recognized as the first to have made a discovery, standardized measurement and documentation systems would have been of little importance. As research went from being isolated within countries to being spread globally, competition between colleagues grew, as did the need for standard measuring and classification systems.

Information was not only being spread among the world’s universities, but among the general public as well – especially in politics. Using numbers and statistics became an incredibly popular method for spreading information once people started to realize that numbers could be used to analyze populations, health, illness, nature, and even divine Providence (p.60). During this spread of information, statistics were used in a way termed “political arithmetic” in order to support a city or country’s political agenda. For example, the depopulationist idea[1] was used to show a government’s success or failure even though it often did not have strong statistical evidence to support it. This is one example in which statistical ideas were used to further a political agenda during this time period.

Out of the systems covered by Headrick, I was most intrigued by the information about maps and graphs (chapter 4). The development and improvement of maps reflects the spreading worldview of the time period – the world was no longer flat, and Europeans were curious about what there was in the rest of the world. What did the other continents look like? Were they different from Europe? What about the people? Newspapers were now reporting on this information and whatever else it could learn from agents abroad and printing updated information in the papers as quickly as possible. Supplementing written pieces with maps and graphs spread information even further to parts of the population that was less educated, and increased understanding of drier information overall.

This chapter on maps and graphs intrigued me because it is an example of using information (and the technology of the time) to shift a population’s reality. I am most interested in learning about augmented reality (AR) to expand a user’s understanding and enjoyment of a subject, and in the 1700-1850’s the spread of information was continually shifting the European population’s understanding of reality: their world was expanding, academic knowledge was spreading, information about health and population density was becoming a reality – and people near and far wanted to know about it.

Text discussed in this post:

Headrick, Daniel R. When Information Came of Age: Technologies of Knowledge in the Age of Reason and Revolution, 1700-1750. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.

  • [1] “What made the depopulationist idea so popular, despite the lack of supporting evidence, was its political implications. Many philosophes believed that a growing population was a sure sign of prosperity, and prosperity was the result of good government. Hence, if the population declined, that was proof that the government was bad” (p.66)

Ong’s Orality and Literacy – One Student’s Review

In reading Orality and Literacy, I was most drawn to Ong’s descriptions of an oral versus literacy-based culture. Throughout the book, the overarching theme that pushed through everything else was the differentiation between oral culture and literate culture. While oral cultures are given respect and a degree of reverence for their methods of preserving history by passing it on through generations by purely oral means, there is a clear preference for literate culture. I do not believe this was necessarily from a bias by Ong, but a reflection of the importance Western culture (in general) placed on literacy as a means of understanding society. Dating back to Ancient Greece and Homer’s epics, Ong’s work discussed Wood’s analysis of Homer’s work and his conclusion that Homer may have been illiterate and his works were created based on popular structure and rhythm rather than receiving formal education: “Wood strikingly suggests that memory played a quite different role in oral culture from that which it played in literate culture. Although Wood could not explain just how Homer’s mnemonics worked, he does suggest that the ethos of Homeric verse was popular rather than learned” (p.18-19).

Through the rest of the text, the world in general became more literate as more and more communities around the world embraced writing as a means of preserving history. This created a shift in thinking that makes it nearly impossible for those of us educated today to understand the thought process of an oral culture. In the oral culture Ong describes, histories are not passed down through rigid dictation that was memorized to the letter by each individual who took on the responsibilities of being the community’s historian – instead patterns were developed, mnemonic devices were employed, oral historians adapted histories (placing more importance on the highlights of stories, such as remembering winners of political races) with the purpose of the most important details being preserved. When literacy became the main mode of preservation details were now a realistic possibility – paper could remember everything a human mind would forget over time. A point that was highlighted several times throughout the text is that becoming literate changes a person in ways they would not even notice – how they think, organize their thoughts, relay stories, process incoming information – all of these will change permanently once a person becomes literate.

After reading this text, one of the larger implications of this study placed within the Digital Age and Texts and Technology is the shifting importance from sound to the visual. All throughout the text Ong repeats several times that the value of sound/orality is in the temporary nature of sound – as words are uttered they also end, living on only in memory. Until societies gained writing as a viable option, sound/orality carried optimal value. Now, as technology advances and society is able to record history through writing, video recordings, and audio recordings that value has shifted with literacy carrying a higher value. As Ong describes in chapter 7, literacy leaves an impression on the mind so that even in auditory-based media it will not show similarities to the histories produced by oral communities (relaying back to the ways in which becoming literate changes how the mind organizes information).

My own research will focus on digital media, augmented reality, and user experience. While I do not know the exact focus of my future research, I aim to connect users to digital experiences through visual input. Another factor that influences my research is my identity as a hard-of-hearing individual – written records and visual input are much more important to me than auditory input. Although I do recognize the importance of oral culture, especially from a historical viewpoint, it is my opinion that the written word carries as much importance.

Source discussed:

Ong, Walter J. Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word (3rd Ed.). New York: Routledge, 2012.