Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 39, No. 242.
        Department of Digital Humanities, University of Cologne
                      Hosted by DH-Cologne
                       www.dhhumanist.org
                Submit to: humanist@dhhumanist.org




        Date: 2025-11-30 13:10:03+00:00
        From: MORRAS, Maria <maria.morras@upf.edu>
        Subject: Re: [Humanist] 39.241: aggressive style as symptom? deference as opportunity?

Dear Willard,

A usual you've put your finger on a sore spot.
I agree with you, but beyond the disciplines and the competitive atmosphere
prevalent now in academia (letters of motivation have become too many times
Trump-style self-proclamations of one's superiorities and devious
comparisons with qualified as mediocre colleagues), I'm afraid it's a sign
of the times.
I only hope the role-example of the best will change that course.
It makes me very sad.
best,
María

El dom, 30 nov 2025 a las 8:31, Humanist (<humanist@dhhumanist.org>)
escribió:

>
>               Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 39, No. 241.
>         Department of Digital Humanities, University of Cologne
>                       Hosted by DH-Cologne
>                        www.dhhumanist.org
>                 Submit to: humanist@dhhumanist.org
>
>
>
>
>         Date: 2025-11-28 06:14:59+00:00
>         From: Willard McCarty <willard.mccarty@mccarty.org.uk>
>         Subject: writing scholarship
>
> An observation concluding in questions.
>
> Recently I was alerted to an article in digital humanities by someone I
> know on friendly terms. The article, however, bristled (and undoubtedly
> still bristles) with fortifications of theory and reference. I reacted,
> I'm afraid, like a turtle to a porcupine, seeking the protection of his
> shell, glimpsing no more than the first few sentences. Mea culpa, but I
> offer a further reaction I think may be helpful--a question, as it
> happens: is this fortified, aggressive writing the best way to
> communicate? Wouldn't a confident modesty, drawbridge down, spears
> withdrawn, doors open, presenting some idea slightly spiced so as to
> provoke hunger for argument, be better? Would this not be better than
> presenting an appearance of unassailable truth to be followed?
>
> Perhaps the aggressive style to which I refer is a mark of uncertainty
> and insecurity. Are these emotional states more characteristic of
> some disciplines than others? Newer ones (such as digital
> humanities) more than others (such as history) that no one would
> think to question? Schools of thought within disciplines get into
> disputes, but the style I'm talking about communicates (to me)
> insecurity not secure righteousness.
>
> What has changed since the early years, when almost all
> conversations with academics in established disciplines
> would induce severe insecurity, is the degree of cultural
> authority that technological work has gained -- if not
> (in the case of AI) a deference to be quickly backed away
> from and turned into discussion whenever possible,
> discussion that pulls the wizardly curtain away.
>
> Comments?
>
> Best,
> WM
>
>
> --
> Willard McCarty,
> Professor emeritus, King's College London;
> Editor, Interdisciplinary Research in the Arts,
>    Sciences and Humanities (Berghahn); Humanist
> www.mccarty.org.uk


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe at: http://dhhumanist.org/Restricted
List posts to: humanist@dhhumanist.org
List info and archives at at: http://dhhumanist.org
Listmember interface at: http://dhhumanist.org/Restricted/
Subscribe at: http://dhhumanist.org/membership_form.php