Author: mem17025

Digital Futures for Humanities Doctorates

 

digital futures

Digital Futures for Humanities Doctorates

Monday, March 25, 2019

Hannah Alpert-Adams (PhD, University of Texas, postdoc, Brown University)  and Alex Galarza (PhD, Michigan State University, postdoc, Harverford College)

 

Two events:

12-1.30pm, roundtable on collaborative work and critical digital archives, with catered lunch

 

4pm-5.30pm, presentation of collaborative digital projects

 

All events at UConn Humanities Institute Conference Room

 

Co-sponsors History Department, Humanities Institute, LCL, El Instituto

 

Giving

Support the Humanities Institute

The Humanities Institute greatly appreciates your support.

Donations may be used for:

  • research fellowships
  • graduate dissertation fellowships
  • study groups
  • conferences
  • special initiatives
UCHI

As UConn’s premier institute for research in the humanities, fellowships and lectures are highly competitive and awarded only to outstanding projects.
Private support helps sustain excellence across the humanities.

Participation in the events of the Institute is always welcome.

To stay informed about the programs and events of the Institute, please subscribe to our listserv  or email us at uchi@uconn.edu

A gift to the Humanities Institute may be given in several ways: to our existing fund , through the creation of a new fund to support current activities,
or through an endowment to support programs in the future.

For more information about giving to the Humanities Institute contact the Director of the Institute, Michael P. Lynch at mylynch@uconn.edu or (860) 486-9057.

Presenting Science to the Public in a Post-Truth Era

Friday, May 24, 2019 4-7pm
Dodd Center Auditorium

With Dr. Åsa Wikforss (Stockholm University), Dr. Michael Lynch (University of Connecticut), Dr. Tali Sharot (University College London)

Sponsored jointly by the Science of Learning & Art of Communication (SLAC) program and the University of Connecticut Humanities Institute (UCHI) How can we present scientific information to the public in an era where increasingly expertise and scientific consensus are dismissed as opinion or fake news? Three eminent experts will discuss this challenge, followed by a panel discussion and Q&A with the audience. Reception to follow Free and open to the public

For more information, contact: Holly Fitch (ROSLYN.H.FITCH@UCONN.EDU) or Charlotte Nelson (CHARLOTTE.NELSON@UCONN.EDU)

 

 

You Should…Read: Micrographia Illustrata

George Adams, Micrographia Illustrata, 4th ed. (London, 1771), retrieved from babel.hathitrust.org

Visual technologies have conditioned us to dramatic alterations of size and scale, but in the eighteenth century, they still retained a considerable shock factor. Microscopy, for instance, was likened to a type of travel, a way to enter a previously unknown “Magazine of Wonders.” The London instrument-maker George Adams endeavored to popularize it among non-specialists and, not incidentally, improve his sales through the many editions of his Micrographia Illustrata. He assured his readers that everything they took for granted—blight on rose leaves, mold on bread—would transform into something new and entirely unanticipated when magnified. “The whole Earth is full of Life,” he wrote, “and then if we call in the Assistance of Art, what a new Scene of Wonder opens to our View? What an infinite Variety of living creatures present themselves to our Sight?” Even more exciting was the practice of solar microscopy, in which the magnified view was projected on a wall, giving observers the sense of entering into the object itself. In his book, Adams describes the act of magnification as an early form of virtual reality that allowed viewers to set off into new and bewildering landscapes. And, of course, he provided a catalogue of instruments and prices at the end of the volume, just in case anyone was interested.

-Elizabeth Athens 
Assistant Professor
Department of Art and Art History
University of Connecticut

Four Questions with Maxime Lepoutre

  1. Tell us a bit about the project you are working on at UCHI.

Briefly put, my project aims to investigate the nature of political ignorance and the challenges such ignorance poses for democratic public life, by bringing recent work in epistemology and philosophy of language into closer dialogue with empirical political science.

Empirical social scientists have long argued that ordinary citizens tend to be highly ignorant about political matters. This result, in turn, has increasingly been used to support anti-democratic political systems (that is, rule by those who ‘know best’), or very minimal forms of democracy (that is, forms of democracy that only involve ordinary citizens in a very limited way). The problem with this research, however, is that it tends to rely on a theoretically unrefined understanding of what ignorance is. I believe this difficulty has led to unsatisfactory measurements of political ignorance, and has limited our understanding of the challenges involved in countering political ignorance.

To remedy this problem, we need a more sophisticated understanding of the nature of political ignorance. Accordingly, what I will do in this project is develop such an understanding by drawing on recent work in epistemology and philosophy of language. The first part of the project will explore what kind of epistemic state political ignorance is. Philosophers typically distinguish between having a true belief about something, and understanding that thing. Lack of political understanding, I will suggest, is what is really dangerous for democratic politics. But what social scientists measure is typically whether citizens have true or false political beliefs, not whether they have an understanding of political issues. As a result, their measurements tend to underestimate political ignorance in important respects, and overestimate it in others.

The second part of my project will focus on why it is difficult to counter political ignorance through democratic public speech.  Here, I will explore two obstacles that stand in the way of deliberative attempts at eliminating ignorance. To begin, political ignorance can be rational: in ethically divided societies, there can be good reasons for people not to heed the insights or testimony of others. Secondly, political ignorance can be sticky: conversational norms can be ‘asymmetrically pliable, so that it is easier to introduce ignorant views into public discourse than it is to remove them from public discourse. Exploring these issues should yield a deeper understanding of the rational and linguistic obstacles that prevent democratic public discourse from fostering knowledge.

2. What drew you to this topic and what exciting developments are you anticipating?

I first became interested in the issue of political ignorance when I was writing my doctoral dissertation, entitled ‘Democratic Speech in Divided Times’. There, I explored the positive functions that public deliberation can play in divided settings: how it can be used to share knowledge, and to hold political decision-makers accountable. I was especially interested in how features of public discourse which are symptomatic of division and injustice—such as public expressions of anger—can actually play a crucial role in exposing and eliminating those injustices.

But the problem I encountered time and again during this project was that most of these positive powers of political speech could be subverted and turned to bad ends in conditions of political ignorance. Take the case of anger. When citizens who endure injustices know little about the true causes of those injustices, demagogues can exploit their legitimate anger and direct it, misleadingly, at vulnerable minorities. In such cases, expressions of anger create ignorance, not knowledge.

The upshot is that political ignorance is a serious obstacle for democratic politics. Accordingly, it seems to me that we will not be in a position to put public deliberation to positive use until we understand the nature of political ignorance better. The most exciting development of my current research project, then, is that it will bring us closer to addressing this significant problem. Not only will it help us measure political ignorance more accurately, but it will also shed light on what kinds of political speech are better suited to countering political ignorance, and when they might be capable of doing so.

2.What are you looking forward to in regard to this year at UCHI?

The University of Connecticut Humanities Institute will be an ideal place to carry out this research. This is, first and foremost, because of the institute’s strong emphasis on interdisciplinary research: in many ways, the point of my research project is to suggest that there has been too strong and too artificial a division between social scientific approaches to ignorance, and philosophical approaches to ignorance. This, in turn, has had a deleterious effect on our understanding of political ignorance. So I am really enthusiastic at the prospect of working in an environment that actively encourages multidisciplinary work. I’m also looking forward to my residency at UCHI because it is such a strong and innovative centre for the study of language and knowledge. For example, I’ve learned a huge amount from Lynne Tirrell’s research on hate speech and Michael Lynch’s work on understanding in a digital era—and I’m eager to learn a lot more next spring!

3. Many people wonder what value the humanities and humanities research has in today’s world. What are your thoughts on what humanities scholarship “brings to table?”

The humanities perform foundational research that is indispensable to understanding and addressing contemporary political challenges. To see this, consider that empirical research concerning social and political phenomena—for instance, the effects of hate speech or the rise of inequality—necessarily depends on theoretical research. When social scientists go about gathering data, they do not do so randomly. Instead, their research is guided by theoretical hypotheses. And the conceptual insights of philosophy and of the humanities more generally is directly relevant to generating these theoretical hypotheses.

Consider again the example of hate speech. When social scientists try to measure the harmful effects of hate speech, they operate with some background hypotheses regarding how hate speech might harm its targets. Now, philosophers of language—speech act theorists in particular—have deeply enriched those hypotheses, by exploring how speech can not only say things but also do things. Another important example is the measurement of inequality. Seemingly abstract debates in political philosophy concerning the so-called ‘currency of equality’—that is, concerning what kinds of goods or resources should be equalised—have revolutionised the way in which we now measure equality. Indeed, those debates gave birth to Amartya Sen’s famous capabilities approach, which in turn played a key role in developing the Human Development Index. The result has been a far more robust way of measuring and understanding one of the most important social phenomena of the past few decades: the drastic rise in global inequality.

Importantly, the research I intend to pursue at the UCHI models itself on these influential instances of humanities research. As I explained above, I hope to use philosophical insights concerning knowledge, understanding, and language, to enrich the theoretical hypotheses that guide social scientific investigations of political ignorance. And understanding political ignorance, how extensive it is and how it can be countered, is a first step towards more fruitful public deliberation.

 

You Should…Play: Depression Quest

"YOU SHOULD…PLAY:

Depression Quest
By Zoe Quinn 2013

…Or maybe you shouldn’t, if you’re someone who should heed the gamesite’s trigger warning. Or maybe you should talk to someone at the Suicide Prevention Lifeline Chat link provided on the game’s “about” page. But if you’ve ever wondered about depression—what it is, what it’s like, whether you are yourself depressed—or if you’ve ever wished someone in your life would “just get over it,” then Depression Quest is an informative starting place.

Depression Quest is an interactive (non)fiction online game, available at its award-winning gamesite at http://www.depressionquest.com/ and on Steam, where it gets terrible, angry reviews for not conforming to traditional shoot-em-up gaming formats and objectives. Instead, Depression Quest is a literate, interactive narrative of the daily struggle of a young adult living with depression, including how depression impacts choices made around work and social interactions, Poignantly, the “choices” available to players include a “normal” or non-depression option for responding or interacting that is crossed out: Indeed, such responses and thought-processes are not available to those suffering from depression.

Although minimalist in its use of images and audio, Depression Quest nonetheless subtly signals “levels” of depression based on the options chosen, including lessening color concentration and scratchier sound to suggest the loss of the intensity of and pleasure in living that lead too many to contemplate ending their lives.

Quinn was threatened and doxxed as one of the primary targets of “GamerGate,” an online harassment campaign against several women involved in the gaming industry. GamerGate continues as part of a culture war against diversification in gaming form and content, and sadly reflects a general cultural ignorance and embarrassment surrounding mental illness that we all should be engaged in combating—and not just when a straight, white male celebrity ends his life."

- Kelly Dennis
Associate Professor of Art History
Department of Art + Art History

You Should…Read: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, A Life

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, A Life by Jane Sherron De Hart book image

"You should Read: RUTH BADER GINSBURG, A LIFE, by Jane Sherron De Hart

An engrossing biography released by Knopf in fall 2018 by a feminist historian about a mother, lawyer, and future judge who did not start out as a feminist.

Who would have predicted that Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg would become a popular culture icon and have thousands of youthful followers at the start of the twenty-first century?  Now is the time to show off your Ginsburg know-how by reading this new and luminous biography, years in the making, by master prose stylist and University of California, Santa Barbara, historian Jane De Hart.  The book is based in part on many interviews De Hart conducted with the justice, her family members, and associates.  All stages in RBG’s life through 2017 are contextualized through the author’s expertise on modern political history, law, and social movements.  To whet your appetite, here are some of my favorite chapters (and chapter titles): Celia’s Daughter, Leaning the Law on Male Turf, The Making of a Feminist Advocate, Setting up Shop and Strategy, An Unexpected Cliff-Hanger, “I Cannot Agree,” Race Matters, and (the final chapter in the book) An Election and a Presidency Like No Other."

-Cornelia Dayton
Professor of History
University of Connecticut

2019-20 Fellowship Awards for UConn Faculty and Visiting Residential Scholars

The Humanities Institute is pleased to announce its 2019-20 UConn Faculty Fellowships. Our incoming class of fellows includes:

Emma Amador (History)
Alexander Anievas (Political Science)
Andrea Celli (Literatures, Cultures and Languages)
Patricia Morgne Cramer (English)
Debapriya Sarkar (English)
Nu-Anh Tran (History & Asian and Asian American Studies Institute)

Visiting Residential Fellows:
Kornel S. Chang (History) Rutgers-Newark, State University of New Jersey
Daniel A. Cohen (History) Case Western Reserve University
Joseph Ulatowski (Philosophy) University of Waikato, New Zealand

Dissertation Research Scholar:

Nathan Braccio (History)
Laura Godfrey (Medieval English Literature)
Hayley Stefan (English)
Jessica Strom (History)