Ben Peters: Announcing “555 Questions to Make Digital Keywords Harder”

This post appears concurrently at Culture Digitally.

I have relatives who joke that our family motto ought to be “if there’s a harder way, we’ll find it.” Like all jokes, this one rings true–at times painfully true. Everyone, of course, seeks convenience and yet we discover so often the opposite—new hardness, challenges, problems—that prove both uncomfortable and useful. Perhaps (if you’ll forgive the perverse suggestion!), critical digital teaching and scholarship should be harder as well.

How should we make digital technology criticism harder? How should critical engagement with tech discourse best carry on? What intellectual challenges does it currently face? What challenges must it face?

If you haven’t already seen it, Sara Watson released her new and significant report on the state of tech criticism last week. I am excited to announce the release of another kind of resource that just might help us keep after such questions—especially in our classrooms.

Please enjoy and share this freely downloadable, 35-page teaching resource now available on the Princeton University Press website:

“555 Questions to Make Digital Keywords Harder: A Teaching Resource for Digital Keywords: A Vocabulary of Information Society and Culture

555 questions image 2Use this document as you will. Many may use it to support preexisting courses; a bold few may organize critical responses to it. The questions that prompted its creation are straightforward: Is it possible to gather enough material to generate and sustain a semester of discussion in undergraduate and graduate courses based on or around the volume Digital Keywords: A Vocabulary of Information Society and Culture? Can this document, paired with that volume, sustain a stand-alone course? Whatever the answers, the document’s purpose is to complicate—not to simplify—keyword analysis for all. Keywords are supposed to be hard.

Each essay in the volume receives four sections of notes. (1) Background music suggests music that could be played in the classroom as students shuffle in and out of class; the music is meant to prompt students’ talking and thinking about the topic at hand. (2) What can we learn from the contributor listing? fosters the vital habit of learning to understand not only the reading content but also the author and his or her background. (3) Exercise suggests an activity to prompt discussion at the start of a lecture or seminar—and to be shared at the end of a class in order to encourage sustained thinking about a given keyword essay in the next class. Students may also be asked to bring prepared lists with them at the start of a class. Finally, (4) discussion prompts are meant to raise one thread of harder questions, not easy answers, for classroom debate. Most of these 555 questions are meant to model conversation pathways that elevate the theoretical stakes of thinking with and in language.

This document is in some ways an antidote to the editorial instinct to consolidate, polish, and finalize the topics raised in this volume. As the editor of this fine volume, I stand convinced that these twenty-five essays constitute state-of-the-art and definitive scholarly approaches to significant keywords. In fact it is because I am convinced of the volume’s virtues that I seek here to test them—and I know no better way to do that than to ask questions that unravel, challenge, and extend the threads of thought woven together in the essays themselves. I am sure I join my fellow contributors in inviting readers, students, and scholars to do the same with these essays.

“555 Questions” is also something of a methodological extension of Williams’s keywords project—that is, these 555 questions are meant not to provoke particular responses so much as, in admittedly sometimes slapdash and zigzag ways, to model the type of language-based discussion that all sensitive users of language may engage in on their own terms. In other words, most of the questions raised in these pages require little more than taking language and its consequences seriously—at least initially. I am sure I have not done so in these pages with any more fertility or force than others; nevertheless, I offer these pages as a working witness to the generative capabilities of language analysis to get along swimmingly with both the real-world empiricism of the social sciences and the textual commitments of the humanities. I have not questioned my own introduction to the volume, which I leave to others, although I’ll leave off with this quote from it:

“No one can escape keywords so deeply woven into the fabric of daily talk. Whatever our motivations we—as editor and contributors—have selected these keywords because we believe the world cannot proceed without them. We invite you to engage and to disagree. It is this ethic of critical inquiry we find most fruitful in Williams. Keyword analysis is bound to reward all those who take up Williams’s unmistakable invitation to all readers: Which words do unavoidably significant work in your life and the world, and why?”

Peters

Digital Keyword: “Hacker”

This post appears concurrently at Culture Digitally.

digital keywords peters jacketGabriella Coleman critiques the stereotype of a hacker as a white male libertarian. In its place, and through a rich history of its varied sources and expressions, she uncovers an underlying hacker commitment to what she calls “craft autonomy,” or the freedom to do technical work that motivates contemporary classes of computing experts. In this, Coleman’s essay engages in productive conversation with Christina Dunbar-Hester’s equally superb essay on geeks, Adam Fish’s mirror, and John Durham Peters’ cloud in the computer classes.

Hackers, among other actors in the technical classes, are not as we may have thought.

Gabriella Coleman: Hacker

This comment may have been adapted from the introduction to Benjamin Peters’ Digital Keywords: A Vocabulary of Information Society and Culture. 25% discount code in 2016: P06197

Ben Peters on Keywords: Digital & Analog

This post appears concurrently at Culture Digitally.

The popular opposition between “analog” and “digital,” to put it in a nutshell, is wrong.

Two essays in the Digital Keywords volume—Jonathan Sterne’s “Analog” and my own “Digital”—frame this fundamental point: the analog and the digital are not a pair (itself a rehearsal of that tired digital binary, 0 and 1). Nor are they necessarily separate. Neither mutually exclusive nor embedded, digital and analog techniques should be understood by and independent of their fundamental non-relation. The digital is no simple realm of artificial and discrete symbols nor is the analog everything made of natural and continuous real waves, and certainly is the analog no opposite of digital. For Sterne, the analog is both narrower than we thought, compatible with, and subsequent to the digital. For me, the digital has roots in the extension of human hands.

When we talk about the digital, the analog, or other technical processes, are we sure we know what we are talking about? What, if anything, might these two essays have to offer the conversation?

Peters: Digital

Sterne: Analog

This comment may have been adapted from the introduction to Benjamin Peters’ Digital Keywords: A Vocabulary of Information Society and Culture. 25% discount code in 2016: P06197

Peters

Announcing Digital Keywords (at a discount) and a Call for More Keywords at #dkw

This post appears concurrently at Culture Digitally.

I’m thrilled to announce the official publication, by Princeton University Press, of Digital Keywords: A Vocabulary of Information Society and Culture — on the fortieth anniversary of the publication of Raymond Williams’ classic Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society.

Princeton University Press is offering a discount of 25% on the book to all Culture Digitally readers. Enter the discount code P06197 at any time, until December 31, 2016.

Check out the table of contents, featuring 25 essays from a great group of scholars, or join the Twitter-verse fun at #dkw:

Also, consider indulging in three minutes with the editor Benjamin Peters (me).

The book offers an immensely teachable collection of 25 short essays from leading scholars, set to change the conversation about our contemporary information society and culture. It also represents a conversation begun two years ago with the readers of Culture Digitally and continued thanks to the support of Fred Appel at Princeton University Press. I would like to continue that conversation today.

The volume covers just 25 terms that the contributors felt were important to contemporary scholarly thinking around the information age. So many more terms warrant similar attention. What are some of the other words you think are key to understanding the modern world and its media, and why? Help out now by tweeting your own keyword of interest with the hashtag #dkw.

(If you do not tweet, your welcome to submit your keywords suggestions into this Google form. If you’d like others to be able to follow up with you, please add your name and institutional affiliation; please do not include bot-readable email addresses, since the file will be public.)

Next week, a list of candidate digital keywords will be drawn from the #dkw Twitter hashtag and the Google form, and then posted to Culture Digitally as a public reference and basis for future work. This open resource will also feature a list of the keywords we arrived at well as more than 200 candidate keywords we listed in the Digital Keywords appendix. The resource is intended as a first step toward building a rolling Rolodex of keywords and their scholars and students. The hope is that this exercise will stimulate future Digital Keywords volumes, teaching, and conversations.

Please come join the conversation in print and online, stay tuned as sample keyword essays follow this month, and enjoy!