Category: Connections

On the first day of class, Professor Schact led a conversation regarding the concept of the humanities. He encouraged the class to interpret this definition. While Google simplifies the term as “academic disciplines that study aspects of human society and culture,” as well as “the human race,” our class explored alternative definitions as we each related the term to our own majors.

On the first day of class, Professor Schact led a conversation regarding the concept of the humanities. He encouraged the class to interpret this definition. While Google simplifies the term as “academic disciplines that study aspects of human society and culture,” as well as “the human race,” our class explored alternative definitions as we each related the term to our own majors.

I explored this concept in my own individual lens. I took a hold of it psychologically, since I am a psychology major. Because of this, I pay close attention to people’s behavior and the way they interact with others. Based on this, I interpreted this term as a way of understanding people and more specifically, understanding how people relate. 

Others of us in the class who may be history or mathematics majors internalized this discussion more in terms of theorem or in terms of field ideas. While we did not all arrive at just one correct answer as to how to define this concept, I do believe that our inability to concretely decide on one definition of the humanities in itself showed the beauty of the term. This class discussion further demonstrated the way in which academic disciplines are so interconnected. Not only are they interconnected as broadly as the material, but also in the words that are used to identify concepts and terms. This umbrella term of the humanities only goes to show how applicable this term is to life itself, which shows what it means to be human.  

Furthermore, a strong relationship exists between computing and the humanities. While I typically associate computing with mathematics and STEM, this term also refers to communication. Last semester I took an Interpersonal Communication class with an esteemed professor, and I realized just how expansive communication is; I do it every day by calling, texting, facetiming, speaking, and writing. It is a continuously ongoing process. To fully link this connection, communication is one of the foundations of the humanities. The only way philosophers years ago were able to make more discoveries and were able to explore ideas is because of communication and sharing ideas. Without this as a foundation, the humanities would be underdeveloped. 

James Gleick discusses the idea of the dictionary in chapter three of his novel The Information. This chapter largely focuses on the production of dictionaries and the growth of vocabulary over time. At the time, philosophers tried to discover every word in the world, but they realized that in order to define a word, such as science, they needed to develop language. To demonstrate this ongoing growth, Gleick defined the dictionary as a “a malevolent literary device for cramping the growth of a language and making it hard and inelastic” (66). In other words, the academic disciplines within the humanities, as well as all other outside knowledge, continuously contribute to this project. The dictionary itself is a reflection of communication between and among people, and also exhibits history as it displays the origin of words. In order to communicate, people need to have a basis of words, and further, words are needed to communicate ideas. The dictionary, as described in the text, is in a specific, organized order. This order is referred to as alphabetic order. It simplifies the searching process so that words can be easily found and also brings additional meaning to words. As said, “only when printing – and the dictionary… could anyone develop a sense of word meaning as interdependent or even circular. Words had to be considered as words, representing other words, apart from thing” which further indicates that in order to understand any word, language itself needs to be understood (66). This itself is the epitome of communication. The only way I can understand or even articulate my own thoughts whether in this assignment or even in a conversation is by understanding the meaning of the words I am using and what meaning they contribute to the sentence I am forming. Words bring rise to more words which further develops vocabulary and meaning. 

To further forge this connection regarding the meanings of words and the connections between people and language, Gleick also includes, “The dictionary ratifies the persistence of the word. It declares that the meanings of words come from other words.  It implies that all words, taken together, form an interlocking structure: interlocking, because all words are defined in terms of other words” (66). This concept of circularity is a good representation of the dictionary and is also supportive of the basis of the humanities. The humanities comprise all of these academic disciplines. Each discipline uses words and concepts that are essential to its study. And these words are also found in other disciplines. For instance, I may learn about Measures of Central Tendency (MCT) such as mean, median, and mode in a statistics class for mathematics. With how interlocked different subject matters are, I may also learn about this exact material as it applies to Behavioral Research Methods for psychology. Just as the dictionary demonstrates circularity within its language, this circularity is then evident within majors and classes. Communication interlocks with the humanities. 

On the first day of class, Professor Schact led a conversation regarding the concept of the humanities. He encouraged the class to interpret this definition. While Google simplifies the term as “academic disciplines that study aspects of human society and culture,” as well as “the human race,” our class explored alternative definitions as we each related the term to our own majors.

I explored this concept in my own individual lens. I took a hold of it psychologically, since I am a psychology major. Because of this, I pay close attention to people’s behavior and the way they interact with others. Based on this, I interpreted this term as a way of understanding people and more specifically, understanding how people relate. 

Others of us in the class who may be history or mathematics majors internalized this discussion more in terms of theorem or in terms of field ideas. While we did not all arrive at just one correct answer as to how to define this concept, I do believe that our inability to concretely decide on one definition of the humanities in itself showed the beauty of the term. This class discussion further demonstrated the way in which academic disciplines are so interconnected. Not only are they interconnected as broadly as the material, but also in the words that are used to identify concepts and terms. This umbrella term of the humanities only goes to show how applicable this term is to life itself, which shows what it means to be human.  

Furthermore, a strong relationship exists between computing and the humanities. While I typically associate computing with mathematics and STEM, this term also refers to communication. Last semester I took an Interpersonal Communication class with an esteemed professor, and I realized just how expansive communication is; I do it every day by calling, texting, face-timing, speaking, and writing. It is a continuously ongoing process. To fully link this connection, communication is one of the foundations of the humanities. The only way philosophers years ago were able to make more discoveries and were able to explore ideas is because of communication and sharing ideas. Without this as a foundation, the humanities would be underdeveloped.

James Gleick discusses the idea of the dictionary in chapter three of his novel The Information. This chapter largely focuses on the production of dictionaries and the growth of vocabulary over time. At the time, philosophers tried to discover every word in the world, but they realized that in order to define a word, such as science, they needed to develop language. To demonstrate this ongoing growth, Gleick defined the dictionary as a “a malevolent literary device for cramping the growth of a language and making it hard and inelastic” (66). In other words, the academic disciplines within the humanities, as well as all other outside knowledge, continuously contribute to this project. The dictionary itself is a reflection of communication between and among people, and also exhibits history as it displays the origin of words. In order to communicate, people need to have a basis of words, and further, words are needed to communicate ideas. The dictionary, as described in the text, is in a specific, organized order. This order is referred to as alphabetic order. It simplifies the searching process so that words can be easily found and also brings additional meaning to words. As said, “only when printing – and the dictionary… could anyone develop a sense of word meaning as interdependent or even circular. Words had to be considered as words, representing other words, apart from thing” which further indicates that in order to understand any word, language itself needs to be understood (66). This itself is the epitome of communication. The only way I can understand or even articulate my own thoughts whether in this assignment or even in a conversation is by understanding the meaning of the words I am using and what meaning they contribute to the sentence I am forming. Words bring rise to more words which further develops vocabulary and meaning. 

To further forge this connection regarding the meanings of words and the connections between people and language, Gleick also includes, “The dictionary ratifies the persistence of the word. It declares that the meanings of words come from other words.  It implies that all words, taken together, form an interlocking structure: interlocking, because all words are defined in terms of other words” (66). This concept of circularity is a good representation of the dictionary and is also supportive of the basis of the humanities. The humanities comprise all of these academic disciplines. Each discipline uses words and concepts that are essential to its study. And these words are also found in other disciplines. For instance, I may learn about Measures of Central Tendency (MCT) such as mean, median, and mode in a statistics class for mathematics. With how interlocked different subject matters are, I may also learn about this exact material as it applies to Behavioral Research Methods for psychology. Just as the dictionary demonstrates circularity within its language, this circularity is then evident within majors and classes. Communication interlocks with the humanities. 

Through our interconnected world, we have learned to rely on different mediums to obtain different information. Whether it be Google, Youtube, the news, or library books, we are bound to find different resources to learn new information. But, we rarely stop to think about what would happen if the information that has been internalized, in both online and printed materials, was erased and there was no way of knowing past history. As Gleick introduced in Chapter 2, “The Persistence of the World”, “to subtract the technologies of information internalized over two millenia requires a leap of imagination backwards to a forgotten past” (pg 28).  Through my time at SUNY Geneseo, I have been a part of different conversations about the meaning of language and its importance. As an English Adolescent Education major with a linguistics background, I have realized that there is a deep correlation between the ways in which language has shaped our culture, identity, and history. Before understanding the interconnectedness between the impact of language and new information, it is important to understand the processes in which we go about learning new topics. 

Chapter two dives deep into the meaning of “looking up” something online or in printed texts. But, what does it mean when we are “looking up” something? Does it mean that we are researching something for the sake of finding an answer, or are we researching something to learn new information? I would say that there is a distinction between being able to identify an answer to something one “looks up” and being able to understand the new piece of information. Most of the time, we are told to complete an assignment that requires heavy research but in that process, we mostly find answers to the questions we are looking for. Through different research projects, I have neglected to think about where the information originated from, the impact the information had on those that were researched, and the future implications of other readers. It’s important that we sometimes take a step back and think about how what we read, what we research, and what we write plays a role in the ways we are connected through language. 

In one of my linguistics classes, I came across an article by Cambridge University Press titled, “American English: History, Structure, and Usage” that explains language, the importance of it, and how we have developed its power. Within the article, I learned about the term idiolect, which refers to a person’s use of language within a particular context. Most of the time, we think about us either engaging in formal or informal conversations, but it’s important to think about the contexts of different conversations and how we interact within each. The Information by James Gleick brings light to the power of language through the lens of personal knowledge. Essentially, before language became widespread, information was contained within our minds and shared only with those we spoke to. After the writing language was created, the knowledge that many had started to spread. Symbols, pictures, and writing languages were created to represent different concepts.

Today, our words are powerful and when we say something, it is more powerful. Through the sharing of knowledge, we become more powerful and also learn a lot more. It’s important to think that as we keep evolving technologically as a society, we will find new ways to convey different information. But, what’s more important is how we think about how information has evolved and the impact that sharing that information has on us. Language is more than the spread of knowledge, in some instances, it is the communication and unpacking of it. It’s weird to think that the information we have internalized, or rather our technological devices has internalized would require a lot of imagination if it were to be erased.

I like Stanford’s definition of the humanities on their humanities website. Their definition is “the study of how people process and the document the human experience.” This manifests into many different academic fields like philosophy, literature, history, language, and several other subject that all fit under the humanities umbrella. Computing or the use of computers completely changes the way that we can process and document these subjects. In order to further develop the humanities, people will still process their own experience in the same way but the human experience has changed due to the vast globalization that computing has aided. The scope of what can be processed and accessed is vastly higher through the internet and all of the information that is stored online.

A part of the reading from Gleick that really stood out to me was the part of chapter 3 that talks about how words were spelled. In the reading it talked about how each time that someone sat down to write something they came up with the spelling however they saw fit. “In fact, few had the concept of spelling—the idea that each word, when written, should take a particular predetermined form of letters” (p. 53) I was very surprised to read this because in my mind the way that words are spelled are so set in stone. However, in actuality it was only four centuries ago that most people didn’t even have the concept of words having a specific order. When I was reading this, I related this to how quickly documentation as a whole has progressed. The state of information technology was so poor compared to what we have now. The influx of computers and the internet into our daily lives completely changes what is possible in terms of documentation, the information you can find, and the sharing of this information. Nowadays you can access information on the humanities from all around the world. This gives those trying to innovate and learn more about these certain subjects way more material to widen their own thinking. So much of philosophy, literature, and language has been developed during times where access to information was so limited. The ability to access information that computing has given us makes me believe that we can progress in any subject at a faster rate. Nowadays, the average person who is interested in a subject can learn from experts in fields that they would have no chance to learn about in the past. This gives many people the ability to fast track their experience learning from the past. Subsequently giving them much more time and experience to innovate within their fields and compare with people all around the world.

I also found chapter 5 to be interesting in how many different ways people tried to develop the telegraph. I think that this shows that some of the great minds at that time realized the effect that quick transfers of information could possibly have to life. Later in the chapter, there is a part that talks about telegraph in a way that I thought was interesting. It says “ the telegraph served not just as a device but as a medium—a middle, intermediary state. The concept of using some sort of medium to transfer information is used in computers all the time and is one of its greatest functions. With modern computers we have all sorts of different websites that act as mediums that can be very specific to what the individual person wants to find. This ties into the point I made the last paragraph regarding the ability to progress within subjects. Now that we have all of these built in mediums in the internet our access to information is incredible. The more minds that are able to access education in certain fields will inevitably progress the fields at a faster rate in terms of innovation then we have ever seen.

In his book, The Information, James Gleick touches upon the ways in which language serves as the conveyer of information, which I found particularly interesting in relation to how our computers engage with language. That being said, after taking the time to reflect on the various functions of my computer, I am beginning to recognise that there seems to a connection between the ways our computers recognise information, directions, and expressions and the ways in which we, as English speakers, manipulate language to carry out these three functions. 

I was specifically intrigued by Gleick’s argument: “With words we begin to leave traces behind us like breadcrumbs: memories in symbols for others to follow.” (Gleick 31). As an English major, when I think of the English language, I enjoy paying close attention to the function of symbols. At the micro level, I believe symbols begin first as characters (similar to the keys on our keyboard) that are formed into groups, which become words that can represent various definitions. From there, we group these words into unique combinations in order to convey meaningful sentences and functions that we as students of the humanities, later unpack or deconstruct for depth, significance, and meaning. 

Gleick’s observation about symbols in language is a notion that I am currently engaging with in Dr. Lydia Kertz’s Chaucer and His World course. As we read Geoffrey Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales, our class is encouraged to think about the Middle English text and its respective translations. Oftentimes one word can have various spellings but essentially represent the same idea. Take for instance, the noun tyranny, which appears as tirrannie, tirauni, tireni, and thirannie in the middle english text yet each variation of the word still represents the usual characteristics of a cruel despot. Gleick makes a clever observation when he points out: “words were fugitive, on the fly, expected to vanish again thereafter” (Gleick 53). This concept makes the most sense to me when I think about Chaucer’s pilgrims engaging in storytelling because they are all essentially spinning their own tales and the language they use is fleeting. So it becomes Chaucer’s responsibility as the the writer, to document these tales and decide which variation of a word or symbol he will use to represent the meaning of the story. In a sense, Chaucer as the documenter is also engaging with the informative function of language because these tales teach us as modern readers about the social changes, religious tensions, and various lifestyles of late medieval England.

That being said, when I reconsider the functions and symbols that I manipulate on my keyboard, I realise that I am also engaging with the informative function of language when I use my computer. For instance, when I need information on locating a file on my desktop, I simply use the Command-spacebar combination and I can easily request a search. The same concept can be applied when I use the Command-F combination to locate a particular phrase in a document or webpage. In addition to manipulating my computer’s informative function of language, I am also engaging with the directive functions. For example, when I want to take a screenshot of the entire screen, I simply press Command-Shift-3 and my computer immediately recognises my command. While it is evident that our computers can carry out commands and requests, they can also engage in expressive language as well. In chapter two, Glieck posits that one way of deciphering Marshall McLuhan’s critique of print “would be to say that print offers only a narrow channel of communication. The channel is linear and even fragmented…If the ideal of communication is a meeting of souls, then writing is a sad shadow of the ideal” (Gleick 43). While McLuhan may be justified in his belief that communication ought to be a meeting of souls, I do not necessarily agree that print is the antithesis of this ideal. Communication is not limited to gestures or touch, in fact, when we direct our computers to italicise, bold, or underline certain words or phrases by using combinations like Command-I, Command-B, and Command-U we are engaging in the expressive function of language. The functions that we use not only provide emphasis to the ideas that we want to convey, but it also expresses emotions and attitudes as well. 

James Gleick in his information novel entitled, The Information, touches on the different forms of communicating, and in turn, computing and understanding the information that we encounter in our lives. From the use of “talking drums” in Africa, to the use of the Alphabet, Gleick is able to provide thought provoking analysis about how communication has changed over the course of his novel.

In the course of reading the novel so fair, I’ve noticed the amount of time that Gleick spends on discussing the Alphabet, how it has used, and how it has changed since its invention. Particularly, in chapter 3, Gleick writes,

“That Crawdrey should arrange his words in alphabetical order, to make his Table Alphabeticall, was not self-evident. He knew he could not count on even his educated readers to be versed in alphabetical order, so he tried to produce a small how to manual…

Thou shall learn the alphabet, to wit, the order of the letters as they stand, perfectly without booke, and where evert Letter standeth: as b neere the beginning, n about the middesti, and t toward the end. Nowe if the word, which thou art desirous to finde, begin with an a then look in the beginning of this table, but if with v looke towards the end. Againe, if thy word beginne with ca looke in the beginning of the letter c but if with cu then looke toward the end of that letter. And so of all the rest. &c” (57).

Crawdrey, who sought out to write the first dictionary (although that wasn’t what it was called at its creation in 1604), struggled with how to format his work by the alphabet because during the time period, few knew the alphabet and how to use it. In fact, according to Gleick, even the very words and definitions that Crawdrey was recording were commonly disputed and no one was quite certain what the exact meanings and spellings were.

In the above quoted passage, the reader, finds not only can find roots in computer science, but also in the humanities and the english language. The reader finds what is possibly the first algorithm, created by Crawdrey, as well as language itself, the very thing that humans use to communicate and facilitate the spread of ideas that we still use today.

The way in which Crawdrey decided to instruct users on how to use his dictionary using alphabetical order can be likened to one of the first algorithms used in society. By follow those step by step instructions, Crawdrey expects the user to get a certain result – finding the particular word that they are looking for. The steps done change in regard to the word you are looking for. Today, when we think of algorithms, one may think of a robot being given a certain input to complete a job, like flagging tweets or facebook posts for deletion. However, algorithms are also step by step instructions that you use to complete a task. For instance, anyone can learn how to solve a rubiks cube if they learn the different algorithms. The algorithms to complete the task don’t change depending on how the cube is mixed up, they’re always the same serious of terms. Crawdrey’s instructions to look up a word are the exact same type of process, just with different wording.

Crawdrey’s dictionary can be viewed as representing the first algorithm, but it is also inherently a way of communication and has a distinct connection to humanities. A core feature of humanities is the way that human beings record, share, and spread new information. By creating the first dictionary, Crawdrey recorded, intended to share, and facilitated the spread of not only the alphabet, but a more uniform and common way of defining and spelling words. Now, obviously, we know that from previous class discussions that the humanities don’t have one exact definition, goal, and study – the humanities are inherently a combination of multiple things lumped into just one category to explain human nature and thought. With this in mind, we know that while Crawdrey’s dictionary was never reinvented, we know that it was changed, edited, and adapted and time went on, human nature changed, and humans learned more information. The human race doesn’t have just one dictionary, we have more concrete definitions and spellings for each word then we did in 1604, and we have more then one producer of dictionaries (Mariam Webster, the Oxford Dictionary, The Cambridge Dictionary, etc.), we even go as far to have dictionaries that translate different languages into English.

In general, one of the most interesting thing about Gleick’s novel, The Information, is that, as a reader, it opens your eyes to not only what technology was before the age of smartphones and computers, but it opens your eyes to the way information itself has transformed since the beginning of time. Crawdrey’s dictionary, his explanation and steps used to understand alphabetical ordering, and the various interpretations and editions that were created after its original publications shows signs of not only the beginnings of computer technology, but it is a perfect example of the humanities and the way in which this form of study allows for interpretation, communication, and the spread of information.

On page 85 of The Information by James Gleick, a book is spoken of that forever changed mathematics. Being referred to as “an electric flashlight sent to a lightless world. . .” one was left to wonder why nobody thought of the process sooner (Gleick 85). It is intriguing to wonder why technological/mathematical advancements happen at certain times. Is it out of necessity? Most likely not, due to the fact that we would be living perfectly fine without a good amount of the technology that we are lucky enough to have. The advancements sometimes seem to be driven by the human need for our endeavours to be easier or faster. In some cases, these advancements help us to diminish possible errors while attempting to make new advancements. Henry Briggs wondered why once the thought process or technology was discovered it seemed so obvious to us. Why didn’t someone simply think to invent things sooner? Most likely because certain technology needs other technology in order to help it progress, but are we truly advancing as fast as we can? When a man landed on the moon it wasn’t necessarily due to our longing for technological advancement, we did it in order to flaunt our advantages to other countries. In an ideal world, advancement would be made for the sake of advancing, having the ability to help people when they need it whether it be academically, mentally, medically and so on. All in all, it doesn’t matter too much what the purpose of the advancement is, as long as the result is put to good use. 

Thinking about the unrealized potential of our technology is almost frustrating. There is no way to guarantee that we are doing the best with what we have in regards to our society and culture. One of the only ways to promote using our resources to their full potential is by spreading awareness of the technology we have and the good that we can do with it. Classes on using technology are important, but I almost wonder if there needs to be more of an emphasis put on the thought process of what needs to be invented. How long have we been searching for a cure for cancer amongst other horrible illnesses and have come away empty handed? There must be a better way for developing our technology apart from things being accidentally discovered or advancements being made to spite other countries. It is likely that this would involve prioritizing certain sciences and thoughts that are often overlooked. It is even possible that the sciences we need haven’t even fully developed yet.

            Th invntion of th computr and th intrnt wr transformational for t Oxford nglish Dictionary. Indd, th OD bcam accssabl to th ntir world via th intrnt, as Jams Glick nots: “[there now existed] instantaneous connection to a worldwide network of proxy amateur lexicographers and access to a vast, interlocking set of databases growing asymptotically towards the ideal of All Previous Text” (Gleick 65). This massiv xpansion of accss to all of thos who had intrnt across th glob is rmarkabl, and indd is a major part of th rason to push forward th dvlopmnt of th digital humanitis. This prolifration of accss to lxicographical information throughout th world, much lik what is currntly occurring in spurts with litratur, allows a much largr audinc not just to apprciat ths txts but to study thm. Similarly, such a databas for th OD or a work of litratur allows for analysis in mannrs that would not hav bn fficint bfor, such as statistical analysis of languag on a larg scal.

            This is not without problms, howvr. It is th natur of litratur that on is unabl to fully tak account of vry individual word in a work. Just lik how Jams Glick uss th xampl of th word “mackerel” for th OD, th automatd statistical analysis that is mad much asir, mor accssabl, and mor fficint by th bginnings of litrary txts prolifrating onlin, on also has to b wary of looking to hard at ach individual word, missing th forst for th trs, if on will. Just as thirty diffrnt spllings of “mackerel” ar usd in an impossibl qust for compltnss, it can also b possibl to look too far into manings or pattrns that ar not rally thr. On could crtainly mak a litrary intrprtation basd on how many tims on word is usd in a txt or anothr is not, but not all such things ar so dlibrat. As a studnt of litratur, on must by natur assum that vry word is as dlibrat, or othrwis analysis can fall apart. But not vry charactr in vry grat work of litratur is anothr strok of gnius. Somtims word choic is simply coincidntal, and somtims looking for analysis lads to a blif in manings that ar not rally thr. Th digitization of th humanitis allows for a much fficnt dgr of diffrnt typs of analysis, but it can also lad to thirty diffrnt spllings of “mackerel” imbud with a maning that thy hav nvr rally had.

            Some attempts at cleverness in writing are clear, such as my deliberate avoidance of the letter “e” (sans in quotes) in the words above. But, as my eleventh grade AP English teacher put it, “sometimes the curtains are just blue.” There does not need to be meaning in everything. But the more we are able to use technology to search for meanings, especially with the decrease in labor that is made possible by said technologies, it is important we also are careful not to create patterns and meanings that were never there. And, at the same time, one must remember that a database or a digitized version of a text is only so accessible as the original text was. That is, a search function may find words and their frequency well, so long as they are not missing their e’s. But that is devoid of context, and while being able to search a dictionary for information is nice, and literature can to some extent be the same way. But it is not each individual word that makes a work of literature, just as a definition out of context defines nothing. Accessibility and different functionalities for searching and automated data analysis for a text could be incredibly useful, as can the different format. But one must not forget that books were written to be books, not text on a screen.

Language is an ever-evolving system by which we create meaning and share that meaning with others. It is a bridge to understanding others’ experiences and perspectives. Language is a collective, collaborative effort that changes along with the people and generations who use it for their own unique purposes, depending on what is relevant to a society at the time.

While people may be mortal, computers and digital documentation of human language is not so mortal. In a way, computers and digital technology may be thought of as an immortal mainstay for culture and language–for linguistic culture. They document and preserve how humans once created and shared meaning through words.

But what role do computers and digital technology platforms play in preserving, or at least documenting, human meaning-making? The case of the word “gaslighting” is an interesting example.

During a group discussion in one of my college English classes, I brought up the word “gaslight” and how it applied to an abusive relationship between characters within one of our reading assignments. (The text was Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s 1892 short story, “The Yellow “Wallpaper,” for those curious.) As a self-declared classic movie buff, I assumed that the meaning of this word–which originally became coined and consequently universalized from the 1944 movie Gaslight, a movie with which I was familiar–was common knowledge to everyone in the room. While my professor was familiar with the word, I quickly became aware that none of my classmates were, and had to explain that this word meant to “psychologically manipulate someone into becoming insane.”

The next day, while reading James Gleick’s The Information for ENGL 340, I coincidentally came across this now-obscure word once again. “[T]he technology for gaslight had not been invented [prior to the twentieth century],” Gleick writes. “Nor had the technology for motion pictures.” As Gleick explains, “[The word] exists only because enough people saw the 1944 film of that title and could assume that their listeners had seen it, too” (p. 76). Through cultural interest in a movie, a word and its meaning were born, gained relevance, and were shared into society’s collective consciousness.

While the meaning of the word “gaslight” could have been usefully applied to people or characters long before (or after, for that matter) the 1944 movie ever came into existence, the technology that allowed the word to become culturally relevant did not exist until that year. Luckily, the technology preventing the word from becoming forever extinct (if not irrelevant/obsolete/endangered) and preventing its meaning from becoming unknown to any humans, has also been invented: VCR’s, DVD’s, movie streaming platforms, digital dictionaries that now include the word “gaslight,” etc.

While this word seems to be relevant to my life lately as both a classic movie enthusiastic and English major, I am aware that “gaslight” is not a common vocab term to come across in the twenty-first century. Its technological-turned-etymological source, the 1944 movie, has become decidedly more obsolete; in turn, so has the cultural relevance of the word’s meaning. And so, too, then, has the word itself.

While movies may be a relevant technological platform in general, black-and-white films are not particularly popular types of movies anymore. When a certain type of technology becomes irrelevant and obsolete, it follows that its cultural byproducts do too. By this logic, technology is important in the present for being a producer and diffuser of cultural meaning in the form of language–especially temporary “slang.” Technology is important in the past for being a preserver of what was once culturally relevant, even if it has ceased to be relevant in the present.

At the intersection between past and present, between what is relevant and what is obsolete, is the digital humanities. And computers are the immortal platform that allows the digital humanities to exist in both the past and present–and future.

In this way, technology–be it in the form of movies, or the Internet where now-obsolete vocabulary definitions are forever preserved for users’ future reference–connects humans from all generations in time. It allows human meaning and language to also become immortal. Be it Shakespeare’s texts, or niche vocabulary term from a 1944 movie, language is forever being invented, used, and then filed away for future technology users to come across, either by accident or by intent. In essence, computers–like print literature–have become an extension of the human mind, of society’s collective consciousness, where language and meaning are stored.

Long before the electronic age emerged, was a time where even the earliest form of communication, written language, did not exist. It is hard to think of what it would be like to live in this time. Imagine navigating through life without road signs, instructions, or letters from grandma. My generation grew up in the digital age, so not only are we used to written language, but we have the luxury of constant immediate access to this form of communication from anywhere in the world right at our fingertips.

Though it’s hard to picture life without writing, there was a time this was the way humans lived. Oral communication was the only method of delivering messages. As writing emerged, there was quite a bit of backlash. Notable people such as Plato argued that, “This invention will produce forgetfulness in the mind of those who learn to use it, because they will not practice their memory” (Gleick, 30). Further arguments mention that writing separates the speaker from the writer. While this holds true, I believe that this can be viewed as a pro of writing rather than a con. The ability to communicate from a distance, whether that be in miles or in time, is an advancement that enables us to reach an incredibly large number of people to share ideas and learn from one another.

The early dependence on oral language, which transitioned into written and now digital computing, is notably prevalent in the humanities, and in my opinion makes the study of humanities possible. The evolution of written language itself is a topic that can be studied within the humanities. But taking it a step further, the transition from written language to digital written language was a major turning point in the timeline of human evolution. It is hard to see, as we are living in it currently and making history. However, the connections that we are able to make due to the creation of written language turned digital has opened the humanities up to endless resources and possibilities. Literature can be accessed within seconds, educators can communicate from opposite sides of the world. Collaborations can be made between people in different time zones in a fraction of the amount of time it would take prior to the evolution of technology.

“The larger the number of senses involved, the better the chance of transmitting a reliable copy of the sender’s mental state,” said Jonathan Miller (Gleick, 48). Miller argues that the emerging forms of technological communication, in this case being the telegraph, telephone, radio and e-mail, rely only on one sense to relay a message from one person to another. While this is technically true, how so does this make these forms of communication inferior to face to face oral communication? Is it so that having an educated conversation over the phone with someone from Europe on a topic that this person would have insider information on, is not worth having simply because you are only hearing their voice rather than speaking face to face? I would argue that this is a very limiting point of view to have, and keeps one from taking advantage of the endless opportunities to learn when technology is put to use.

Though written language, and digital language specifically, is frequently considered to be detrimental to classic communication, the evolution of written language is an integral part of the studies of humanities as a whole. Studying this topic is almost like the brain studying itself, because humanists study how people document the human experience, which is exactly what this post is. I am a humanist. Without the transition from oral to written language, humanist studies would hardly be possible.