Digital Humanities: Whose
Changes Do You Want to Save? –
Gabriela Méndez Cota
Mediating ‘Rethinking the Digital Humanities in the Context of Originary
Technicity’ by Federica Frabetti from vol 12 (2011) The Digital Humanities:
Beyond Computing
Culture Machine devoted its 2012 issue to the topic of the digital
humanities. The contributions to that issue explored the digital
humanities as a critical engagement with digital technologies that goes
‘beyond computing’ in order to produce new ways of doing the
humanities. The guest editor, Federica Frabetti, introduced the
contributions with an argument about the critical and creative potential
of the digital humanities in the face of a seemingly irreversible
colonisation of the University by neoliberal rationality. The question, for
her, was how best to actualize such a potential. In what sense, she asked,
can the use of digital technologies by practitioners of the humanities
bring about something ‘new’ in the humanities? Her response drew on
the philosophical tradition of deconstruction, which effectively criticizes
instrumentalist positions rooted in the Aristotelian view of technology
as an external tool, one that is merely utilised according to the will and
intentions of humanity. For the philosophers Jacques Derrida and Bernard
Stiegler, for example, the classical devaluation of technology as an
instrument of humanity cannot be separated from the devaluation of
writing as a mere representation of speech. Failing to question this
double devaluation would render the digital humanities themselves an
instrument of a currently hegemonic ‘humanity’, namely, the neoliberal
subject that produces, consumes and disposes at will technological
products and services, including knowledge and education. An alternative
to such a fate would be announced by ‘originary technicity’, which is
Stiegler’s designation for the argument that no self-consciousness (and
therefore no humanity in the classical Western sense) can be achieved
without technology, given the latter’s essential role in the development
of memory, language and knowledge. In this sense, Stiegler argues that
historically specific writing technologies allow human beings to suspend
their genetic program and evolve through means other than life in a
process called ‘epiphylogenesis’. The kernel of Frabetti’s own argument
(both with and against Stiegler) is that digital software (a technology
that does not represent speech but rather ‘makes things happen in the
Search
Search
19:56
Issues
Vol. 20 (2021): Machine
Intelligences
(https://culturemachine.n
et/vol-20-machineintelligences/)
Vol. 19 (2020): Media
Populism
(https://culturemachine.n
et/archives/vol-19media-populism/)
Vol. 18 (2019): The Nature
of Data Centers
(https://culturemachine.n
et/vol-18-the-nature-ofdata-centers/)
Vol. 17 (2018): Thermal
Objects
(https://culturemachine.n
et/vol-17-thermalobjects/)
Vol. 16 (2016): Drone
Cultures
(https://culturemachine.n
et/drone-cultures/)
Vol. 15 (2014): Viva Culture
Machine! Latin American
Mediations
(https://culturemachine.n
et/viva-culturemachine/)
Vol. 14 (2013): Platform
Politics
(https://culturemachine.n
et/platform-politics/)
Vol. 13 (2012): Paying
Attention
(https://culturemachine.n
et/paying-attention/)
Vol. 12 (2011): The Digital
Humanities: Beyond
world’) calls into question the concept of writing on which the
humanities have been traditionally based, namely, an ethnocentric
conception of writing as mere instrument for the recording of an
authorial (and authoritative) speech. If the digital humanities pursue
this line of thinking, she suggests, they will enable themselves to produce
genuine alternatives to the easily commodifiable reproduction of the
traditional humanities based on the authoritative, book-writing human.
How does this human look from the standpoint of
Latin American practitioners of the digital humanities?
The Question of Humanism in Latin American Digital
Humanities
Whereas Frabetti’s position proposes a non-humanist or deconstructive
task for the digital humanities, a first point regarding the digital
humanities in Latin America would be that, at least among its most
visible University-based representatives, the concept of ‘humanism’ has
not
been philosophically ‘deconstructed’, and much less has it been
politically discredited. This is what emerges from the contributions of a
number of digital humanists to the Latin American Network of Digital
Humanities blog. In a recent contribution to this blog, Spanish
philosopher Juan Luis Suárez asserts a continuity between 15th century
humanism and the endeavours and aspirations of contemporary digital
humanists: ‘Digital Humanities in the 21st century can lead the debate on
the specific contents that are to inform our culture, of the way in which
we want to give our political communities the kind of human being that
will – thanks to the presence of an education system – be responsible of
these cultural communities’ life’ (Suárez, 2014). There is no doubt, for
Suárez, that humanism is alive and relevant for the Spanish-speaking
world of the 21st century. In his words, what Latin American research
systems should do is ‘create or adapt digital technologies to the
Humanistic project’. Whether we agree or not with this idea or the way
in which it is expressed, we can certainly ask about the role of
technoscientific capitalism in he realization of such a project. In his blog
entry ‘Digital Humanities in Spanish?’, Suárez observes that a consensus
regarding the economic importance of research belongs to the
industrialized countries, yet it is one that Latin American digital
humanists can view optimistically as promising ‘progress’. Even though,
in his view, not enough Spanish is spoken in the digital humanities,
digitization entails above all an opportunity to valorise culture as ‘one of
the most important economic sectors and a pillar of research interest’.
Despite his apparent enthusiasm for culture as an economic sector, Suárez
advises fellow digital humanists to start by interrogating the nature and
the social relevance of the problems they deal with. The digitization of
existing collections is seen as fundamental but not decisive, for while it
Computing
(https://culturemachine.n
et/the-digitalhumanities-beyondcomputing/)
19:56
Vol. 11 (2010): Creative
Media
(https://culturemachine.n
et/creative-media/)
Vol. 10 (2009): Pirate
Philosophy
(https://culturemachine.n
et/pirate-philosophy/)
Vol. 9 (2007): Recordings
(https://culturemachine.n
et/recordings/)
Vol. 8 (2006): Community
(https://culturemachine.n
et/community/)
Vol. 7 (2005): Biopolitics
(https://culturemachine.n
et/biopolitics/)
Vol. 6 (2004):
Deconstruction is/in
Cultural Studies
(https://culturemachine.n
et/vol-6-deconstructionis-in-cultural-studies/)
Vol. 5 (2003): The E-Issue
(https://culturemachine.n
et/the-e-issue/)
Vol. 4 (2002): The EthicoPolitical Issue
(https://culturemachine.n
et/the-ethico-politicalissue/)
Vol. 3 (2001): Virologies:
Culture and
Contamination
(https://culturemachine.n
et/virologies-cultureand-contamination/)
Vol. 2 (2000): The
University Culture
Machine
(https://culturemachine.n
is a practice that is allowing ‘us to learn how to be digital humanists’,
the fact of the matter is that ‘Google has been doing it for years and
creating the technology and shaping the social habits used now by
researchers’. Thus, besides doing what Google already does, ‘it is
necessary to create the technology to do it and invent the work protocols
that will lead to the birth of communities of practice’.
Crucially, this practice would be orientated to analysing the past in a
different way in order to solve relevant problems. This applies, for Suárez
at least, to ‘digitizers’ and not just to programmers because the problem
goes beyond the technical, and encompasses anyone who is responsible,
publicly or privately, in the spheres of education, patrimony,
communication, and humanistic research. In this regard, he mentions a
few pioneer projects as concrete examples of what can be done in Latin
American countries in order to address the changing work habits among
practitioners of the humanities, and the new technical requirements of
those practitioners that result from dealing with complex problems
requiring large amounts of data-processing and team work involving
collaborations with institutions outside the University as well as those in
other disciplines. Among them is the Corpus del Español project, a
repository with over one hundred million Spanish words belonging to
more than 20,000 texts stretching from 1200 right up to the 20th century,
and whose interface is organized to facilitate linguistic searches by
word, phrases, lemmas, words in context and, recently, semantic,
synonymic queries. It also allows some natural language processing – an
aspect of increasing importance in humanistic research if we consider
the millions of digitized texts that are now available. In terms of the
digitization of content, there is the Bracero History Archive, the aim of
which is to collect, archive and spread the oral histories and artifacts
from the Bracero Program – 1942-1964 US government initiative that
invited Mexican labourers to take up temporary agrigultural work there
and has, thus, had a considerable impact in the memories and
experiences of the Mexican population in the US. One of its most
important features is user
interactivity of the kind characteristic of web 2.0. Both of these projects,
however, have involved the participation of US universities which have
links to state and private enterprise. This raises the question: how can
projects like this take place in Mexico?
Mexican digital humanist Ernesto Priani, who is based at the National
Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), says that in Mexico digital
humanists find themselves at ‘an earlier stage’ than the US National
Digital Library project. Accordingly, they should reflect on questions that
are much more general, such as the goal and meaning of a Mexican
Digital Library, how to undertake it (and who should do so), the spirit and
the form of creating it, together with the methodology and technology
et/the-universityculture-machine/)
Vol. 1 (1999): Taking Risks
With The Future
(https://culturemachine.n
et/taking-risks/)
19:56
Reviews
(https://culturemachine.n
et/reviews/)
InterZone
(https://culturemachine.n
et/interzone/)
that should serve as its toolset (Priani, 2014). For Priani, the Mexican
Digital Library is a cultural project that is only conceivable in national
terms. Such a project ought to be the sum of all the efforts, great and
small, of all the digitization groups dispersed across the country. For
instance, there are government projects, such as the Mexican Digital
Library, which is supported by the National Council for Culture and Arts
(Conaculta), the Carso Group, and the General National Archives the
National Institute of Anthropology and History (INAH), following the
specifications of the World Digital Library. There is the Biblioteca Digital
del Bicentenario (Digital Library of the Bicentennial), a collection of PDFs
created for the centenary of the Revolution. There are also university
projects such as the Biblioteca Digital del Pensamiento Novohispano
[Digital Library of Neohispanic Thought], sponsored by the Faculty of
Philosophy and Letters of UNAM, or the Biblioteca Virtual de la Novela
Corta (Virtual Library of the Short Novel), sponsored by the Philological
Research Institute also of UNAM. The
large-scale special collections scanning projects such as those
undertaken by the University of Nuevo León, by the General Direction of
Libraries of UNAM, which is not yet public, or by the personal libraries of
José Luis Martínez undertaken again by Conaculta, can also be mentioned
in this context. In Priani’s view, the lack of coordination, the absence of a
shared vision and methodology have limited the efforts, dispersed the
resources, and impeded the confluence of projects necessary for the
creation of a unified library. For this reason, Priani also sees Mexican
digital humanities as being confronted with the task of imagining a
Mexican Digital Library that might be able to come to fruition.
He narrates how, in the 18th century, Juan José de Eguiara y Eguren, a
university professor in what was then ‘New Spain’, drafted a work he
called Bibliotheca mexicana, with the purpose of creating a history of his
land’s men of letters. According to Priani, he was reacting against the
metropolitan belief that the inhabitants of the New World were
incapable of scholarship. Eguiara’s Bibliotheca mexicana was the first
systematic (yet incomplete) effort to identify, unite, and preserve the
memory of the
people of New Spain together with their works. Even though others
continued with the project, they too failed to bring it to completion.
According to Priani: ‘The problem was not only the enormity of their
objective, but also their constant returns to the beginning. Each one of
them began the enterprise with a new methodology, new goals, and new
personal intentions, which made the history of the Bibliotheca mexicana
an inexorable return to the point of departure’. Should the construction of
a national library be the main goal of the digital humanities in Mexico?
It is perhaps not so strange that a humanist working at a public
institution whose motto reads ‘For my Race the Spirit Will Speak’ should
19:56
think so.1 Interestingly, Priani sets this goal against one of the most
threatening agents of technoscientific capitalism: Google. In the case of
Google Books, Priani remarks, we are not talking about an actual library,
but rather a bookstore. Moreover, there is the problem of the culture that
Google represents; we are also talking about a position of cultural
dominance on the internet. It is in this context, he says, that ‘we must
discuss the construction of a Mexican National Library’. The question for
him is how to respond to the need to ‘preserve and make available our
national patrimony in the face of possible appropriation by private
enterprise’. Defined by the common task of making the patrimony of
Mexico accessible, and enriching our knowledge of it, and by the explicit
aim not only of moving objects of ‘our patrimony’ into the digital realm,
but rather developing knowledge by means of this act. Only in this way, it
seems to him, ‘we will we be saved from the curse of Eguiara’ – namely,
that Mexican humanists tend to leave their encyclopedic projects
incomplete.
Another Mexican digital humanist, Paola Ricaurte, contributes a series of
questions to the Digital Humanities Network blog about the relationship
between the digital humanities and the geopolitics of knowledge. She
argues that in order to contribute to a genuine intellectual exercise, the
practice of digital humanities in Latin America must not reproduce
dominant epistemological frameworks, circuits of production and
knowledge diffusion, institutions, referents and objects of study. In this
vein, she diagnoses:
Digital humanists in Latin America face the challenge posed
by Mignolo.
On the one hand, the need to abandon the universalist
conception of knowledge, which also involves the challenge
of narrating ourselves on our own terms: What are the
dominant academic discourses in the field of
digital humanities and where are we situated in them?
What criteria define digital humanities in Mexico and Latin
America? What are the mechanisms of legitimation of
knowledge production in the field of digital humanities?
Who defines and controls them and what is our position
about it? (Ricaurte, 2014)
None of these questions is answered in Ricaurte’s contribution to the
blog of the Network of Latin American Digital Humanities, but the
contributions from Suárez and Priani reviewed above suggest a picture in
which university-based digital humanists align their task with nationbuilding, socioeconomic ‘development’, the creation of tools for
patrimony conservation and rigorous academic standards – as if none of
19:56
these narratives had been fundamentally destabilised by both the
representatives of decolonial thought and the neoliberal orientation of
global technoscience. Mignolo’s questions should therefore be applied in
the first place to the ‘local’ understanding of the field of the digital
humanities, which unproblematically reasserts broken narratives about
the nation, knowledge and technology. Such an interrogation is likely to
be pursued across Latin America in the coming years, precisely in
response to the postcolonial injunction to define ‘our position’ about who
controls the mechanisms of legitimation of knowledge production in all
fields, not just the digital humanities. Yet this interrogation is likely to
be pursued in unexpected places: that is, places outside the traditional
university
and outside the traditional task of authoritatively defining disciplinary
boundaries for an academic practice. While university-based digital
humanists advocate the academic harnessing of digital technologies as
an
instrument for the research, conservation and transmission of the
‘national patrimony’, heterogeneous actors across national and
disciplinary boundaries gather to debate the implications of ‘the
knowledge economy’ (that is, technoscience) for the Latin American
relationship with culture: is it acceptable to reduce culture to an
economic resource or should we rather articulate it with the
political project of a democratic citizenship? Moreover, is epistemic
decolonisation possible at all without a serious interrogation of Latin
American investments in culture as something essentially different from
the knowledge produced in the so-called ‘developed’ world?
Beyond University-Based Humanism: Do You Want to Save
the Changes?
In 2008, the team at the Centro Cultural de Españain Córdoba, Argentina
decided to call for a critical and ‘local’ take on the debates around
intellectual property and copyright which were unfolding in Europe at
the time.2 While some countries such as Chile and Mexico had already
addressed these issues (see López Cuenca & Ramírez Pedrajo, 2008), in the
case of Argentina the Center sought to inaugurate a yet unheard of
discussion among academics, politicians and media professionals. The
result of this initiative, led by Paula Baulieu, was a series of encounters
called ‘The Lord of the Archives: Debates on Authorship, Entitlement and
Rights’. Among their outputs is a freely available e-book titled (in
Spanish) Do You Want to Save the Changes? As Baulieu notes in her
introduction to this book, the most pressing questions addressed during
the debates were
the geopolitics of knowledge and the Latin American need for ‘a new
social pact’ regarding culture and knowledge. Whereas the question of
the geopolitics of knowledge addresses the fact that digital technologies
19:56
have not by themselves reversed (and have in some ways actually
strengthened) the unequal conditions in which culture and knowledge are
generated on a global scale, the question about a new social pact
concerns the need to reimagine culture in Latin America outside the
framework of the commercial leisure and entertainment industries. As
Baulieu observes, in Latin America there is still a tendency to
marginalise culture from political agendas, basically by subordinating it
to typical ‘Third World’ issues such as poverty, unemployment, child
malnutrition, epidemics, water shortage, climate change and so on. Yet
problems of poverty and climate change are not just economic but also
cultural and political, as is the implicit or explicit privileging of
(Northern) ‘expert’ discourse when dealing with them. As long as we
understand culture as a (non-political) economic resource, citizenship in
Latin America will be reduced to a form of consumption, and will
continue to reproduce the extreme inequalities which have afflicted the
region since colonial times, and which are currently deepening as they
are in much of the rest of the world.
Do You Want to Save the Changes? contains numerous contributions which
do not directly invoke the digital humanities as a field, but do address
the questions posed by Ricaurte above in a way that might help us to
think about the pertinence of a deconstructive reflection in Latin
American digital humanities. While the book itself does not constitute a
direct response to Culture Machine’s 2012 take on the digital humanities,
the purpose of hosting it here alongside a critical review of the Latin
American Network of Digital Humanities is to present the interested
reader with a preliminary sketch of one possible theoretical mapping of
the main concerns of Latin American practitioners of the humanities in
relation to digital technologies and their implications for local cultures
and knowledges. Of course the question remains open as to what exactly a
deconstructive approach within such a theoretical mapping would entail
for university-based digital humanists, besides pointing to the ethical
and
political dangers of re-asserting humanism uncritically in a
technoscientific world. It could certainly not stop at admonishing Latin
American academics for being too humanist. Rather it should confront us
with the complexity of setting up a dialogue between incommensurable
cultural and historical intellectual traditions that are nevertheless
tightly imbricated with one another (through the history that has
organised global knowledge production into centres and peripheries).
One particular contribution to Do You Want to Save the Changes? makes
this point clear.
For the Argentinian sociologist Leandro Rodriguez Medina, Latin America
is ‘peripheral’ within the geopolitics of knowledge by virtue of its
incapacity (or perhaps unwillingness) to develop a material and symbolic
19:56
structure that allows for the expression of a local knowledge which, once
channelled, makes possible a dialogue with other areas. How could
university-based peripheral academics effectively counter First World
prestige, organizational capacity and editorial influence? The problem is
that First World publications are not merely vehicles of information but
also models and parameters for the rest of the world – and not just the
world of academics but also that of governments and society as a whole –
through the symbolic and material influence of institutions such as
UNESCO, the World Bank, the IMF and so forth. The latter adopt First
World knowledge as a scheme to understand local realities. This sort of
civilizational hegemony cannot be counteracted through the disarticulated, sporadic, individual and economically precarious attempts
that are usually found in so-called peripheral countries. What, then, can
be done? For Rodríguez Medina, the most important thing is to decide
whether ‘the answer to our local problems is in First World publications’.
If it is, we should press harder so that our local institutions facilitate our
access to those publications. If it is not, we should recognize that ‘free
culture’ would not, by itself, guarantee any progress in our attempts to
deal with our local problems. A more difficult yet indispensable
alternative, he suggests, would be to interrogate how ‘we’, the periphery,
reproduce this role by simultaneously accepting the quality standards of
intellectual fields in the First World and a context of material and
symbolic precariousness. This interrogation would have to unfold in the
form of a dialogue that so far has appeared impossible to sustain. After
reviewing the main contributions of both ‘Northern’ and ‘Southern’ (or
postcolonial) STS, he concludes that few thinkers from either North or
South have actually addressed the challenge of establishing genuine
dialogue among centres and peripheries. He observes that dialogue is not
a natural consequence of any encounter, but rather a contingent result of
social, political and economic exchanges. If we look at this strategically,
a theoretical mapping exercise could help us to identify the areas of
knowledge which may throw light on the difficult process of creating
dialogues among knowledge production sites. Could the digital
humanities be one of these areas? To situate a practice such as the digital
humanities is not to locate it in a spatial container – ‘a peripheral
country’ or ‘a global city’, for example – but rather to pay attention to
how specific practices of knowledge production contribute to configuring
spaces near and far away, in structural and relational terms.
Let us leave the question open – but not without mentioning at least one
successful initative by a group of Mexican academics based at the
Autonomous University of the State of Mexico (UAEM). Redalyc
(https://web.archive.org/web/20180422081006/http://redalyc.org/home.oa
) (a Network of Scientific Journals of Latin America and the Caribbean,
Spain and Portugal) is a project initiated by the Autonomous University of
19:56
the State of Mexico (UAEM) with the purpose of promoting the visibility
of academic publications produced in and about ‘Iberoamerica’ (a broader
designation of Latin America that includes Spain and Portugal). Since
2002, Redalyc has created, designed and maintained an open-access
internet archive of academic journals that works as a meeting point for
all those researchers of this ‘other’ America (or at least all those who
have access to the Spanish and Portuguese languages). Initially, the
archive privileged the social sciences and humanities journals but, given
its huge success and the challenges faced by other areas, it has expanded
its coverage to the ‘natural’ and ‘exact’ sciences. As an academic
organisation, Redalyc played an essential role in Mexico’s political
reforms regarding open-access and institutional repositories. On May
2014 Mexico became the third country in
Latin America (after Peru and Argentina) to legally endorse open access to
all scientific information produced in public universities. At the
presentation ceremony of the new legislation, Redalyc’s motto was
pronounced by one senator: ‘the science that is not seen does not exist’.
Political issues aside, this motto speaks of a much more realistic (though
perhaps a bit too ‘postmodern’) attitude than the older nationalist motto
of the National Autonomous University, ‘for my race the spirit will speak’.
Yet it also suggests that the deep-rooted disadvantages faced by Latin
American scholars are only half-addressed by the attempt to construct an
open-access archive of ‘Iberoamerican’ science. The archive will not by
itself challenge the dominance of the English language or the
centre/periphery relation. It may contribute to doing so by strengthening
the academic culture of the Latin American regions, yet one important
task that remains to be pursued is precisely the critical engagement with
lingering metaphysics of writing as the representation of an original
speech – whether this is called ‘Iberoamerica’ or ‘Latin American culture,
science and knowledge’. The intervention that a deconstructive digital
humanities can make in this regard remains to be explored by Latin
American scholars themselves, and it is one that Culture Machine will
continue to host and support in future issues.
Notes
1 The motto was proposed in the 1920s by one of the intellectual fathers of
Mexican revolutionary nationalism, José Vasconcelos.
2 The Centro Cultural de España belongs to the Spanish Agency for
International Cooperation (AECID). Ironically, it has been this cultural
political branch of a not-so-former coloniser (much more than nationstates) that has played the most active role in promoting and financing
Latin American debates on the cultural politics of intellectual property
and copyright.
19:56
References
Baulieu, P. (2009) ‘Presentación’, in P. Baulieu & A. LópezCuenca (eds),
¿Desea guardar los cambios? Propiedadintelectual y tecnologías digitales:
hacia un nuevo pacto social. Córdoba,Argentina: Centro Cultural deEspaña.
Available at: http://ccec.org.ar/wpcontent/uploads/2010/05/desea_guardar_los_cambios.pdf
(http://ccec.org.ar/wpcontent/uploads/2010/05/desea_guardar_los_cambios.pdf).
López Cuenca, A. & Ramírez Pedrajo, E. (eds) (2008) PropiedadIntelectual,
Nuevas Tecnologías y Libre Acceso a la Cultura.Mexico City: CentroCultural
de España & Universidad de las Americas, Puebla.Available at: http
(https://web.archive.org/web/20180422081006/http://radioccemx.org/descargas/propiedadint.pdf): (http://radioccemx.org/descargas/propiedadint.pdf)//radioccemx.org/descargas/propiedadint.pdf
(https://web.archive.org/web/20180422081006/http://radioccemx.org/descargas/propiedadint.pdf).
Priani, E. (2014) ‘Bibliotheca Mexicana: Virtue,Condemnation, Possibility’,
blog entry, translated by Glen Worthy,available
at:http://dayofdh2014.matrix.msu.edu/redhd/2014/04/09/bibliothecamexicana-virtue-condemnation-possibility/
(http://dayofdh2014.matrix.msu.edu/redhd/2014/04/09/bibliothecamexicana-virtue-condemnation-possibility/). Accessed 28 October 2014.
Ricaurte, P. (2014) ‘Geopolitics of Knowledge and Digital
Humanities’,available at:
http://dayofdh2014.matrix.msu.edu/redhd/2014/04/09/geopolitics-ofknowledge-and-digital-humanities/
(http://dayofdh2014.matrix.msu.edu/redhd/2014/04/09/geopolitics-ofknowledge-and-digital-humanities/). Accessed 28 October 2014.
Redalyc: Red de Revistas Científicas de América Latina y el Caribe,España
y Portugal (2014) ‘México se convirtió en el tercer país deAmérica Latina
conAcceso Abierto’, available at: http://redalyc.org/noticias.oa
(http://redalyc.org/noticias.oa).
Rodríguez Medina, L. (2009) ‘Apuntes para una geopolítica
delconocimiento’ in P. Baulieu & A. López Cuenca (eds), ¿Deseaguardar los
cambios? Propiedad intelectual y tecnologías digitales:hacia un nuevo
pacto social. Córdoba, Argentina: CentroCultural deEspaña, available at:
http://ccec.org.ar/wpcontent/uploads/2010/05/desea_guardar_los_cambios.pdf
(http://ccec.org.ar/wpcontent/uploads/2010/05/desea_guardar_los_cambios.pdf).
19:56
Suárez, J. L. (2014) ‘Digital Humanities in Spanish?’, blog entry,translated
by Élika Ortega, available at:
http://dayofdh2014.matrix.msu.edu/redhd/2014/04/08/digitalhumanities-in-spanish/
(http://dayofdh2014.matrix.msu.edu/redhd/2014/04/08/digitalhumanities-in-spanish/). Accessed 28 October 2014.
Leave a Reply
Your comment here...
Name (required)
E-mail (required)
Website
Notify me of follow-up comments by email.
Notify me of new posts by email.
P OST COMMENT
ISSN 1465-4121 | Part of Open Humanities Press
(http://openhumanitiespress.org/)
Home (https://culturemachine.net) |
Archives (https://culturemachine.net/archives/) |
Reviews (https://culturemachine.net/reviews/) |
InterZone (https://culturemachine.net/interzone/) |
About (https://culturemachine.net/about/) |
Submissions (https://culturemachine.net/submissions/) |
People (https://culturemachine.net/people/)
19:56