How We Think: Transforming Power and Digital Technologies

  • N. Katherine Hayles


Arguably more print-based than the sciences and social sciences, the humanities are nevertheless also experiencing the effects of digital technologies. At the epicentre of change are the digital humanities. The digital humanities have been around at least since the 1940s,1 but it was not until the Internet and World Wide Web that they came into their own as emerging fields with their own degree programs, research centres, scholarly journals, and books, and a growing body of expert practitioners. Nevertheless, many scholars – particularly in literary studies – are only vaguely aware of the digital humanities and lack a clear sense of the challenges they pose to traditional modes of enquiry.This essay outlines the field, analyses the implications of its practices, and discusses its potential for transforming research, teaching, and publication. The essay concludes with a vision that sees the digital humanities revitalising the traditional humanities, even as they also draw on the traditional humanities for their core strengths.


Digital Technology Digital Medium Traditional Humanity Humanity Scholar Dead Reckoning 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Amerika, M., Alt-X Online Network. Scholar
  2. Amiran, E. (2009), Interview with Katherine Hayles. Los Angeles, CA, and Hillsborough,NC: 8 January 2009.Google Scholar
  3. Balsamo, A (2011), Designing Culture: The Technological Imagination at Work (Durham:Duke University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Balsamo, A (2000), ‘Engineering Cultural Studies: The Postdisciplinary Adventures of Mindplayers, Fools, and Others’, in R. Reid and S. Traweek (eds), Doing Science + Culture (New York: Routledge).Google Scholar
  5. Bamboo Digital Humanities Initiative. Scholar
  6. Bogost, I. (2009), Response to ‘How We Think: The Transforming Power of Digital Technologies’, Presentation at Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, 15 January 2009Google Scholar
  7. Burns, A. (2009), Clergy of the Church of England Database, 30 January 2009. Scholar
  8. Burns, A (2009), Interview with Katherine Hayles. Centre for Computing in the Humanities,King’s College. London: 23 January 2009.Google Scholar
  9. Cayley, J. (2002), ‘The Code Is Not the Text (Unless It Is the Text)’, Electronic Book Review. Scholar
  10. Christen, K. (2009a), ‘Access and Accountability: The Ecology of Information Sharing in the Digital Age’, Anthropology News, April.–4-kimberly-christen-in-focus-1.pdf.Google Scholar
  11. Christen, K. (n.d.) Mukurtu: Wampurranrni-kari.
  12. Christen, K. (2009b), Presentation, Institute for Multimedia Literacy, University of Southern California, 23 July 2009.Google Scholar
  13. Christen, K. (2008), ‘Working Together: Archival Challenges and Digital Solutions in Aboriginal Australia’, The SA Archeological Record 8(2) (March): 21–4.Google Scholar
  14. Clement, T. E. (2008a), Interview with Katherine Hayles. Lincoln, NE: 11 October 2008.Google Scholar
  15. Clement, T. E. 2008b. ‘ “A thing not beginning and not ending”: Using Digital Tools to Distant-Read Gertrude Stein’s The Making of Americans’,Literary and Linguistic Computing 23(3):361–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cohen, M. (2009), ‘Design and Politics in Electronic American Literary Archives’, in A.Google Scholar
  17. Earhart and A. Jewell (eds), The American Literary Scholar in the Digital Age (Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press [2010]).Google Scholar
  18. Crane, G. (2008a), Interview with Katherine Hayles. Lincoln, Ne: 11 October 2008.Google Scholar
  19. Crane, G (2008b), ‘Digital Humanities’. Workshop, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE: 10 October 2008.Google Scholar
  20. Daniel, Sharon, with design and programming by Erik Loyer. “Blood Sugar,” Vectors 6 (2010). Scholar
  21. Crane, G (2008), Interview with Katherine Hayles. Santa Cruz, CA and Hillsborough, NC: 13 October 2008.Google Scholar
  22. Crane, G (2007), Public Secrets, Vectors 2.2. Scholar
  23. Denard, H. (2002), ‘Virtuality and Performativity: Recreating Rome’s Theater of Pompey’, PAJ: A Journal of Performance and Art 24(1) (January): 25–43.Google Scholar
  24. Davidson, C. N. (2008), ‘Humanities 2.0: Promise, Perils, Predictions.’, PMLA 123(3):707–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Davidson, C. N. and Goldberg, D. T. (2004), ‘Engaging the Humanities’, Profession 2004:42–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Deacon, Twerrence W. (1998), The Symbolic Species: The Co-Evolution of Language and the Brain (New York: W. W. Norton).Google Scholar
  27. Drucker, J. (2009), SpecLab: Digital Aesthetics and Projects in Speculative Computing (Chicago: University of Chicago Press)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ethington, P. J. (2009), Interview with Katherine Hayles. Los Angeles, CA and Hillsborough, NC: 8 January 2009.Google Scholar
  29. Ethington, P. J. (2000), ‘Los Angeles and the Problem of Urban Historical Knowledge’. Scholar
  30. Ethington, P. J. (2007), ‘Placing the Past: “Groundwork” for a Spatial Theory of History’, Rethinking History 11(4) (December): 465–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fitzpatrick, K. (2006), ‘On the Future of Academic Publishing, Peer Review, and Tenure Requirements’, The Valve: A Literary Organ., B. Rome Reborn. Scholar
  32. Galloway, A. R. and Thacker, E. (2007), The Exploit: A Theory of Networks, (Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press).Google Scholar
  33. Gambrell, A. (2008), Interview with Katherine Hayles. Los Angeles, CA and Hillsborough,NC: 23 October 2008.Google Scholar
  34. Gambrell, A with Kelly, R. ‘Stolen Time Archive’, Vectors 1 (Winter). Scholar
  35. Gromola, D. and Bolter, J. D. (2003), Windows and Mirrors: Interaction Design, Digital Art,and the Myth of Transparency (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).Google Scholar
  36. Hall, G. (2008), Digitize This Book! The Politics of New Media, or Why We Need Open Access Now. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press).Google Scholar
  37. Kaplan, C., with Kelly, R. (2007), ‘Dead Reckoning: Aerial Perception and the Social Construction of Targets’, Vectors 2.2. Scholar
  38. Kaplan, C (2008). Interview with Katherine Hayles. Davis, CA, and Hillsborough, NC: 27 October 2008.Google Scholar
  39. Kirschenbaum, M. G. (2009), Interview with Katherine Hayles. College Park, MD and Hillsborough, NC: 9 January 2009.Google Scholar
  40. Kirschenbaum, M. G. (2008), Mechanisms: New Media and the Forensic Imagination (Cambridge: MIT Press).Google Scholar
  41. Kittler, F. (1992), Discourse Networks 1800–1900, trans. M. Metteer (Palo Alto¸ CA: Stanford University Press).Google Scholar
  42. Lenoir, T. (2008a). Interview with Katherine Hayles, Durham, NC: 3 September 2008.Google Scholar
  43. Lenoir, T (2008b). ‘Recycling the Military-Entertainment Complex with Virtual Peace’. Scholar
  44. Lenoir, T., and Giannella, E. (2007), ‘Technological Platforms and the Layers of Patent Data’. National Science Foundation Grant No. SES 0531184.Google Scholar
  45. Lenoir, T., et al. (2008). Virtual Peace: Turning Swords to Ploughshares. Scholar
  46. Liu, A. (2008), Interview with Katherine Hayles. Los Angeles, CA and Hillsborough, NC:13 October 2008.Google Scholar
  47. Liu, A (2004), The Laws of Cool: Knowledge Work and the Culture of Information (Chicago:University of Chicago Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lloyd, D. (2008). Interview with Katherine Hayles. Los Angeles, CA and Hillsborough,NC: 7 October 2008.Google Scholar
  49. Lloyd, D. and Loyer, E. (2006), ‘Mobile Figures’, Vectors 1.2. Scholar
  50. Manovich, L. (2002), The Language of New Media (Cambridge: MIT Press).Google Scholar
  51. McCarty, W. (2005), Humanities Computing (London, Palgrave).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. McCarty, W. (2009), Interview with Katherine Hayles. Centre for Computing in the Humanities,King’s College. London: 23 January 2009.Google Scholar
  53. McCarty, W. (2008), ‘Knowing … : Modeling in Literary Studies’, in S. Schreibman and R. Siemens (eds), A Companion to Digital Literary Studies (Oxford: Blackwell) xml&–6-2&toc.depth=1&–6-2&brand=9781405148641_brand.Google Scholar
  54. McPherson, T. (2008), Interview with Katherine Hayles. Los Angeles, CA and Hillsborough, NC: 20 October 2008.Google Scholar
  55. McPherson, T. and Anderson, S. (eds), Vectors: Journal of Culture and Technology in a Dynamic Vernacular. Scholar
  56. Moretti, F. (2000), ‘Conjectures on World Literature’, New Left Review 1 (Jan/Feb):54–68.Google Scholar
  57. Moretti, F(2007), Graphs, Maps, Trees: Abstract Models for a Literary History (New York and London: Verso).Google Scholar
  58. Presner, T. S. (2008), Interview with Katherine Hayles. Los Angeles, CA and Hillsborough, NC: 3 September 2008.Google Scholar
  59. Presner, T. S. (2006), ‘Hypermedia Berlin: Cultural History in the Age of New Media, or “Is There a Text in This Class?” ’ Vectors 1(2) (Spring 2006). Scholar
  60. Presner, T. S. (2007), Mobile Modernity: Germans, Jews, Trains (New York: Columbia University Press).Google Scholar
  61. Presner, T. S. (2009a), ‘HyperCities: Building a Web 2.0 Learning Platform’, in A. Natsina and T. Tagialis (eds), Teaching Literature at a Distance (New York: Continuum Books).Google Scholar
  62. Presner, T. S. (2009b), ‘Digital Geographies: Berlin in the Age of New Media’, in J. Fisher and B. Menuel (eds), Spatial Turns: Space, Place, and Mobility in German Literature and Visual Culture (Amsterdam: Rodopi).Google Scholar
  63. Presner, T. S., et al. (2008), ‘Hypercities’. Scholar
  64. Rabkin, E. S. (2006). ‘Audience, Purpose, and Medium: How Digital Media Extend Humanities Education’, in M. Hanrahan and D. L. Madsen (eds), Teaching, Technology, Textuality: Approaches to New Media (London: Palgrave Macmillan), 135–47.Google Scholar
  65. Raley, R. (2006), ‘Code.surface // Code.depth’, dichtung-digital. Scholar
  66. Raley, R. (2008), Interview with Katherine Hayles. Santa Barbara, CA and Hillsborough, NC:20 October 2008.Google Scholar
  67. Ramsay, S. (2008a), ‘Algorithmic Criticism’, in S. Schreibman and R. Siemens (eds), A Companion to Digital Literary Studies (Oxford: Blackwell. Scholar
  68. Ramsay, S. (2008b), Interview with Katherine Hayles. Lincoln, NE: 11 October 2008.Google Scholar
  69. Schnapp, J. (2009), Interview with Katherine Hayles. Palo Alto, CA and Hillsborough,NC: 7 January 2009.Google Scholar
  70. Hayles. (2008), ‘Animating the Archive’, First Monday 13(8) (August 2008).Google Scholar
  71. Summit on Digital Tools in the Humanities, (2005), A Report on the Summit on Digital Tools. University of Virginia: September.Google Scholar
  72. Svensson, P. (2009), ‘Humanities Computing as Digital Humanities’, DHQ: Digital Humanities Quarterly 3(3) (Summer): 1–16. Scholar
  73. Unsworth, J. (2002), ‘What is Humanities Computing and What is Not?’, Jarbuch fűr Computerphilologie 4: 71–83. Scholar
  74. Unsworth, J. (2003), ‘The Humanist: “Dances with Wolves” or “Bowls Alone”?’Washington DC: Scholarly Tribes and Tribulations: How Tradition and Technology Are Driving Disciplinary Change’. Association of Research Libraries. Scholar
  75. Vesna, V. (2007), Database Aesthetics: Art in the Age of Information Overflow (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press).Google Scholar
  76. Wardrip-Fruin, N. (2008), ‘Expressive Processing Blog’, Grand Text Auto. Scholar
  77. Wark, McK. (2006), GAM3R 7H30RY: Version 1.1. Scholar
  78. Wark, McK. (2007), Gamer Theory (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Weber, S. (1987), Institution and Interpretation (Theory and History of Literature, Vol. 31).(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© N. Katherine Hayles 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • N. Katherine Hayles

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations