Since I came to New York City, I have always been interested in housing rights, housing justice, and homelessness issues.  I guess this is related to my personal experiences: 1) the tedious rental processes I have been through many times; 2) the NYC civil court experience regarding a broker’s rental scheme. (Even though I won and got the Notice of Judgment from the court, I eventually failed to get my money back.); and 3) working experience for a real estate investment company and understanding the concept of the term “air rights.” (This is a counter-example to Locke’s philosophical argument about private property from nature by working on it.) All three experiences I listed above had not been my concern before, but here in NYC, the fact that I care about housing rights means that I am in a relatively vulnerable position as a tenant. The context where I stand impacts how I compose perspectives on a certain matter.

This idea for the final project, the Evicted Voices, comes from first-hand experience. First, I always pass through the Queensbridge Houses on my way home and witness the serious living conditions of the neighborhood all the time. Secondly, the idea came to me while doing mapping praxis for the class. I browsed NYC websites to collect data for the praxis assignment and visited the Mapping Equity project site. The site is accessible and provides a useful tool to compare various factors, but it lacks what I see in Queensbridge Houses: the streets, people’s looks, and the landscapes of the neighborhood. Therefore, the main purpose of the project is to fill the gap between data with unique voices and vivid stories of the people.

By researching related projects, such as Anti-Eviction Mapping Project, JustFix, and New Destiny Housing, I can refine the approaches and narrow down the scope of the project. First, I wanted to provide a philosophical basis for the project through which people can form a bond of sympathy and solidarity; thus, I came up with Levinas’ philosophical notion, the face of the Other. I thought his philosophy could function as a solid foundation for the project and also as an encouraging base for people’s participation. Most importantly, I think the project must belong to the people of Queensbridge Houses and be an open sphere where they gather their voices and step forward into collective action.

Writing and proposing a DH project is still an unfamiliar process, but I am sure what I struggle with now will impact how I approach a new field, DH.

   According to Arendt, the establishment of Plato’s Academy outside of the polis after the trial and death of Socrates indicates the actual break between philosophy and politics (thought/action & theory/practice). This break has been lying within the tradition of Western thought; thus, she argues that classical political philosophy, from Plato to Marx, had become anti-political. In short, they had neglected the concept of action.

When speaking of action, Arendt emphasizes that they always involve men, not a man. This indicates that action is only possible in concert with others and is relevant to the human condition of plurality. She underlines that “Action, the only activity that goes on directly between men without the intermediary of things or matter, corresponds to the human condition of plurality, to the fact that men, not Man, live on the earth and inhabit the world…this plurality is specifically the condition – not only the conditio sine qua non, but the conditio per quam – of all political life.” (Arendt, 1998) For Arendt, the dichotomy between thought(philosophy) and action(politics) means the shrinkage of the public sphere and the loss of civic virtue. Then, can the open-access movement in today’s academia bridge between thought and action? What is the role of academic communities?  

Knowledge commons, such as information, scientific discoveries, and creative works, has a unique feature distinguished from traditional commons. It is relatively non-subtractive and non-rivalrous; this means that one’s use of knowledge commons does not reduce others’ opportunities for the commons. Therefore, it does not belong to the logic of scarcity, i.e., the myth of the tragedy of the commons. In other words, knowledge can and should be for everyone.

With the access revolution enabled by technological advances, Suber argues that we should make barrier-free access by removing two main barriers to the public: a price tag and copyright. This is also possible thanks to the distinctive legacy within scholarly societies:

The academic custom to write research articles for impact rather than money may be a lucky accident that could have been otherwise. Or it may be a wise adaptation that would eventually evolve in any culture with a serious research subculture. (Suber, 2012)

  It is at the heart of our values. We do not create knowledge in order to hoard it, but instead, every day, in the classroom, in the lecture hall, and in our writing, we embrace an ethic that I’ve come to think of as “giving it away.” (…) not as a means of self-expression but rather as an act of generosity that enables the addict to transcend the limitations of the self. “Giving it away” is thus a profoundly ethical mode of engaging with others in a community based around a common need. (Fitzpatrick, 2019)

We still have a long way to go regarding knowledge commons and the openness of scholarly societies. For example, sharing knowledge between communities, participants, and institutions should not discourage individuals’ creativity and productivity. Also, the open-access project should not just depend on individuals’ benevolence – an act of generosity & “giving it away.” Despite all the complex problems unsolved, the attempt and rediscovery of intellectual commitment in the public sphere through an open-access platform is a promising step.

For Socrates, the role of a philosopher is not to rule the city but to be its gadfly, encouraging people to give their opinions and share them with others because he knows the importance of persuasion through open dialogue, and he willingly became a gadfly in a polis. In this sense, the open-access platform is not merely a new technical term but must be an intellectual obligation for the public good.

For the text-analysis praxis assignment, I used both Voyant and Google N-Gram.

The motivation behind my choice to do the text-mining praxis is the doubt about its usefulness and applicability to a humanistic inquiry, especially in philosophy. In my opinion, the strength of humanistic inquiry lies in the continuous interplay between the understanding and misunderstanding of theories and perspectives, namely doxa, not a single absolute truth, even though this process needs lots of time. In “Developing Things: Notes toward an Epistemology of Building in the Digital Humanities,” the authors argued about the digital tool’s utility.

Further, digital instruments work a lot faster. Reading Foucault and applying his theoretical framework can take months or years of application. A web-based text analysis tool could apply its theoretical position in seconds. (Stephen Ramsay/ Geoffrey Rockwell)

First, I wanted to see if the text-mining tool could grasp a particular philosopher’s theoretical concepts and connections among those concepts. I wondered if the tools could provide meaningful results and various insights to those without prior knowledge about a specific philosophical position. Second, using Google N-Gram, I tried to compare the trends in philosophical works and concepts as time passed.

I used one of my favorite philosophy works, the late Wittgenstein’s “The Philosophical Investigations,” for the text analysis.

⇓

(1^st Analysis)

(1^st Analysis)

The outcomes were interesting and confusing. I needed a guide of Voyant terms, such as links, cirrus, vocabulary density, and readability index. Although I can see the frequency of words in the first analysis, it had to be trimmed to see the central philosophical concepts. The text I used for the praxis is an English-German version; thus, I got rid of many pointless words with Nicole’s advice and help. (Thank you. Nicole!)

⇓

(2^nd Analysis)

⇓

(3^rd Analysis)

⇓

(4^th Analysis)

Finally, I could see those meaningful concepts in the late Wittgenstein’s works, such as language, game, investigations, use, form, and pain.

By using the Links tool, I got an enjoyable result. It offered a clear distinction between two groups of concepts. However, the tool still has shortcomings in terms of understanding and insight. It could be helpful to those with background knowledge. Still, it seems almost impossible to comprehend the text’s philosophical perspective for those who don’t have a prior understanding of the text.

Next, I tried applying another text analysis tool, Google N-Gram, to both early and late Wittgenstein’s philosophy.

⇓

(Ranks between philosophers: Plato, Kant, Wittgenstein, and Heidegger)

(Wittgenstein’s two main opposing concepts in his early and late works. / His significant contributions to Western philosophy, the linguistic turn.)

In today’s philosophy, many epistemologists agree on the methodology that treats knowledge as a form of proposition (“S knows that P.”). As seen in the graph, Wittgenstein’s two concepts, language game and linguistic turn, reflect this trend of today’s philosophy. Together, as expected, the chart shows that his late work and its central concept, the language game, are more applicable to various fields than his early philosophy, represented by the notion of the picture theory of language. (This might indicate that Wittgenstein’s early philosophy is too esoteric to understand.) 

In a way, text analysis tools help view a broad picture of the field; however, I still doubt they could suggest a deep understanding of philosophical reasoning and logical argument.

I took the <Intro to HTML & CSS> workshop provided by CUNY GCDI. I am taking <Intro. to Javascript> class this semester, so I thought the workshop would help me understand how webpages are structured and created. I didn’t know the basic concepts of these two tools used for websites. Now I understand HTML & CSS in a very simple way: 1) HTML provides the structure of a webpage, whereas 2) CSS controls the style of a webpage.

In the workshop, I tried to make a simple webpage with a basic format of HTML and CSS.

1. Visual Studio Code & the base HTML file_index.html

First, I have downloaded VSCode. This code editor is handy for coding because it supports many coding languages. Also, I can see the precise structure of the coding -even though I don’t fully understand the meaning of coding- because each color distinguishes codes, texts, and syntax.

Plus, I got a basic template for HTML, which consists of Doctype, HTML, head, and body. With the template, I started making a webpage.

2.HTML

Again, HTML provides the structure of a webpage. The basic grammar(?) for HTML is using opening and closing tags: < > & </>

The tags include contents, namely the text you put in.

I filled the basic template with text, a picture, and links.

⇓

I can see this code on a webpage.

⇓

You can see that this page is boring and has no style. Now I can put some touches on it with CSS.

3.CSS

CSS sets the rules of a webpage: color, font-family, font-size, font-weight, and text-align.

CSS can be integrated into my HTML. In the workshop, I created external integration in a separate document by adding the code below:

<link rel=”stylesheet” href=”style.css”>

On a separate page, I changed the style of content in HTML.

⇓

This CSS code modifies the style of content.

⇓

The workshop was for a beginner, but it still had some tricky parts to follow – I didn’t know how to add my picture in HTML. I always use the uploading window when I click the upload button on a website. -, but I got a broad picture of how websites are created and operated. In addition, with HTML & CSS, I can make, build, and design a new website. (Can I now call myself a digital humanist?)

Ever since the modern philosophy represented by Descartes’ argument – I think, therefore I am – began, the central philosophical issue has been the question of what human beings can know and how it is possible. Noteworthy here is that epistemic sovereignty belongs to the thinking subject “I.” In other words, an epistemological foundation results from intuitive self-consciousness, which cannot be denied its existence and can serve as an indubitable fundamental truth for our knowledge. This kind of Descartes’ philosophical position, such as foundationalism, subjectivism, and intuitionism, has influenced the formation of the Cartesian anxiety. And I think this anxiety could arise from DHers’ craving for a theoretical ground for Digital Humanities.  

After reading “Developing Things: Notes toward an Epistemology of Building in the Digital Humanities,” I want to ask: Do DHers need their epistemic foundation for their DH works? Suppose we could define DH as an activity of building and making something with humanistic inquiry. In that case, digital works, such as computing, modeling, and visualizing, should be enough to be regarded as scholarship. If we place epistemic sovereignty on the community of inquirers (We) instead of I, what matters would be whether we could secure and maintain an open structure of our inquiry process. Digital tools are tools. They don’t have to be a theory. (For example, the coding language Python is merely a tool. Should it be a theory?)

The problem DHers face is not an epistemic controversy but a power game between a newly developing field with new methods and tools and those existing humanities fields. The theory-practice dichotomy shouldn’t be a problem here, as digital tools provide new humanistic perspectives. Instead, DHers can expand their academic area beyond the scope of traditional humanities with digital methodologies. Within the community of inquirers, DHers don’t have to be truth-seekers and shouldn’t put the Cartesian anxiety on their shoulders; becoming “a kibitzer or a therapist or an intellectual historian” (Rorty 1982) should be the first step for DHers to take toward digital scholarship and making new vocabularies of their own -building, modeling, and computing- should be one of their central jobs.

I started this mapping praxis to show the correlation between gentrification and the reduction in the laundromat business. However, I soon realized that the project was too ambitious for an outsider who still sees data as metaphysical entities and understands digital tools as a magic wand. This post is a failed journey, but I hope this will help those with a similar background.

Step #1_Hypothesis

Hypothesis 1: Each form of doing laundry is income-related, i.e., social class, in NYC.

1. Upper Class+ : It doesn’t bother these people because someone else will care for them.
2. Upper Class– : This group has built-in washers and dryers in their newly built condo units. It means they don’t have to go outside to do laundry.
3. Middle Class: They have to go outside, but fortunately, they don’t have to go outside the building. They have laundry facilities in the basement of the building.
4.  Lower Class+ : Using a small laundromat located outside of the building. People in this group might live in the same town as group 3, but usually rent a unit in an old family house.
5. Lower Class- : Using a Mega-Laundromat (30+ washers & 30+ dryers) operated by the quarters  (sometimes by laundry card).

 I wanted to focus on group 5, which has relatively more vulnerable housing conditions and likely have more new development or construction project in the neighborhood. 

Hypothesis 2: The people living in gentrified areas in NYC could have different problems in their day-to-day lives besides rent increases. Gentrification might be forcing (especially  “Mega-“) laundromats out of business.

Step 2_Choosing a Mapping Tool

After reading <Finding the Right Tools for Mapping>, I chose to use Carto for the mapping praxis because the reading introduces Carto as an “intuitive and relatively easy to use” tool. However, it turns out that this introduction does not apply to me:

• I don’t know the technical terms they use, such as CSV, KML, GeoJSON. I finally figured out that these are certain forms of data files.
• Using Carto as expected requires essential skills – setting boundaries & sorting data out – to handle data sets first. (That I don’t have.)
  • My old laptop’s capability is not good enough to smoothly operate this tool on the web.

Step #3_Data Access    

To verify my hypothesis, I tried to find two data sets: Income-related Housing data & Laundromat business data.

I investigated two websites: EquityNYC – Eviction Filing database & OpenData NYC – Legally Operating Business database from DCA(Department of Consumer Affairs).

• I downloaded the Excel file for <Eviction Filing>, but the <Laundromat Business database> link does not work. (OpenDataNYC does not seem to maintain the link between the website and DCA’s database.)
  • I have a dataset with eviction filing by community district, but I couldn’t find the boundary file to map this dataset.

Step #4_Side Project: My Laundry Life in NYC

Instead, I decided to make my NYC laundry life map:

• I made Google Sheets with the information on laundromats’ addresses.
• I got the latitude and longitude information for each address from Google Maps.
• I uploaded the CSV file to Carto and got the visualized map.

https://clausa.app.carto.com/map/3a5cd6e2-2fd9-467e-9e11-e3c24a5b8adb

At the beginning of using Carto for mapping praxis, I thought I could automatically upload some datasets and get a visualized map. I didn’t know I had to upload an Excel (CSV) file to have the first layer of the map where I could mark and decorate. After many days of struggling, I finally learned how to make a mappable Excel file.

Defining what Digital Humanities(DH) is might be unnecessary because not every DH project has to share the same theoretical foundation. Instead, they have “family resemblances” within the structure of praxis in the sense that they provide the community with open space for discovering, rethinking, learning, and interacting. The theme of each DH project varies according to its specific interests, location, language, culture, and the infrastructure it has now; thus, I believe that “Openness” should be a key pillar to digital scholarship in both dimensions – epistemology and practice.     

Colored Conventions Project (CCP) is a good example as it has certain features:   

1. Epistemic Justice & Sovereignty: CCP clarifies the principles and goals of its work; that is, rediscovering and understanding devalued and underrepresented Black history and voices. Especially by affirming “Black women’s centrality to nineteenth-century Black organizing,” the project reshapes epistemic sovereignty: (a) what we need to know; (b) who must be included; and (c) how it should be done.   
2. Open online access & Interplay: All the materials, information, and digital records they use for the project are open to the audience on the website. Plus, CCP encourages users to actively interact with and participate in the project by accepting newly found records that are not featured in the project yet. (The website specifies the records needed.) In addition, each section on the website is closely related and users are able to find the contents they need very easily as they navigate the site.   
3. Pedagogical approaches: The project offers teaching guides through which the user can freely use and teach the materials in K-12/AP/College classes. Each chapter has a separate curriculum for K-12 and AP/College Classes with the use of diverse approaches to audiences – 1) Resources, Methods, Questions, and Standards for K-12, and 2) Questions, Class Activity, and Example for AP/College Classes. With this attempt to offer educational support, CCP is linking its ongoing work to the present and future.     

What I noticed from CCP is its localness. The project narrows down its research interests and subject. When embracing the localness of a certain community and the research (In the case of CCP, the project focuses on Black organizing movement history that occurred from 1830 to the Civil War), there could be the danger of sacrificing its interconnectivity with others. However, through the open structure of the inquiry and research, CCP gives users an opportunity to critically engage with the project and other participants.  

It is obvious that without breaking the dominant structure of academia, which has been hierarchical, exclusive, and Western-centered, it is almost impossible to attain and secure epistemic plurality in DH. In this regard, the argument about “becoming undisciplined” echoes deeply in the field of DH. Nonetheless, we must recognize the limits of our knowledge that is only achievable on a particular given condition. Epistemic delinking, in this sense, would be a hasty step, just like pitching “The Big Tent”. Instead, I believe, as CCP shows us, we need many small tents with more localness and openness in themselves. This should be the first step for DHers to take toward the expanded community of digital scholarship.