Ángel Pérez, professor and researcher at the University of the Pacific (Peru), has studied in depth the relationship between new technologies and the humanities and has published some of his reflections in the book ¿Qué diría Cicerón?: El mundo digital en diálogo con las humanidades (What Would Cicero say?: The Digital World in Dialogue with the Humanities), published in Spanish by Bolchiro in June, 2021. Pérez, who participated in the STI meeting ‘Human Flourishing: Neuroscience and Health, Organization and Arts’, breaks down in this interview some of the concepts addressed in his book.
STI: Your book falls within the framework of the so-called digital humanities. What is meant by this concept?
AP: Digital Humanities is an academic and scientific field of study with diverse applications. Its methodology is a synergy between computing and humanistic knowledge. Its origin dates back to the mid-twentieth century. With the appearance of the first computers, the traditional way in which we approach reading and textual analysis changed. One of the pioneers of the Digital Humanities was Roberto Busa who, in the 1940s, devised a way of computerizing the search for terms in the complete work of St. Thomas Aquinas.
With computer development, this space was expanded. Today, the Digital Humanities work not only on textual analysis but also on intelligent data processing, the preservation of digital archives, and the search for authorial style in literature. They are also concerned with investigating the possibilities of computational analysis in linguistics, art and history, and with seeking the integration of computer science in areas such as architecture, theater and music. Recent news1 about cryptographic texts by Charles Dickens, decoded thanks to computer support, serve as an example of the possibilities within Digital Humanities.
Melissa Terras, Willard McCarty and Koenraad de Smedt are among the notable researchers within the field. De Smedt reminds us that the telescope was invented to observe enemy troops in battles, until Galileo used it to expand our vision of the cosmos, turning it into an instrument of scientific knowledge. Something like this has happened with computers. I think the question is how the computer medium helps us understand the message in other ways, to paraphrase Marshall MacLuhan’s theories.
STI: What are its applications?
AP: At a basic level, anyone who practices digital reading, performs searches, or reads hypertextually is making use of them, but there are many levels of depth. Universities2 that offer this degree propose professional opportunities such as data analysts, video game writers or digital curation.
The Digital Humanities also investigate the interaction between people and computers, studying phenomena such as digital reading, Artificial Intelligence or the legacy that museums can house. Here lie the intersections between the humanities as we have known them and computer technology. Such crossroads offer many possibilities.
The Digital Humanities already have a certain trajectory in the field of research. They are related to other disciplines with the same range of studies such as humanities computing, humanistic informatics, and linguistic computing. In the UK, the first director of the Literary and Linguistic Computing Center (LLCC) was Roy Wisbey, who organized a pioneering meeting in 1970. In Italy, Aldo Duro was writing about the humanities and computers in the late 60s. In the 70s, IBM published a series of manuals on computing and the humanities, including Computers in Anthropology and Archaeology. Ten years later, authors such as Robert Oakman were already reflecting on computer methodology for literary research.
STI: What do philosophy, history or philology contribute to the use of new technologies and the Internet?
AP: Technology has enhanced many areas of scientific work. This is very clear in areas such as medical and pharmaceutical research. These interactions also happen in the humanistic realm because technology allows us to work with large quantities of information – allowing, for example, very advanced searches in a large library’s catalog, or digitizing cartographic information from a nineteenth-century travel story.
Philosophy can help us specify and differentiate science and technology, which are not the same thing, or define Artificial Intelligence (AI) and its differences with human intelligence. Thanks to history, we can also compare and understand previous generations’ technological applications, and reflect on the social dynamisms within Internet networks, or on concepts like the possibilities of digital governance. These reflections are very important for the use and legislation of technology.
There are also innovations that make it possible to interpret processes and new cultural objects in a different way. For example, integrating Pixel Art with the pictorial tradition and its relations with, for example, pointillism. Furthermore, these realms of knowledge – philosophy, history and literature – also allow us to analyze technology. For example, it is possible to make an analysis of NFT (Non Fungible Token) from the aesthetic field, reflecting on whether these new and apparently unique objects have an ontological dimensionality, or questioning the concept of digital originality.
Thanks to the humanities we can analyze programming languages using notions of linguistic theory such as syntax or nomenclature. It is very interesting, for example, to understand programming as a creative process. Developing codes in Phyton is a new type of writing, which could be linked to literary or artistic processes.
From another point of view, cultural knowledge allows us to experiment from tradition with new tools and aesthetic formulas. To be able to value these works, an aesthetic that is capable of comprehending what is digital is also important. There are artists whose fundamental work tool is a tablet or an interactive pencil, generative art, or plotter work. We can also understand and expand the concept of museums by digitally curating them.
STI: In some of your articles and in this book you contemplate how thinkers like Aristotle or Cicero might react to social networks. What have you concluded?
AP: Obviously, this is a work of assumptions. Yet, they are useful to reconsider and revive the thinking of many authors considered antiquated, or at least unable to contribute anything to the present moment. I find this to be an interesting exercise.
It is likely that Aristotle and Cicero would understand digital phenomena very well and would integrate into today’s world very naturally. I deduce this from reading their books and considering their reflective capacity. I think if Cicero or Quintilian had known about TED conferences, they probably would have included them in their repertoire of rhetorical examples, perhaps because those speakers persuade eloquently, as they recommended.
A few years ago, The Spectator journalist Sam Leith published the book You Talkin’ To Me?: Rhetoric from Aristotle to Obama. In that text, Leith provides a review of rhetorical concepts and their relationship with popular culture and with the great communicators of today. For Plato, the art of persuasion was among the skills of any responsible citizen. Aristotle has a treatise with this name, in which he says that Rhetoric must be accompanied by knowledge. Perhaps that is why the study of rhetoric is more relevant than ever in the digital age.
STI: What dangers does the immense agora that is the Internet entail, in the eyes of history’s great thinkers?
AP: There have always been dangers. We cannot know for certain what those philosophers or naturalists who preceded us would say. We can venture some guesses. Perhaps the situation is analogous to early moments of history when information was very restricted.
At the beginning, there was a great eagerness to collect knowledge, or overcome the obstacles to accessing it. Our situation is very different, but the first philosophers had concerns very similar to ours. Among them is the ability to recognize informational errors. The famous debate between Socrates and the Sophists is interesting to note in the current climate of post-truth. Socrates denounces misleading myths. Plato, his disciple, warns that the art of persuasion carries dangers such as the talent for deceiving. Rhetoric that confronts hoaxes must have a scientific basis and must be accompanied by a continual reflection on values.
Denis Diderot and the encyclopedists are examples of collecting the knowledge of their time. Today we find the opposite: a great profusion of information. However, our ability to access it is limited; we cannot read everything and sometimes it is very difficult for us to separate the wheat from the chaff. Thus, we need great critical capacity, which is nothing more than a great training in reading.
Descartes and Kant are two authors who enhance our acuity. Cartesian meditations are a methodology that use logic very powerfully. A Kantian suggestion would be to responsibly raise our voice in public. When he wrote the article What is Enlightenment?, he did not imagine what was to follow, but his criteria remain valid. David Hume also suggests in many of his texts the dynamics of verification.
STI: What can we learn from them for our use of social media and the Internet?
AP: The great thinkers, and I believe that we must also include the great creators, are specialists in dialogue and in the reading of the works of others. Virgil read Homer, for example, and in turn, Dante read Virgil. The Divine Comedy is a reading of the Aeneid. Cervantes read them all. Somehow, there is a kind of very powerful network in the world of thought and artistic creation. I think that this teaches us respect for others and for their work, but above all, for those quality creations that can inspire us or provide energy for our life to flourish.
There have always been intellectual networks that have empowered their members. The epistolaries (collection of letters) are an example. Many social networks reproduce this dynamism, although in different proportions. For example, the correspondence between Niemeyer, Costa and Le Corbusier during the construction of Brasilia is noteworthy. So too are Toulouse-Lautrec’s letters to his mother, and Van Gogh’s to his brother Theo. Reading them can serve as a type of education.
On another level, and as a sign of brevity when communicating, many authors have cultivated aphorisms that are also a great way to approach the short text. Wittgenstein can give us some suggestions from the twentieth century: “What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.” Thus is born an analytical formula of understanding. It’s a great suggestion for social media engagement.
STI: What elements of classical rhetoric do you detect in today’s digital communication?
AP: I think that many of today’s relevant YouTubers use elements of classical rhetoric with current variations, although many of them do not know it. Felix Kjellberg, known as PewDiePie takes great care with the structure of his videos and is clear in his elocution – both classical elements. Yet, these characteristics contrast with his politically incorrect expressions and inelegant matters. The counterpoint between classical categories and their opposites is one of the keys to the success of digital rhetoric. This is nothing new. Just read On ugliness by Umberto Eco to see this in the aesthetic field.
Another YouTuber, the very young Anastasia Radzinskaya, uses a lot of sound effects in her productions, which are closely related to what the classical authors called pronuntatio, related to gesticulation and modulation of the voice. Although at first glance it does not seem like it, the Chilean YouTuber Germán Garmendia maintains an expository order in his humorous videos, which is related to logic and coherent sequencing: the dispositio.
Classical rhetoric is divided into legal rhetoric – which treats what is just or unjust –deliberative rhetoric – which concerns the usefulness of actions -and demonstrative rhetoric – in the line of taste or aesthetics. The aforementioned examples concern the latter. Today, there are also influencers who address the legal realm, like Joshua Rozenber in the United Kingdom and Juango Ospina in Spain. In terms of deliberative rhetoric we have the business world, where there are personalities like Jeff Bezos, Euge Oller, and Tony Robbins.
STI: What responsibility does a communicator or a “digital rhetorician” have today?
AP: All those who are able to raise their voice or who have some capacity for influence have a social responsibility. In the end, it is a responsibility of coexistence, that is, it stems from the fundamental forms of kindness. When [in my book] I talked about Kant, I spoke about the possibility of establishing consensus, of being able to claim politely and of being coherent. This is a true manual of digital behavior. It may seem simple, but it’s about greeting others, saying thank you, and apologizing when necessary.
The issue here is linked to common education. The Internet is a magnificent place that broadens the Greek concept of Paideia. The importance of social media is that they democratize dialogue. Yet, we must also be aware of the need to raise its level.
George Steiner said that “all serious art, music or literature constitutes a critical sense”3. I believe that art is a great ally for understanding the world around us, because it helps us to be sharper and more sensitive to what happens in our environment. Art is also intertwined with freedom and a playful approach to life. It’s an interesting way to understand culture. The concept of culture is related to what the Latin classics called personal cultivation. This can also be understood as self-care.
I think many digital communicators are aware of this cultural dimension, which is as important as attention to news or events. Without the notion of culture, our critical and sentimental capacity decreases.
——–
1 – Decoding Dickens’s Secret Notes to Himself, One Symbol at a Time – The New York Times (nytimes.com)
2 – Digital Humanities and Social Sciences BS | RIT
3 – Steiner, Royal Presences, 1989.
