This essay, by Adeline Koh, looks at the ways in which lenticular logic and modularity influence the “More Hack, Less Yack” debates happening in the digital humanities community – all of which I will define. Digital Humanities refers to the study of how the digital can aid the study of the humanities, as well as how humanities issues can influence the digital. Within the community of “digital humanists” who participate in this sort of work, there is an ongoing discussion about the concept of “more hack, less yack”. This is used to mean valuing tangible work (projects, specific tasks, etc.) over discussion and theory. Koh investigates this debate by looking at the concept of modularity and lenticular logic. Modularity refers to the concept of specialization, or breaking down a larger production into smaller, hyper-specialized parts, with different people immersed in different “modules”. Lenticular logic refers also to this idea of valuing separate specializations over the whole. A way I like to think about it is taking something “one step at a time” rather than looking at the big picture of where you’re going.
By looking at the early beginnings of computers, and the development of the UNIX operating system, Koh explains that this “modular” way of thinking is often referred to as “common sense”. At first glance, it can be hard to see a problem with this way of thinking. Koh explains, however, that “common sense is never simply ‘common sense’”. A person’s individual social and political standings, as well as the social and political standings of the current moment, can influence what someone understands as “common sense”. The assumption that modular thinking is common sense inherently makes an assumption about these factors. Koh aims to look at the factors (or “habitus”) that came together to describe “more hack, less yack” as “common sense.”
In a way, pushing for tangible ‘doing’ over theorizing is a version of modularity. “More hack, less yack” encourages digital humanists to specialize their work, and focus on one particular small part at a time. Theory, or “yack”, Koh argues, is the answer to combating this. She calls for the development of a “metalanguage” to better theorize and investigate many digital humanists’ understanding of “common sense”. In her own words, “we need to question the forms that make us see “common-sense”, and to see value in the converse “less hack, more yack” proposition.”
digital feminisms 