To characterize what I do as “making” is to mistake the methods—courses, workshops, editorials—for the effects. Or, worse, if you say that I “make” other people, you are diminishing their agency and role in sense-making, as if their learning is something I do to them.
Debbie Chachra, “Why I Am Not a Maker,” The Atlantic, January 23, 2015.
I find this passage particularly resonant because it gets at the tension between individuality and cooperation. Chachra is adamant that she is not a “maker,” and the main argument of her article is that that’s okay, and it shouldn’t diminish her value to society. She argues that teaching is not “making” precisely because of the parts her students play–because they have agency and individuality. Though it’s also important to understand and appreciate the role that Chachra (or any teacher) has. Teachers transfer existing knowledge from its source to its recipients; they are the bridge between “makers” of the past and potential future “makers.” Therefore, I would argue that teachers are the “maker makers” of this particular societal model and, to Chachra’s central point, should absolutely be appreciated more for what they do. Chachra seems against this interpretation, as she specifically denies that she doesn’t “make” anyone else because they have their own agency. However, I believe there is more nuance. Becoming a “maker” is an inherently collaborative endeavor, therefore aiding someone in that process is not robbing them of their individuality.
This feels particularly relevant to the Digital Humanities because of its own collaborative nature. Illustrated very well by Jin Gao’s network chart, DH is a profoundly interconnected field. It is and should be counter to the great man theory of history, hopefully by having every project cooperated on by a large group of diverse “makers.” Personally, I find this inherent collaboration to be really important and a big appeal of the Digital Humanities field. I hope to go through life, both personally and professionally, in a cooperative and communal manner, and I believe that DH has a lot to offer there.
Finally, as for this term of class, I think I myself am drawn to the “making” (no shade to Debbie Chachra though). I want to create things thar artistic and expressive while I learn more about that process.
2 thoughts on “Blog 1 – Quote Reflection (Arlo Cornell)”
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Thinking of teachers as the “bridge” between past and future makers is very insightful. It also adds a lot of validity to Chachra’s argument in my opinion, in that although she is not a maker herself, her work is essential to the makers of the past (she analyzes and passes on their knowledge) and the makers of the future (she helps them learn how to make). In this sense, perhaps she is twice as important as the average maker because of the making she facilitates. Just something to think about.
I really like your point about teachers being maker makers. It is very difficult to draw a distinct line between makers and non makers and if you think about it hard enough almost everyone is a maker. I appreciate how you can point out some flaws while still acknowledging the validity of her argument.