Digital and social engagement
This was the core of the Vectors experiment: to empower humanists to dig below the surface of the interface to engage deeper levels of digital authoring and to thereby invite them to ask different kinds of questions of their discipline and objects of study. The Vectors interactive editorial statement, designed and programmed by Raegan Kelly, expands upon this sentiment of defamiliarization, while modeling an insistence on interactive engagement through the collaboration of authors, designers, readers, and computational processes. The brief texts (“lexia”) that comprised the editorial statement were co-authored by the editors in an attempt to model the journal's commitment to a triangulated process of writing, reading, and computation. Visitors to the "statement" are first required to type in a keyword in order to call forth relevant lexia, along with related keyword arrays. Concurrently, a code window reveals the Actionscript used to generate the text and its linkages. A sample of the text generated in response to the keyword “labor” is as follows:
Input via index: “labor” transmitted to host
key= process
secondary_key_array= author,labor,play,collaboration
associative_array= labor,play,tool,open source,translation,time
lexia= Like the media products that preceded them, digital forms tend to conceal the labor that was necessary to produce them. The slickness of the digital can make it hard to remember the varied acts of labor that underwrite the ubiquitous technologies of the Western world, rendering invisible code workers and chip makers alike. Vectors insists that labor matters and that a careful investigation of networked society can reveal and perhaps forestall our seamless incorporation into the uneven workings of post-fordist digital capitalism.
Admittedly, these texts and associated keywords were composed before Vectors had published its first issue. They are therefore reflective more of the hopes that were invested in the journal, the ethical stakes and commitments that motivated the form of the projects, and the processes of collaboration that sought to place design considerations on an equal footing with more traditional “content.”
The Vectors selection process was disposed to favor work that engaged social issues, especially related to feminism, critical race theory, and cultural or ethnic studies. In part, this represented an effort to remediate the discourse of disembodiment and dematerialization of early net culture and the apolitical turn in humanities computing of the preceding decades. It was also an extension of McPherson’s work as a co-founder of the Race in Digital Space conferences that took place at MIT (2001) and USC (2002), which were explicitly devoted to foregrounding issues of race and ethnicity in digital culture. It was an explicit commitment of the Vectors editorial project – and later in the development of Scalar – that these platforms represented an opportunity to promote digital publishing as a space of inclusivity toward historically underrepresented groups. Citing Sharon Daniel's Vectors project, “Public Secrets,” Patrick Svensson notes, “There is a strong sense of intervention here that resonates with the "active" humanities…Daniel’s "Public Secrets" brings together artistic installation and academic expression in a single frame that serves both as cultural critique and activist call for change” (Svensson, 2010). A review of the Vectors archive reveals the extent to which these goals were evident in the selection of projects; however, a more challenging question is the extent to which the design function of the journal itself succeeds in challenging the “uneven workings of post-fordist digital capitalism.”
