{"title":"From Manual to Digital: Women's Hands and the Work of Eighteenth-Century Studies","authors":"Mattie Burkert","doi":"10.1353/sec.2023.0036","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:Digital resources like the HathiTrust Digital Library, Early English Books Online, and Eighteenth-Century Collections Online are increasingly central to humanities scholarship, a trend that has only accelerated as academic jobs disappear, institutional budgets tighten, and an ongoing global pandemic limits travel and access to archives. These electronic resources are not simply a panacea in precarious times, however; they are the product of a global information economy that depends on uncredited, invisible, and underpaid labor. The academic humanities are complicit in exploiting and erasing these technology workers, as a growing body of investigative research has shown. This essay contributes a new case study of an offshore outsourcing project commissioned by and for eighteenth-century scholars: the digitization of The London Stage, 1660–1800 by China Data Systems Corporation in 1970. That electronic transcription, which continues to underpin the present-day London Stage Database, was performed by women keypunchers whose labor was systematically feminized, racialized, and devalued in advertisements and corporate media. Drawing connections to the rhetoric around projects like Google Books and the Text Creation Partnership today, I highlight the recurrent figure of the hand and its vexed role in policing the boundaries between agential and alienated labor. Turning to the period that gave rise to contemporary understandings of intellectual property, I conclude by examining a receipt recording three copyright sales between Susanna Centlivre and Edmund Curll. In this ephemeral manuscript, I find a story richly suggestive of how we might reimagine scholarly labor and knowledge work in our moment of technocapitalism.","PeriodicalId":39439,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Eighteenth Century Culture","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in Eighteenth Century Culture","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/sec.2023.0036","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Abstract:Digital resources like the HathiTrust Digital Library, Early English Books Online, and Eighteenth-Century Collections Online are increasingly central to humanities scholarship, a trend that has only accelerated as academic jobs disappear, institutional budgets tighten, and an ongoing global pandemic limits travel and access to archives. These electronic resources are not simply a panacea in precarious times, however; they are the product of a global information economy that depends on uncredited, invisible, and underpaid labor. The academic humanities are complicit in exploiting and erasing these technology workers, as a growing body of investigative research has shown. This essay contributes a new case study of an offshore outsourcing project commissioned by and for eighteenth-century scholars: the digitization of The London Stage, 1660–1800 by China Data Systems Corporation in 1970. That electronic transcription, which continues to underpin the present-day London Stage Database, was performed by women keypunchers whose labor was systematically feminized, racialized, and devalued in advertisements and corporate media. Drawing connections to the rhetoric around projects like Google Books and the Text Creation Partnership today, I highlight the recurrent figure of the hand and its vexed role in policing the boundaries between agential and alienated labor. Turning to the period that gave rise to contemporary understandings of intellectual property, I conclude by examining a receipt recording three copyright sales between Susanna Centlivre and Edmund Curll. In this ephemeral manuscript, I find a story richly suggestive of how we might reimagine scholarly labor and knowledge work in our moment of technocapitalism.
摘要:HathiTrust数字图书馆、Early English Books Online和18th Century Collections Online等数字资源越来越成为人文学科学术的核心,随着学术工作的消失、机构预算的紧缩以及持续的全球疫情限制了旅行和查阅档案,这一趋势只会加速。然而,这些电子资源不仅仅是不稳定时期的灵丹妙药;它们是全球信息经济的产物,这种经济依赖于未经编辑、看不见、报酬过低的劳动力。越来越多的调查研究表明,学术人文学科是剥削和抹杀这些技术工作者的同谋。本文提供了一个由18世纪学者委托并为其服务的离岸外包项目的新案例研究:中国数据系统公司于1970年对1660–1800年的伦敦舞台进行数字化。这种电子转录仍然是当今伦敦舞台数据库的基础,由女性关键人物进行,她们的劳动在广告和企业媒体中被系统地女性化、种族化和贬值。今天,我将谷歌图书和文本创建伙伴关系等项目的言论联系起来,强调了这只手的反复出现,以及它在监管代理人和异化劳动力之间的界限方面所扮演的令人烦恼的角色。谈到引起当代人对知识产权理解的时期,我最后查看了一张收据,记录了苏珊娜·森特利夫和埃德蒙·科尔之间的三次版权销售。在这本短暂的手稿中,我发现了一个故事,它丰富地暗示了我们在技术资本主义时代如何重新想象学术劳动和知识工作。
期刊介绍:
The Society sponsors two publications that make available today’s best interdisciplinary work: the quarterly journal Eighteenth-Century Studies and the annual volume Studies in Eighteenth-Century Culture. In addition, the Society distributes a newsletter and the teaching pamphlet and innovative course design proposals are published on the website. The annual volume of SECC is available to members at a reduced cost; all other publications are included with membership.