September 25th – Data & Visualization, Short Response: 

For my second reading response, I wanted to dive into a few projects that caught my attention this week: Two Plantations, Every Upcoming Solar Eclipse (until 2080), and Gendered Language in Teacher Reviews. Each of these visualizations uses data to tell a story in a way that’s both informative and interactive, but their subject matter and the way they engage viewers are quite different, which is what makes them stand out.

The Two Plantations project struck me immediately because of how it maps out the lives of enslaved people across two plantations—Mount Airy in Virginia and Mesopotamia in Jamaica. The way this project brings historical records to life is extremely powerful. The interactive map, family trees, and details about individuals allow viewers to see the real human impact behind the data. What I found especially compelling is how it doesn’t just give you names or numbers; it restores a sense of identity and connection to people who were often reduced to property. This project is a strong example of how digital humanities can reframe historical narratives and add new layers of understanding. It’s a moving reminder of the importance of telling stories that might otherwise remain buried, humanizing the data in ways traditional history often overlooks.

On the other hand, the Every Upcoming Solar Eclipse (until 2080) visualization takes a more scientific approach but is still very captivating. Created by Denise Lu for The Washington Post, the interactive globe shows all solar eclipses’ paths until 2080. This project brilliantly uses digital tools to visualize something that would be hard to grasp otherwise. What stands out about this visualization is how it lets users interact with the data personally—you can enter your birth year and see how many eclipses will happen during your lifetime. The use of light and dark shades to represent time, combined with hover text tooltips, makes it both engaging and accessible. This project showcases how digital visualizations can make complex scientific information more relatable to a wider audience.

In addition to these projects, I explored Ben Schmidt’s Gendered Language in Teacher Reviews, which uses data from RateMyProfessor to analyze how students describe male and female professors differently. I found it super, super fun to play around with different search terms and see how language changes based on gender. This project is particularly engaging because it lets the user drive the experience—you input specific terms and get immediate visual results. The ability to personalize the data output based on user input adds a unique level of interaction and makes the findings feel more relevant. It got me thinking about how one would create such an interactive and tailored visualization, where the user shapes the narrative rather than passively absorbing information.

One of the most surprising takeaways from this week’s readings and projects is just how many tools and resources are available for creating digital humanities visualizations. I had no idea there were so many options out there, as highlighted in the NYU guide on digital humanities tools. It’s exciting to think about the possibilities for using these tools to create my own visualizations and tell stories in dynamic, user-driven ways.

Overall, these projects show the power of digital tools in making abstract or complex data come to life. Whether it’s through uncovering hidden histories, mapping celestial events, or revealing gendered biases in language, the potential for digital humanities to reshape how we interact with information is both vast and inspiring.

Short Response #1 | Madison Watkins

In exploring both Dr. Erica Nelson’s “Critical Cartography: The Subjectivity, Politics, and Power of Spatial Data” and Bonilla and Hantel’s “Visualizing Sovereignty,” I found myself deeply fascinated by the political nature of maps and spatial data. Dr. Nelson’s discussion on the politics of mapping, in particular, stood out to me. She describes maps as powerful tools that “delineate and reinforce power,” emphasizing how they’ve historically been used to marginalize certain groups and uphold the interests of those in control. This resonated with me because, to this day, we can see how the design of cities, borders, and infrastructure continues to reflect inequalities of power. Take the Mercator Map, for instance: it’s a stark reminder of how even the ways we visually represent the world can uphold power imbalances, distorting land masses and reinforcing colonial ideologies. 

To me, it’s almost infuriating how such maps are still so widely accepted and used. But, I mean, here in the West, it’s what we’ve been taught—so how is the average person supposed to know the truth? How are we supposed to uncover and then unlearn the lies we’ve been told since the beginning? Power, racism, and division run so deep that it’s scary to think about how embedded these forces are in each of our everyday lives. What excites me, though, is the potential to redelegate that power. I’m excited to see and contribute to more efforts that return the narrative, the representation, and the control of space to those who have historically had it taken from them. Throughout history, communities have been displaced, misrepresented, and marginalized through the manipulation of space, and maps have played a significant role in that process. Using mapping as a tool to empower these communities feels like a step toward justice.

These ideas, actually, connect directly to what we discussed in my Environmental Social Science class this week. We were to read Ingold’s “Culture, Perception, and Cognition“, he discusses how individuals’ sensory experiences shape their perception of the world. Ingold emphasizes that perception is not just shaped by cultural factors but is also deeply personal, rooted in how we physically engage with our surroundings. This made me reflect on how different people experience and interact with spaces based on their unique lived experiences. Access to resources, mobility, and the physical design of spaces all impact how individuals relate to their environment, especially in urban settings where marginalized communities often face greater barriers.

Edward T. Hall’s “Psychology and Architecture” from The Hidden Dimension (1969) builds on this by examining how physical spaces affect psychological well-being. He argues that the built environment shapes our behavior and interactions, but even more, it affects us on a subconscious level—how we feel and move through spaces is often determined by design choices we might not even be aware of. This made me think of how urban infrastructure like public transit systems and green spaces can either promote inclusion and accessibility or perpetuate exclusion. The way Hall connects spatial design with psychological responses emphasizes the importance of considering the lived experiences of individuals when designing equitable environments, much like Dr. Nelson’s call to critically examine how we map and design spaces through a political lens.

Jane Jacobs’ “The Uses of Sidewalks: Safety” and Kevin Lynch’s “The City Image and Its Elements” also speak to the power of thoughtful, human-centered design in creating more inclusive and socially cohesive spaces. Jacobs highlights how well-designed public spaces, like sidewalks, can foster community, while Lynch offers a framework for understanding how we mentally map and make sense of urban environments. Both authors underscore the importance of designing spaces that prioritize the human experience—spaces that empower rather than exclude.

These readings, across both my Environmental Social Science and Digital Humanities courses, have strengthened my understanding of how perception, behavior, space, and politics are all deeply intertwined. They’ve pushed me to think critically about how maps and urban design reflect power structures and, most importantly, how we can work to challenge those structures by creating more inclusive and equitable environments.