Reading Question – 2/27

“The humanistic record is full of gaps and breaks, ruptures in missing documents, so that any historical reconstruction necessarily provides only partial evidence. Humanistic temporality is broken, discontinuous, partial, fragmented in its fundamental conception and model. How to find the right graphical language to communicate this knowledge in ways that are sufficiently consistent to achieve consensus while being flexible enough to inscribe the inflections that characterize subjective experience?” (Drucker 76).

This quotation is from the end of the “Timekeeping” section. There is a lot going on in the question Drucker already posed here, so let’s break it down a little. Before this quotation, Drucker explains that empirical timelines are limited because they view time as continuous; however, humanistic timelines create “alternative branchings, perspective and retrospective approaches to the understanding of events” (76). Is this question that Drucker asks even possible? If there are so many gaps in the humanistic record, then is there a graphical language that can be used to communicate this knowledge or should we use another way entirely?