Archive for November, 2016
Neoliberal Tools- 11/14 Response
The authors of “Neoliberal Tools” made compelling arguments about the digital humanities field, and I can certainly understand and sympathize with their argument. Their point about the tendencies of DH as “signs that the Digital Humanities as social and institutional movement is a reactionary force in literary studies, pushing the discipline toward post-interpretative, non-suspicious, technocratic, […]
11/14 Golumbia, Brouillette, & Allington
What the authors of Neoliberal Tools have to say about the beginnings and evolution of DH stand in contrast to what many other scholars have written on the subject previously this semester. One thing that was immediately apparent in reading their article was what they highlight as the beginnings of Humanities Computing. As they elucidate, “Humanities […]
Neoliberal Tools
It’s hard to determine which aspects of the LABR text to consider thoughtfully and which to ignore, because with a new take on the DH such as this one, the truth of the matter is difficult to decipher from the falsities, such as the claim that DH is established and run by administration. If that’s […]
Founded Anxieties and Giving Credit Where it’s Due
The anxieties about DH brought to light by the anonymous blogger from the Guardian and several commenters responding to Kevin Gannon’s response to anonymous seem to be reiterated here in the piece by Golumbia, Brouilette, and Arlington: the university is being taken over by administration and they’re using DH to help them do it. (That […]
Prompt 11/14: Golumbia et al., “Neoliberal Tools”
By now, the narrative that authors David Golumbia, Sarah Brouillette, and Daniel Allington are telling in this essay ought to be familiar, for the very reason that it is the narrative — or, at least, one version of the narrative — that we have been studying all throughout this semester. Given that familiarity, what do […]
Golumbia Response
Digital Humanities seemingly uses the word ‘digital’ in the sense that it implies that humanities is taken from a means of moving traditional scholarship to being housed within a digital interface. The use of the word digital appears to posit that DH is an entirely separate field of scholarship; when in reality there’s no solid […]
11/07 post
While this isn’t the first time we’ve been asked to identify how important or significant the “Digital” part of DH is, it is the first time a scholar has asked us to consider if DH has a claim to being a part of the Humanities as we are familiar with them, rather than a DH […]
Golumbia Response
Within many of the works we have read and discussed during class, the concept of what is “digital” within DH, has become a catachresis because typically the digital components aren’t as widely involved within many of the discussions. There are discussions about the technological platforms many scholars use to varying degrees within their work, examples […]
The Five Families of DH: Errrr… Aka What the Heck is Digital?
(Yes, I keep referring to this guy as Gambino or Colombo in my head) Golumbia’s claim that the success of DH comes from scholarship that looks suspiciously traditional is a valid one because all that changes when you compare the two forms are the ways in which you obtain information. Traditional scholarship to my […]
No Greater Zelot
I think part of the problem is Digital humanities is rarely an independent discipline within the humanities at many universities. Let’s say someone is a tenure-track professor at a university without a dedicated DH program but is interested in DH. They have no choice to pursue their career advancement through traditional means. This means that […]
