Breaking Down Distinctions
¶ 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 1 As a field, the Digital Humanities can respond to the encroaching logic and practice of corporate neoliberalism by being more inclusive of traditional humanist practices of critique. When DH bills itself as the discipline of doers, of builders, to the neglect of more traditional forms of critique (or critique in general), they contribute, perhaps indirectly, to the neoliberal crisis in the humanities.
¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 1 This inclusion can take many forms, and I think the kind of questions being asked in this MLA panel is one model for the kind of critique DH should actively seek out. Other forms of critique that can help re-position DH as a tool for critical inquiry rather than a tool for the devaluing of traditional humanities might be more than self-critique. DH tools, proudly built, can be turned more generally toward critique or envisioned more as producers of data that necessitate reading and interpretation. Further, DH can continue to do work that investigates the numerous elements of the digital world, even if that investigation comes in the form of more traditional written scholarship–on paper or online.
¶ 3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 0 One problem, articulated by Richard Grusin, is that internal attempts to counteract neoliberalism have resulted in further stratification:
¶ 4 Leave a comment on paragraph 4 0 …as movements such as #transformDH have been articulating, it is the distinction between making things and doing more traditional scholarly work that perpetuates a class system within DH that generates an almost unbridgeable divide between those on the tenure-track, those in what have come to be called “alt-ac” positions, and those in even more precarious and temporary positions.
¶ 5 Leave a comment on paragraph 5 0 The power of distinction seems to be a fixture of DH, and again it seems to be part of the problem here. Indeed, distinction between different kinds of work invites a particular valuing of those kinds of work, but what I’m advocating is a DH that does more of what Grusin’s doing here–more critique of the distinctions that stratify and disconnect members of the same community. So-called ‘traditional scholarship,’ if it explores and investigates the digital, should be quickly welcomed into DH. And to accomplish this requires a breaking open of the DH definition to include work simply on the topic of DH more broadly. That is not to say, of course, that there cannot be sub-fields of DH, much like there are sub-fields of other humanities disciplines, but that opening up of the DH umbrella should help facilitate increased criticism of its (possibly dark) machinations.
I agree that this would be a good move for DH – in my post, I discussed the rift between DH and ‘traditional’ humanities, but I focused more on the division between the scholars in these fields. Your idea of having DH actually incorporate traditional practices into their work again is a great step in severing the ties between these two groups and unifying the humanities again.