11/14 Response
¶ 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 2 Allington, Brouillette, and Golumbia do appear to be reflecting and describing DH accurately, although perhaps not entirely, offering only one perspective of the narrative belonging to DH. Focusing specifically on the push-back and hesitation regarding DH in an academic setting, Golumbia et al outlines this issue quite clearly, saying, “But the unparalleled level of material support that Digital Humanities has received suggests that its most significant contribution to academic politics may lie in its (perhaps unintentional) facilitation of the neoliberal takeover of the university”. There is indeed a shift taking place in the University setting, and in this sense, their anxieties do seem founded. There is evidence of an increasing role that the University administration is playing in terms of the kinds of scholarship being asked for, if not required, urging scholars toward DH like work because it brings more attention to the University. However, those within the administration aren’t doing the work, they aren’t producing the scholarship, so why do they get to have a say in what and how things are being done? This is a concern we’ve seen elsewhere this semester, specifically within Golumbia’s other work.
¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 2 As Golumbia notes in “Death of a Discipline”, “The question I am raising here is why professionals who are not humanists should be engaged in setting standards for professional humanists”. Although here, Golumbia is specifically critiquing DH and posing this question in relation to the debate surrounding it, and its role with the field of literary studies as a whole, the question is a useful one to reflect on in light of this essay relating to neo-liberalism, specifically for the reasons outlined above.
¶ 3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 0 This does seem to be at the root of the issue many have with DH as it appears to be apart of the administrations agenda. Although this concern is valid and the anxieties surrounding are, in my opinion, founded, it doesn’t offer a complete picture of DH, and so although this is perhaps an accurate portrayal of this one aspect of DH, I don’t think its fair to only focus on this one aspect, and in turn, not offer an absolute reflection of DH.
The quote you used in this paragraph is dynamite, I wish I’d highlighted that when reading the article. That’s great evidence towards the point you’re making here. Do you agree entirely with the idea that DH work “contributes..(in the) facilitation of the neoliberal takeover”? That’s a lot to unpack. Is it that DH work is easier to package and exploit as a product, or is there an ideological element in DH that is more akin to neoliberal ideas?
I find your first sentence a bit confusing, though, because I don’t think that these authors ever set out to offer a holistic picture of DH or to combine “multiple perspectives” regarding the narratives that belong to it.
Indeed, doesn’t it seem like their point was to do the reverse? To offer a heretofore neglected perspective, and to offer it strongly, based on evidence?