11/7 Golumbia Prompt
¶ 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 2 In “Death of a Dispciple”, David Golumbia notes that among conversations relating to Digital Humanities, the question of “What is it?” is often heard, suggesting that many people still do not understand what it is, what it does, nor how it relates to literary studies, despite the 10 plus years since its development. This, once again, brings up the issue regarding a lack of definition on behalf of DH. Aiding in this, Golumbia posits, is that the word digital as used in DH is a catachresis because it doesn’t mean the same thing as it does in “ordinary discourse”. Later on, he continues, saying,“We should reflect on the fact that of the tools and methods DH trumpets so prominently, few are part of the digital toolkit of most literary scholars today…Much of DH’s influence comes not from such tools and projects, but from books, articles, blog posts, and position statements, all of which look much more like “traditional” scholarship than the rhetoric would suggest and whose relationship to other ongoing conversations in literary studies is often difficult to see” (172).
¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 1 In light of this, Golumbia reasserts his claim that the adjective digital in Digital Humanities, is a catachresis, and, as such, is inappropriately used in its name and should therefore be replaced with something that better reflects what DH is, does, and how it contributes to literary studies. He also suggests that if this is not attainable, or perhaps desirable, that DH should instead openly proclaim its rejection to the practices of literary studies and further distance itself from it. Given Golumbia’s critique, I’d like us to consider a few things. Specifically, how does DH seemingly use the word digital? Does the catachresis of the word digital, as used in the title of DH, in fact seem to be an inappropriate use, and if so, why? What appears to be inherently digital about the Digital Humanities, if, as Golumbia suggests, much of DH’s influence within literary studies comes from scholarship resembling its more “traditional” form? What, for you, seems to be the distinction between traditional scholarship and the scholarship of the Digital Humanities?
Ahem: “discipline” (though ‘Death of a Disciple‘ would be an interesting play on the Spivak’s phrase and argument, since one could argue that Golumbia is, himself, a ‘disciple’ of literary studies and yet is critiquing a movement that he judges to be disloyal to the standards of his discipline more generally.)
I like that you place emphasis here on Golumbia’s use of the term “catachresis.” What’s more, the etymological history of the world furthermore reveals that it carries the connotation of perversion (from the Gk prefix κατά, which means “with a sense of perversion.”) To what extent does Golumbia appear to view DH as “perverting” the course of humanistic scholarship, or literary scholarship in particular? Who or what is responsible for causing such “perversion”?
Check out the full OED etymology / definition here:
http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/28665?redirectedFrom=catachresis#eid