Neoliberal
¶ 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 2 I think that the narrative on Digital Humanities and their stance on the topic, specifically in neoliberalism, is quite interesting. Golumbia et al, Neoliberal Tools, raises an interesting issue that I never thought about. They state, on page 2 “What Digital Humanities is not about, despite its explicit claims, is the use of digital or quantitative methodologies to answer research questions in the humanities.” Throughout this entire semester, we have been trying to define what the digital humanities consists of, but we never raised the issue of what Digital Humanities is not. I think it is interesting how these authors raise this question at the very start of the article. To go along with defining what Digital Humanities is not, they also establish tools that they use.
¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 1 If we establish at the very beginning what Digital Humanities is not and what tools DH requires, then the reassurance of the digital humanities is not secure; in essence, their perception of the Digital Humanities then becomes a fight to argue that it exists, but for now, it is their fears and anxiety that they are arguing about this. So far, the readings that we have read so far have consisted on why the digital humanities should exist and does exist, etc., but I think what we should focus on the reactions of non-digital humanists to get a good sense of what they believe the digital forms of humanities consists of.
¶ 3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 1 In the article, they talk about how people would call upon the digital humanists for difficulties arising within their computers and other topics regarding it. I think this arises with their insecurities that the digital humanities will become something of a computer science or something along those lines. If people focus their attention on the things that these humanists happen to be good at, then this will morph their perspective on what humanities will be and I believe this is why they write these articles. To prove that digital humanities is not what people would expect. It is a form of humanities that is transforming and being educated on it is essential to becoming successful in the disciplinary.
This is an interesting move to make at the very beginning. In a rhetorical sense, it’s pretty common. What Allington et al. do here is attack the definition of DH straight away, arguing that it is not what it claims to be, which is a little different than making a case for what it is not–or at least has a different inflection. The tone is here is more accusatory, a kind of pulling back the curtain.
But if we bracket that accusatory move, and try and think about what DH is not as a kind of productive method of definition–that would certainly be different, and interesting. It’s the opposite of the umbrella sort of move we’ve seen from a lot of writers in ‘Defining.’ While approaching things this way might be more exclusionary, it might also be clearer. I suppose that’s one of the benefits of the “hard-lined” DHers who argue DH must include building–clarity.
I’d like to see you spend more time with the quotation that you select here. The authors, after all, are arguing that DH is not about what it claims to be about: what do you make of this argument? And what, then, is DH all “about,” if not “the use of digital or quantitative methodologies”?