When reading Daniel Allington, Sarah Brouillette, and David Golumbia’s critique of the digital humanities, I initially found myself feeling alarmed, especially upon reading the early line, “digital humanities has played a leading role in the corporatist restructuring of the humanities.” Speaking as someone who is wary of corporations, (to say the least), the thought that I could be contributing to their reconfiguration of the humanities was terrifying. However, as I continued to read the article, I found myself refuting nearly every argument the authors made with the experiences I’ve had this summer. Contrary to Allington, Brouilette, and Golumbia’s assertions, I have found the digital humanities to be a field that highlights individual passions within a community of creators, rather than an inauthentic corporate enterprise.
My conclusion about the digital humanities is largely sourced in the people that make up the field. The article focused on the institutional side of digital humanities–where the funding comes from, why they are fostered by college administration, and the corporations that benefit from the field. However, Allington, Brouillette, and Golumbia fail to give proper credit to those individuals who truly constitute the digital humanities–those whose interest in and passion for a subject drive them to make an individualized project that transforms the material they are working with to educate or even inspire a user.
There were two lines I took particular issue with as I was reading the article, the first being “Digital Humanities is pushed far more strongly by university administrators than it is by scholars and students, who increasingly find themselves pressured to redirect their work toward Digital Humanities.” As I’ve become more acquainted with the domain, my perception has been that the digital humanities is more of a grassroots field, which is particularly evidenced by the number of projects that are motivated by the creator’s personal interest in the subject as well as the format of DH conferences, which is determined by all those in attendance.
Secondly, I took issue with the authors’ assertion the the digital humanities are “about the promotion of project-based learning and lab-based research over reading and writing…and the redefinition of technical expertise as a form (indeed, the superior form) of humanist knowledge.” The quote reminded me of a venn diagram R.C. had showed me of two separate circles, one being “students interested in English and literature” and the other, “Students interested in advanced computers and technology and programming”. Despite the number of portrayals of the digital humanities as being completely distinct from the traditional humanities, my experience has been that it encompasses and integrates both areas. One cannot be sustained without the other; consequently, one does not have importance over the other.
On the whole, I felt that this article was written by people who were distanced from the core of the digital humanities field–the people who are truly committed to the individual and open creation of projects and communities.
What I find really hard to understand about this article is that it was written by scholars with either grounding in DH work or other sorts of new media. It’s almost as if there is some sort of axe to grind, but since they are all at different institutions, the common bond is the work they do.
I will say that since DH is en vogue right now in higher education, administrators at some institutions tend to jump on bandwagons that get funding and attention, in the hopes it raises the profile of the school. And often in higher education, there is resistance by faculty and some administrators when it comes to changes from higher up the ladder, especially when there is not a lot of justification for why new things are being brought into play.
Not that I am defending or agree with the article, but I do see the point they are trying to raise, to an extent.