While I have noticed "DH" as a proliferating job category on lists such as the MLA job list, and while I've heard about various DH projects, this article provides a helpful push-into-the-deep-end-of-the-pool/general context for the debate about this newly ascendant academic discipline. Kirschenbaum enters the discourse by pointing out that DH is both a "discursive construction" and a diverse array of specific practices and projects.
While articulating an array of "dark side" critiques/worries/realities about DH, Kirschenbaum ultimately argues for the historicization of the construct of DH as a construct vis-a-vis "prior academic discursive formations...[so that] critiques of 'digital humanities' can ameliorate the construct (as opposed to indulging its brutal metric perpetuation) by acknowledging--historically, materially--that 'digital humanities' is in fact a diversified set of practices, one whose details and methodologies responsible critique has a responsibility to understand and engage" (59).
He cites Alan Liu's essay "The Meaning of Digital Humanities" as an example of a piece that conducts a close reading of a specific project. I'd be interested in reading this article. I am intrigued by K's claim that Liu uses "the science and technology studies (STS) approach" since he then asserts this is the "best basis for relevant critique of and in the digital humanities" (60). This is particularly provocative for someone like me trained in the humanities....and I am wondering how different this approach is, whether in fact it *is* different. Or is K calling for close reading of "the material conditions of knowledge production in scientific settings or configurations" (60). Is this what history of science folks do?? And is that field--history of science--an interdisciplinary (humanites/science) field and is K suggesting that digital humanities is that as well?? At any rate, to better understand K's claims--which are engaging--I need to read the Liu piece.
In the end, while not disputing the emergence of DH in a moment of intense of neoliberalization and corporatization of higher ed, Kirschenbaum calls for examining the work, the specific works and projects of digital humanities rather than remaining solely in the discourse of the construct, a discourse that tends to generalize rather than responsibly historicize and *read*--through whatever method of reading one chooses--specific DHprojects and endeavors. It is pretty hard to disagree with that call! --Robin
While I have noticed "DH" as a proliferating job category on lists such as the MLA job list, and while I've heard about various DH projects, this article provides a helpful push-into-the-deep-end-of-the-pool/general context for the debate about this newly ascendant academic discipline. Kirschenbaum enters the discourse by pointing out that DH is both a "discursive construction" and a diverse array of specific practices and projects.
ReplyDeleteWhile articulating an array of "dark side" critiques/worries/realities about DH, Kirschenbaum ultimately argues for the historicization of the construct of DH as a construct vis-a-vis "prior academic discursive formations...[so that] critiques of 'digital humanities' can ameliorate the construct (as opposed to indulging its brutal metric perpetuation) by acknowledging--historically, materially--that 'digital humanities' is in fact a diversified set of practices, one whose details and methodologies responsible critique has a responsibility to understand and engage" (59).
He cites Alan Liu's essay "The Meaning of Digital Humanities" as an example of a piece that conducts a close reading of a specific project. I'd be interested in reading this article. I am intrigued by K's claim that Liu uses "the science and technology studies (STS) approach" since he then asserts this is the "best basis for relevant critique of and in the digital humanities" (60). This is particularly provocative for someone like me trained in the humanities....and I am wondering how different this approach is, whether in fact it *is* different. Or is K calling for close reading of "the material conditions of knowledge production in scientific settings or configurations" (60). Is this what history of science folks do?? And is that field--history of science--an interdisciplinary (humanites/science) field and is K suggesting that digital humanities is that as well?? At any rate, to better understand K's claims--which are engaging--I need to read the Liu piece.
In the end, while not disputing the emergence of DH in a moment of intense of neoliberalization and corporatization of higher ed, Kirschenbaum calls for examining the work, the specific works and projects of digital humanities rather than remaining solely in the discourse of the construct, a discourse that tends to generalize rather than responsibly historicize and *read*--through whatever method of reading one chooses--specific DHprojects and endeavors.
It is pretty hard to disagree with that call! --Robin