Resistance to Digital Humanities, Rightly Understood

A debate over the politics of digital humanities has broken out in the pages of the Los Angeles Review of Books. The first salvo came on May 1 from Daniel Allington, Sarah Brouillette, and David Golumbia in their co-written article “Neoliberal Tools (and Archives).viva-resistance-physicsThe authors charged the emergent field of digital humanities scholarship with complacency and complicity with the privatization of the university. Obsessed with technological wizardry, DH scholars have allegedly abandoned the task of producing scholarship critical of existing social and cultural norms. Digital tools only enable quantitative analysis, the authors claimed, which cannot replace qualitative arguments based on synthetic judgments. By following the money and political affiliations of DH projects over the past two decades, Allington et al. concluded that DH as a research method must be resisted — and progressive, non-DH scholarship must be defended.

Now, on May 11, another trio of scholars has launched a counterattack. Juliana Spahr, Richard So, and Andrew Piper assert in “Beyond Resistance” that DH in fact enables a broad range of critical scholarship, such as “an analysis of the economics of creative writing programs and their demographics or the institutional elitism and gender disparities of academic publishing.” Spahr et al. acknowledge the value of Allington et al.’s critique but worry that in resisting DH we might throw the baby out with the bathwater. Some research questions “cannot be fully answered using the critical toolbox of current humanistic scholarship.” They believe that “it is too early to reject in toto the use of digital methods for the humanities.”

So, as it becomes increasingly difficult to ignore DH, humanities scholars are faced with three options:

1. embrace DH as the wave of the future;

2. reject DH as a Trojan horse of neoliberal politics and economic restructuring (Allington et al.);

3. or, move “beyond resistance” to a cautious position of compromise (Spahr et al.).

Option #1 seems most dangerous for the continued survival of the humanities as an autonomous sector of university-based research. As I have argued elsewhere in the context of online “practical” education, misplaced scientific optimism, and digital history triumphalism, our use of digital tools and methods must always serve predetermined and (hopefully) critical ends. Science and technology tend to operate according to an instrumental rationality that leaves prior assumptions, norms, and goals largely unexamined. Humanities scholarship and society at large will not benefit from adopting the logic of STEM, because then no discipline will exist with the express purpose of debating substantively rational claims (or, “ends”). To paraphrase Nietzsche, the will to science needs a critique; the value of science must be called into question.

If Option #1 is undesirable, then we’re left to choose between Options #2 and 3. This alternative inspired the current debate in LARB, but I think it’s actually a false alternative based on a misunderstanding of resistance.

We often associate resistance with the practice of subversion, literally a “turning under.” Subversion begins with an imitation of the object to be overturned — a mimesis of bad reality. One cannot stand completely outside a system of oppression. In fact, any attempt to define an act of resistance as wholly independent of its object risks drifting into a utopia of abstract negation and even personal hypocrisy. A dialectical understanding of resistance recognizes that to resist means to manipulate a regime of oppression, to transform it immanently, but never entirely to escape it.

All the examples of critical DH research mentioned by Spahr et al. were possible, as they claim, because scholars did not totally reject digital tools and methods. But Spahr et al. should drop the rhetoric of “beyond resistance.” Precisely what they are trying to do is a form of resistance, rightly understood. Humanities scholars must use whatever tools available to us to advance critical scholarship; we must always strive to be on the cutting edge and never leave technology to the technicians.

Furthermore, this dialectical understanding of resistance enables scholars to deconstruct the methods of DH itself. Deconstruction involves first inhabiting a dominant social construct — such as an oppressive government or hegemonic discourse — and then critiquing that construct’s inconsistencies, ambiguities, and false assumptions in order to destabilize it from within. In this way and this way only will digital humanities produce its own gravediggers.

Historians of the World, Adapt?

Professors Jo Guldi and┬áDavid Armitage threw down the scholarly gauntlet six months ago when they published their bold appeal to rescue History from the “bonfire of the humanities.” The History Manifesto claims that the discipline’s descent into public irrelevance has resulted from current historical scholarship’s lack of long-term thinking. Citing statistics that show a precipitous […]

Occupy Hong Kong?

For the past couple of days, tens of thousands of Hong Kong citizens have taken to the streets to protest recent decisions by the central Chinese government to limit voting reforms in the city and to allow only communist-vetted candidates stand for the city’s upcoming municipal elections. Several dozen protestors have suffered injuries in clashes […]

Not a Coup: A Revolution

Yesterday the Ukrainian Parliament voted to oust President Viktor F. Yanukovych and shortly thereafter the people of Kiev stormed the presidential palace, forcing Yanukovych to flee the capital. He refuses to step down and rejects the Parliament’s decision to hold new elections at the end of May, despite the fact that it is acting within […]

“New Beginning”: Sketch for a Conceptual History

The new year inevitably brings with it a spate of new year’s resolutions. While the timing of these life decisions — vowing to exercise more, to spend less money, to find a partner or new job, etc. — is somewhat arbitrary and their results often short-lived, the symbolic importance of the new year and its […]

Dr. Pangloss on Science and the Humanities

Steven Pinker’s latest article in The New Republic seems designed to enrage the very audience that it wants to assuage: “neglected novelists, embattled professors, and tenure-less historians.” In seeking to convince these hardy defenders of the humanities that modern science is not in fact the “enemy,” Dr. Pangloss, er, Pinker paints a rosy picture of […]

Article Fever: On Scholarly Reading

The archive, Jacques Derrida tells us in his 1995 book Archive Fever, “is not only the stockroom and the conservatory for archivable contents of the past which would exist in any case, and just the same, without the archive. [. . .] No, the technical structure of the archiving archive also determines [both] the structure […]