Week 2: Question 4: Political Citizenship and DH
  • What kind of “rules” or “political approaches” should we apply when examining DH? McPherson’s article raises some important points about the digital humanities and political citizenship. How should, and how do, digital humanists treat the issue of political digital citizenship?
  • 30 Comments sorted by
  • When I consider "political citizenship" and its relationship to DH from a #dhpoco perspective, I wonder whether it's just a fallacy. I'm speaking here of political citizenship of people who practice #dhpoco or allied forms of DH and our relationship to DH - our "citizenship" within DH, if you will. Scholars within postcolonial studies have done a good job of complicating claims to citizenship (I'm thinking of Malini Johar Schuelller, Rajashweri Sunder Rajan, Kavita Daiya, Reshmi Dutt-Ballerstadt). I might go so far as to claim that postcolonial studies has exploded the concept of "citizenship." This is different from question about "digital political citizenship" raised at the beginning of this thread, but I think it's worth considering "political citizenship" in relation to DH (and #dhpoco) practitioners. Something that drew me to postcolonial studies is the way it has illuminated the constructedness, elitism, exclusions, etc. of political citizenship. I very much think #dhpoco has to draw on this theme from postcolonial studies when we consider our relationship to the rest of DH. 

    What does this mean for #dhpoco? For one, it means rejecting the idea that there is "citizenship" for us within DH, a citizenship that will be granted to us by some authority. If postcolonial studies identifies all the problems of rhetorics of citizenship, let's avoid that. Let's not position ourselves as outsiders of a sovereign nation in which we aspire inclusion. Let's understand that there are (and, perhaps aren't) ways we are DH practitioners, claim our similarities and differences, and move forward. This means ensuring we aren't giving in to a narrative of victimization and exclusion because we reject the very notion of citizenship. I don't mean that we shouldn't be critical, shouldn't be theoretical, shouldn't bring to bear out knowledges and experiences on DH. Yet, we need to see #dhpoco as not a reaction or a response but a radical player, putting out our own projects, pushing against the definitions and boundaries that shape DH. 

    How do we do this? First of all, we don't bemoan our relative position to DH. We build our alliances and plan strategically. Worried you don't have R1 resources? (Me too!) Look at @adelinekoh creating a ProfHacker open thread on SLAC DH and starting a consortium: http://chronicle.com/blogs/profhacker/open-thread-dh-outside-of-the-research-university/50919). Worried DH isn't representing your interests? Start your own group, like #TransformDH did or like #dhpoco did. Embrace what @elotroalex, Alex Gil, terms #guerillaDH. The beauty of DH is that there IS space for all of these things, there are people who will help, there are social media networks and Facebook groups, and journals. Yack, hack, and yack some more, but make it happen.

    Those of us in the United States, those of us who are citizens or permanent residents or on a legal path to citizenship, I think, are susceptible to mainstream narrative of citizenship because of the nature of public discourse in the United States. It's easy to not think about everyone who is denied citizenship or that those us who came here as immigrants and got/are getting citizenship (myself included) are not here simply by accidents of history. Lots of people, elsewhere in the world, don't necessarily have the luxury of perceiving citizenship in such a way. Taking cues from postcolonial studies, #dhpoco needs to move away from retrograde notions of citizenship and accept that they are exclusive and inequal. By that token, we can't ask for citizenship within DH - we can only embrace that it's illusory, create our own narratives, and represent our own DH work.  
  • In much the same way as Clement Greenberg argued abstract expressionism was a reaction to Cold War politics in the U.S., McPherson cites a host of scholars on the consequences for academia of the same time period, one of isolation, fragmentation, inward looking, epitomized by the New Criticisms’ fetishizing of the text, and only the text. The question then becomes how do we escape our own zeitgeist, which vacillates between valorizing the political potential of the digital (i.e. Arab spring, OWS often said to have never been possible without Twitter/FB) and condemning slacktivism or click activism? The historian in me wants a further explanation of what in the zeitgeist pushed towards modularity. What ways of seeing and knowing (lenticular v stereoscopic) facilitate an integrated approach? The lenticular reflects the desire to flatten identity to singular vectors, to resist the intersectionality that increasingly historically challenged univectoral analyses of sexism, racism, classism. The metonymic function then of one oppression standing in for the whole, which undergirds early days of organizing many identity based social movements, may achieve one specific goal (or task) but at the cost of making invisible the inter-related, but unaddressed, goals of attacking the roots of oppression, and in fact, may tend towards reinforcing hegemony (as evidenced by McPherson’s discussion of increased segregation, increased economic disparity). How though do we get to the stereoscopic, the ability to see simultaneously, two (or more) things at once? I think feminist critical race studies has much to offer us here. I’m thinking of Sandoval in particular.

    Many of the issues McPherson raises resonate with my own study of social movements. Re Baltimore and lack of discussion on race? My first thought? Basic lesson from social movements, anything invite only is going to be more homogenous. Problems with Cyberstructuralism, well those are the same critiques social movement activists made of poststructuralism in late 1970s. The earliest critiques of representation and creation in digital media parallel that of earlier critiques of media, such as the one I am most familiar with, representations of women in art and lack of art by women. Not to get all Santayana, but history provides lots of excellent examples of how to proceed. I am particularly fond of Sandoval’s idea of oppositional and differential consciousness, which has proved so fruitful for a whole host of other thinkers, not the least of which is Donna Haraway’s idea of cyborg feminism. There is an interesting discussion of Sandoval’s theories in relation to technology in Dialogues between Paul Virilio
    and Chela Sandoval. Towards a better understanding of uses and abuses of new technologies.By INGRID MARIA HOOFD http://www.genders.org/g39/g39_hoofd.html
  • Thank you for this comment @professmoravec. Besides the digital development of our territories, for me this question is the key of a new reflection about the researches en DH and the policy that could be included. With DH we talk about digital innovation, but that also means that this new « uses » aims at spreading practices of humanists.. With the digital tools we materialize (or dematerialize) some intended ways of thinking.  But University’s (in the entire world) must propose every time multimodal information about these uses. This could create digital policys that should answer different needs….Your point @professmoravec point something really important : « basic lesson from social movements, anything invite only is going to be more homogenous »…
    Bernad Steagler introduces a « modèle contributif » where relations of cooperation between the economic players exists without proletarianization. The organization of the work bases itself on the increase of the knowledge of the workers through a new layout between the machine and the worker. The machine (digital technologies, etc) serves to increase the work of the worker and not to steal him its knowledge.
    The basic model is the one of the freeware where the relation of peer to peer is central. In the contributory model, the individuals work in groups, they develop some sociability and some collective responsibility. We must think about that…as (digital) humanist what are we really « contributing » to the academic’s world ? to the world ? as citizenships? McPherson said it : “Why are the digital humanities so white?Are we really that “white?

  • @professmoravec, I love the links you draw between stereoscopic and critical feminist race studies - I'm thinking about how we might push on the links between stereoscopic and intersectionality. I loved this quote from the material you linked:

    "[6] Sandoval calls special attention
    (Methodology of the Oppressed 15-36) to the fact that postmodern
    conditions, insofar as these are brought about by late-capitalism and the
    dispersion of new media technologies, make the traditional dominant Western
    subject, with its illusions of coherence against any ‘other’, obsolete. These
    conditions therefore beg for new conceptualisation(s) of the subject based
    specifically on previously marginalised identities. The five vectors, or ‘expressions
    of influence’, that comprise her methodology of the oppressed, consist of
    the different material and textual techniques for survival and resistance
    under sexist, racist, modernist, colonial and capitalist conditions utilised
    by marginalised subjects at different historical and geographical moments
    (82). These vectors are semiology, deconstruction, meta-ideologising, democratics/morality
    and differential movement (or differential consciousness). The fifth vector
    and last in the list is dubbed ‘cyber-consciousness’. The term denotes the
    more recent strategy for subaltern survival under postmodern conditions
    and involves the ability to shift instantly and effectively between the previous
    four vectors."

    I think it speaks well to the dangers of DH, raised by #transformDH, #dhpoco, GO::DH, and others, about the power relations that subtend technological "development" and "innovation."  
  • This is an exciting, awesome, and super intimidating (for a semi-shy grad student) conversation!

    @professormoravec, I too love your discussion of intersectionality and your call for further historicization of the move toward modularity. I wonder, though, if intersectionality itself might actually be implicated to some degree in this very shift.

    One of Jasbir Puar's recent essays "I Would Rather Be a Cyborg Than a Goddess" (there's a longer version on Project Muse, but a freely available one here) argues that the perception of intersectionality as the dominant feminist disruption of whiteness can tend to reinforce, or at least leave largely unchallenged, racial forms difference while privileging others. And certainly her description of the ways in which white feminists often invoke intersectionality while continuing to cordon off race (and national/regional boundaries) seems both very accurate to me, and very reminiscent of what McPherson is discussing.

    I wonder, then, if using the digital to approach the stereoscopic (or totality, if it's possible to recouperate that term from its highly racist and masculinist origins) is not just a matter of transforming DH, but also considering how feminist methodologies might be complicit in some of the issues we're discussing.

  • @mfarnel, I really like this mode of inquiry you're going down (reminds me of Sara Ahmed's work). For those of us who are unfamiliar with this field of study, could you elaborate a little bit more on what you mean by these "affective responses and relationships" that structure what DH is? This is a really terrific point, I think, that can help us think through some of the pushing/pulling that we get. 
  • At the Networked Humanities conference at the University of Kentucky this February, there was A LOT about affect. In fact, KAthleen Stewart (who is a big name in affect studies, and Ordinary Affects is currently sitting unread on my side table). And so I think that there is work being done in this area, particularly in rhet-comp/digital writing. The full program is here:


    I'm fascinated by the potential of affect and DH, particularly when we speak about marginalized communities. I think @mfarnel is right - we have all teh feelingz when we do this work. But didn't (don't) feminists, PoCo "scholars" and thinkers, etc, also have these qualities, especially when we consider the battles they face (we still face) in terms of the mainstream? 

    And, another question, is DH sometimes a way to get around affect? In other words, there is "programming" and "theory" that comes with the programming and building. Is the less yack really about "stop talking about your feelings?" 

    But then I read or hear Bethany Nowviski speak, and I think I must be wrong. Then again, she's the only one I've read or heard... Can she "get away" with it because of her (well-earned) position within the DH establishment?

    Hmmm...
  •  Megan, yes I loved that Hemmings looked at affect, especially nostalgia which I found strongest part of second half of that book. I'm about to review Victoria Hesford's Feeling Women’s Liberation (Duke University Press, 2013) for Signs and am quite curious about what she has to say

    my dear friend Tricia Matthew is fond of Being Lovingly, Knowingly Ignorant: White Feminism and Women of Color by Mariana Ortega (Paywalled at Hypatia via project muse) which I think has much useful in it about.  Challenging the affective is crucial.  She and I initially began our blogged conversation around hard questions thinking that digital space might provide away around the deafening silence we both perceived in attempts to raise issues of race within women's studies.  This turned out to be true and not true.  So I guess in response to Lee I say yes/no!  how unhelpful right? 

    We did have a twitter conversation about this too, about who gets to express what emotions in academia.  It was very interesting and an important discussion that should continue. 

    I do think that the devaluation of "yack" is a devaluation based on disdain for activities coded as feminine in the US at this moment in time (historian always has to qualify, but right now I'm visualing first volume of history of woman suffrage and jsut crossed over the pastoral letter condemning Grimkes for speaking in public) so maybe it is also way to SHUT UP those who transgressively dare to argue about what DH does?


  • @professmoravec I'd want to go slightly farther: it's a way to SHUT UP all those humanities professors who want to keep talking about "theory," "the real world," and so on--the inherent politics (in the larger sense, not necessarily left or right, though inherently sensitive to "others") of the humanities classroom.

    one of the most troubling tendencies i see in some DH teaching and research presentations is a shift from presuming the group will be talking about things, especially about what literature is itself about, to skill-based instruction on how to do things. This is one of the reasons that I disagree so strongly with those who say we should not talk about DH in terms of neoliberalism--that move is all about an instrumentalization of the academy that is neoliberalism's explicit agenda.

    In a positive way, the humanities are and are meant to be "all talk." (re: another thread, I don't mind if humanities work inspires people to activism, but I am also hesitant to blur the line between academics per se and activism per se too much). I don't think I'm alone in having heard "more hack, less yack" as "you humanists can go to hell, the programmers are here to take over." (so to speak ;)
  • I think Megan is raising an even more important point through citing work on affect. In her essay "Affective Economies," Sara Ahmed argues that "emotions play a crucial role in the 'surfacing' of individual and collective bodies through the way in which emotions circulate between bodies and signs. Such an argument clearly challenges any assumption that emotions are a private matter, that they simply belong to individuals, or even that they come from within and then move outward towards others. It suggests that emotions are not simply 'within' or 'without' but that they create the very effect of the surfaces or boundaries of bodies and worlds." To explain this, Ahmed analyzes an extract from the Aryan Nations website, arguing that an "emotional reading of hate" works to bind "the imagined white subject and nation together" (118); or, in other words, that these emotions work to create the meaning/relationship between people and things. 

    In other words, it's not so much that emotions are being had, but rather, asking what the social function of these emotions as relationships between people creates. So not so much that only certain people in the digital humanities have feelings (and therefore are not 'real' digital humanists), but rather, (1) what the absence of studying affect in the digital humanities signifies about the power structures within the field, and (2) how the networked affective relationships between different digital humanities groups is creating certain types of meaning within the field.

    Let me give an example. Recently, Steve Ramsay published a post on "DH Types One and Two"; arguing that there's a Type 1 (that stems from the humanities computing school) and Type 2 (stemming from the cultural studies DH formation). If we apply Sara Ahmed's conception of affect to Ramsay's post, we can ask: how is the affective relationship between these groups of people battling to call themselves "digital humanists" give these meaning to this argument?
  • One of the things that I have always appreciated about DH is that many (but certainly not all) have embraced social media as a way to connect (like what we're doing right now), and affect plays such an important role in these interactions, because it seems that trust is what we build and is the currency most valued here in academic social media circles. I have a theory about this, thinking about it in terms of intellectual "intimacy" as understood by the French (for whom there is a noun, "les intimes" meaning very very close friends). How we interact in spaces like this, using digital tools differently is a powerful (to my mind) digital practice that is mindful and always being re-theorized. Is it DH? I'd like to think so. We're building using digital tools and critiquing as well.

    And there are also powerful ways in which social media has been used to destabalize power relations (even if it isn't perfect); one example that immediately comes to my mind is "Black Twitter." Now, obviously one can remain blissfully and willfully (I love the title of that book) unaware of black twitter by refusing to follow anyone who might have anything to do with it, but as an academic interested in issues of race and feminism and class, etc, it would be inevitable that members of the larger Black Twitter collective/community cross my timeline through the inevitable RT by a feminist or class or whatever scholar I happen to be following. To my mind, as an academic, it is much harder to be willfully ignorant of this space when it passively and repeatedly crosses your timeline.

    But that might just be me. I have enormously from my twitter feed, in ways that I never would have otherwise. But I do recognize my privileged position, too, so I'm not sure how typical or transferable my experience is. And I am aware that there are probably some ethical issues that we haven't even thought of yet: what does it mean for a first-world white woman to "lurk" in on "Black Twitter"? Or to comment on it? Or to "use" it?
  • @Nayradebordeaux, sorry to interject off topic but I just edited your comment to take out all the markup (I copied and pasted your comment into Text Edit to strip the formatting and then recopied and pasted it). I'm not sure what you're composing your comments in but cutting and pasting into the Vanilla Forums doesn't work very well. Adeline and I discovered this when trying to cut and paste from a Google Doc. I suggest composing directly in your browser or using something like Text Edit, which will just give you plain text.
  • thank you @rrisam I was writing to Adeline to know how to do it!! (I work with everything word+translateurs+ spellcheck!)

  • Nayra I think this is so important "a « modèle contributif » where relations of cooperation between the economic players exists without proletarianization."  What encourages this and how can we encourage more?  I'd think open access is one way, more project with the public also.  

    I also like that he points to wikipedia, as I'm starting to work more with that source myself, with my students, and am extremely interested in it as a collaborative knowledge production

  • @professmoravev! abosolutly.This interview is the basis what I was talking about...Steagler is great, and he is one of those "philiosophes" that talks about DH in France...if you have some notions of frenhc you can listing him in a conference that we held at the Institut des Humanités Digitales de Bordeaux http://webtv.u-bordeaux3.fr/sciences/journees-detudes-humanites-digitales-3 where he talks about this "modèle" and the relation with DH...in "résumé":
    The movement of the digital humanities, in the intersection of the humanities and the digital technologies, is associated with the emergence of a new experience which affects the social as the human being and produces a scienza nuova ( Vico). The "digital" becomes a mode of construction of the social, the economic and the cultural. It is a question of experimenting the common worlds opened by the digital technology, of uniting these new worlds and our intellectual equipment, of inventing new ways there and of modelling them. The digital reason becomes the opportunity to rethink our manners to build the knowledge, to establish our environment, to conceive the human activity and, we suppose it, of new humanities.
  • I'm writing about Alain Touraine and women's liberation so I've brushed of my written french but oral YIKES!

    What I find so interesting is his willingness to harness the corporate, like Google, in the service of this almost utopian way of thinking about how we can actively  reconfigure the production of knowledge.  


  • The discriminations and the sexist violence are everywhere in the contemporary French society and affect all the women of all the sociocultural circles. There is from this point of view a common interest to all the women to fight against the sexism, of the fight against the conjugal violence universally practised in the fights against more specific forms than are the harassment of street in the popular neigbourhoods (what I studied in my thesis research- you call that in America « projects ») or the implicit and methodical limitation of the access to the post offices of political and economic power (" glass ceiling " hierarchical).
    Everytime you talk about feminism, @professmoravec, I think we are talking about another social relationships of power and domination practice that could be simultaneously applied. This can affect according to Eric Macé and Nacira Guénif-Souilamaso (in  their book
    a rel="nofollow" href="The discriminations and the sexist violence are everywhere in the contemporary French society and affect all the women of all the sociocultural circles. There is from this point of view a common interest to all the women to fight against the sexism, of the fight against the conjugal violence universally practised in the fights against more specific forms than are the harassment of street in the popular neigbourhoods (what I studied in my thesis research- you call that in America « projects ») or the implicit and methodical limitation of the access to the post offices of political and economic power (" glass ceiling " hierarchical). Everytime you talk about feminism, @mfarmel « using the digital ». It’s a great perspective that you propose : « not just a matter of transforming DH, but also considering how feminist methodologies might be complicit in some of the issues we're discussing ».">"Les féministes et le garçon arabe"that certain women find to oppress other women because of the difference of their ethnic identification or both of them.This vision of course must be think it as you said @mfarmel « using the digital ». It’s a great perspective that you propose : « not just a matter of transforming DH, but also considering how feminist methodologies might be complicit in some of the issues we're discussing ».
  • Hi Megan.  thanks for jumping in because your points are fabulous.  I'm old enough that most of the texts were are talking about were my course books as an undergrad or young grad student!  I have memories of books that had no women of color (hell plenty of those are still out there) and watched many theorists moving their way towards decentering white women.   I can remember how revelatory these works were and as a historian I know that they made sense in their moment. That said I believe that nothing can remain static and the most respectful way to deal with the work that came before is to do exactly what we are doing, working and reworking.  

    yes "intersectional" is problematic and in feminist writing I don't use it anymore, but in conversations with people not talking deep feminist theory I still do (does that make sense?) as a short hand for understanding you can't just grab on to gender to end oppression.   I am more Sandoval than Haraway (I resisted Cyborg from the second I read it when it came out I have NO idea why, not the ideas just the Cyborg, probably mt child of the cold war distrust of science).    

    Jasbir Puar's article, which is excellent.  One of the major issues with Lorde that I'm grappling with now in my writing is how her complex ideas are flattened into "being about (only) racism" in many cases so she can function as a way for the author to call other groups of feminists racist.     

    I do think that intersectionality may lead to modularity and accommodation without change to the status quo as McPherson discusses in her article.  The question is then how to move in ways or rather make space for movements because the older I get the more I come to believe there is no ONE answer to any of these very hard questions.   Have you read Clare Hemmings telling feminist stories?  It is fabulous exploration of how feminist theory over more than two decades step by step reifies othering even as it claims to address it.  I'm not sure she has the prescription about how to fix it though.  

    I think that Puar is spot on with the epistemological crisis of identity/ crisis of the subject although I think I'd describe it as more of an ontological crisis myself.  The western "way" of being renders the notion of conceiving of self in relation to others extremely difficult, then  graft on to that the intensely individualistic, liberal self of the post war US when movements formed around identity and there are a ton of problems. Here is where I think feminisms must have transnational vision, as well as a historical, temporal and spatial that explores conceptions of the self shifting over time, place, and space.   I find myself returning more and more to Ethics and the idea of love, which is very strange for me, but there you have it. 

    I write mostly about art so assemblage (or its original geez we should all just stick to the nontranslated, I find that all the time, Agencement) is a better metaphor for me than the matrix (which I swear I was drawing on a board in the late 90s which teaching Peggy MacIntosh).  
  • so as I was driving I was also thinking about standpoint theory which was also hugely revelatory but equally complicated. 

    The thing that doesn't work for me about either standpoint or intersectional analysis is that they leave no room for the spaces in between, the gaps, interstitial spaces, or thirdspaces, that have proved so very fruitful for theorizing about oppression.  The tensions between rather than reconciliation of ...
  • @professmoravec: I have indeed read (and loved) the Hemmings, though I hadn't encountered Sandoval until yesterday and am so grateful for the link you provided as a starting point.

    I definitely haven't seen wholly satisfying solutions either, but agree that attention to love (and, really, affect in general) is critical.  So much of what we do online, whether it's 'counted' as DH or not, is rooted really powerfully in affective responses and relationships (ALL THE FEELZ!), and a lot of folks, including Hemmings in Why Stories Matter, argue for the intersubjective potential of affect. Perhaps increased attention to affect in DH presents a way to not only recognize often-neglected forms of 'immaterial' labour, but also a strategy for thinking through precisely the spaces and tensions we're talking about.
  • @adelinekoh: Absolutely I can attempt to expand. Very generally, I was thinking about the ways in which affect influences what we do and say online; from what we choose to click on (and cite!), the way our social media updates are frequently structured around feeling words, and the intense mental and physical toll it takes to respond to even a fraction of the online misogyny out there, emotional work is imbedded everywhere in what we do online.

    @ReadyWriting and @professmoravec: I think you're both absolutely correct about the value, and the problematics, of affect and DH (and you've both given me so much to read!) The ability to safely express or openly count feelings in DH as work is imbedded in all kinds of privilege. Moreover, I think there's a legitimate risk of affect being instrumentalized similar to the ways we were discussing last week. This post, for instance, credits DHers at the 2012 MLA with producing positive affect at the conference, drawing a parallel between their impact and the Grinch's heart growing three sizes.The risk this attitude runs, I think, is an erasure of the negative affects around which so many communities experiencing oppression are able to mobilize, as well as a further alignment with neoliberal, "service with a smile" politics (as you're pointing out as well, @dgolumbia).

    (Apologies for the formatting errors. I composed right in the text box, so not sure what happened but hope this clears it up!)
  • What does this mean for #dhpoco? For one, it means rejecting the
    idea that there is "citizenship" for us within DH, a citizenship that
    will be granted to us by some authority. If postcolonial studies
    identifies all the problems of rhetorics of citizenship, let's avoid
    that. Let's not position ourselves as outsiders of a sovereign nation in
    which we aspire inclusion. Let's understand that there are (and,
    perhaps aren't) ways we are DH practitioners, claim our similarities and
    differences, and move forward. This means ensuring we aren't giving in
    to a narrative of victimization and exclusion because we reject the very
    notion of citizenship. I don't mean that we shouldn't be critical,
    shouldn't be theoretical, shouldn't bring to bear out knowledges and
    experiences on DH. Yet, we need to see #dhpoco as not a reaction or a
    response but a radical player, putting out our own projects, pushing
    against the definitions and boundaries that shape DH...Taking cues from postcolonial studies, #dhpoco needs to move away from
    retrograde notions of citizenship and accept that they are exclusive and
    inequal. By that token, we can't ask for citizenship within DH - we can
    only embrace that it's illusory, create our own narratives, and
    represent our own DH work. 

    QFT. The most amazing and empowering thing I've yet read about DH and minority discourse. Smash the prisons and the borders indeed.

  • Thanks, @adelinekoh, for a great reframing of the discussion. The Ramsay piece, and its privileging of DH1, certainly does seem to reproduce exactly the dynamic Ahmed is talking about when she describes the erausre of the labour of others (who are, non-coincidentally, often Others) as a necessity for the reproduction of the idea that there is a population (in this case, DH1ers) that single-handedly "built this land" (118).

    If it's an economy of fear that's operating between, and thus producing and reproducing the categories of DH1 and DH2, perhaps we come back to the question of love (as @professmoravec suggested), and how best to prevent this affective response from being mobilized in the service of either fear or the negation of negativity/critique.

    @rrisam's amazing response regarding the language of citizenship strikes me as key as we map out how to go about doing this. If we're not asking for permission/citizenship in DH, but resisting that ideology altogether, then we're refusing to reinforce those boundaries by speaking as if our work is violating them, and refusing to have our own motion/spaces restricted.

    @ReadyWriting, I share your concerns about how to ethically lurk in/participate/"use" spaces like #Black Twitter. I'm having trouble formulating a full thought on this yet, but I would suggest, in agreement with this post, that citation remains a critical way to consider this, and an often-overlooked expression of love (particularly because it is so often invoked now during discussions of the "rising tide of plagiarism", claims which are themselves often full of thinly-veiled racism.).
  • Best. Comment. Ever. Roopika, can this be a part of out DH2013 presentation?
  • @readywriting, I've rearranged it a bit and it'll be up as a post on #dhpoco tomorrow morning. I am fine with quoting the post for the presentation.
  • Well, seeing as how you're one of the co-authors of the paper/presentation, do you need to quote you? Or is it just a part that you contributed? ;-) But if you want it to be quoted and cited, that's perfect. We're still trying to figure out how this is going to work! 
  • Yes, I would like to be cited if you want to use part of it, to indicate it was written by me, independently of the DH conf talk
  • It was this thread's affective turn that led me to write the following post on affect, power, Stand Your Ground, marketing, digital humanities, natural language processing, & Sharknado. http://corplinguistics.wordpress.com/2013/07/14/affect-and-power/

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Login with Facebook Sign In with Google Sign In with OpenID

Categories

In this Discussion