When I started this collection about 8 years ago, digital humanities had just started getting a lot of attention after years of not being taken seriously as “humanities computing.” Suddenly a ton of money was being poured into this field.
The leaders of the field were adamant in acting like this was just such a nice unproblematic field, one person even published an essay where he said digital humanities were the golden retrievers of the English department.
Coming to this field as a postcolonialist, it was clear to me that digital humanities was anything but nice and unproblematic. Because the tools and work we all design and work with come with implicit racial, gendered, abled and more biases. We replicate biases in our technology
The (white) leaders of the digital humanities were very unhappy with the critique that I sought to bring to the field.
They started a witch hunt against me and my work.
Turned collaborators against me. Said I was “toxic” and “a problem”. Told people that they would never publish again if they continued to work with me.
As you can imagine, this caused me a lot of psychic stress and trauma. It was one of the reasons why I #quitacademia
But while they were leading this witch hunt, I knew I was doing good work because I was helping other BIPOC in the digital humanities space feel seen and valued, by the work I was publishing and the events I was organizing.
The harassment got too much for me though and for my mental health I had to leave.
And this is where I am eternally grateful that my BFF @dorothyk98 stepped in to take over this volume and turned it into this amazing RIOT of a volume to shine a light on non yt DH
8 years after I started this volume, it is incredible to me that it is honored by the book award by @AmerStudiesAssn - the legitimization and recognition that digital humanities is anything but “nice”, but deeply messy and replicative of our social issues is so vindicating.
I did not think I would get here in this lifetime, but here we are. Again, immensely grateful to @dorothyk98 whose brilliance illuminates this book, and the amazing contributors who stuck with it while I left, and @punctum_books for publishing it.
This volume speaks louder than just another academic text.
It speaks to the continued relevance and importance of talking about discrimination.
It speaks to crossing over from leaving the academy and the important work of a post academic.
Finally: a big thank you to my former advisor and friend @FriedaEkotto for teaching me the importance of examining historiography as a way of resetting technologies of knowledge.
It is because of her I applied this to the #digitalhumanities to question its singular origin story
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Why are the #humanities dying? Why is enrollment dropping precipitously, why are departments shutting down from lack of funding and support? A 🧵by a former English professor:
The answer: the humanities are becoming more and more irrelevant, and its stakeholders are refusing to critically address its irrelevance.
A case study from my former field, #literarystudies: the central object of analysis in literary studies has not changed for century: only novels, poetry, drama are acceptable. Everything else is either on the margins or relegated to another department.
In my past life as an academic, one of the things people would do is examine my tweets for subtext whenever they were trying to say 💩 things about me to discredit this in some way.
But the funny thing is as my friend @Jessifer said to me when he encountered those folks, “Have you even met Adeline? She already says all the things she’s not supposed to say! What is the need to look at subtext?” 😂😂😂
This sheds on light on some of the numerous ways I did not fit into #academia. I am honest and direct and forthright as much as I am able.
This never fit into academic social norms, which rely on courtly manners, prevarication and dissemination in majority of social contexts.
Things I do not miss about academic discussions now that I’ve left, a 🧵:
- In most discussions I’ve been in I see that participants are often barely listening to one another. They are just waiting for their turn to speak and show off their brilliance.
It’s why these are often not real discussions, because participants rarely deeply engage with one another. It’s mostly peacocking.
- Courtly manners. In more sanguine environments, most discussions take place whereby the participants make superficial nods to one another’s work, for the seeming purpose of showing what an intellectual powerhouse is currently at the table.
This is something I’ve wanted to say to well-meaning liberal white women who are in senior positions for a while. I’m saying it now because my voice has been freed after winning the book award recently.
Dear liberal white women: I know that often you try to support and promote women of color as part of your commitment to #antiracism. It is great that you do this, but:
You need to understand that women of color are not a monolith, and that white supremacy in many institutions makes some women of color fight against others women of color to gain the attention, validation and praise of senior white people.
I ugly cried when I first read this email from my book publisher @EileenAJoy about Alternative Historiographies of the Digital Humanities, upon learning that my book with @dorothyk98 won the @AmerStudiesAssn#digitalhumanities book award: a thread 🧵
The recognition with the prize has been really healing. The toxicity of my field caused me a lot of mental health stress and started a debilitating depression.
Because I called out the racism of the digital humanities, senior white members of the field blackballed me and said I was toxic, warned junior colleagues no one would ever publish again if they worked with me. This was part of the reason why I left.