Setting out with the task of creating a model-less Digital Humanities that is, one that evades strict

t restrictions on what actions the user is able to undertake in the vein of Jacques Ranciere's olitics of the olice state one should not begin with a set goal in mind, but rather b! engaging in a articular attitude" #n his lecture, $%hat is &ritique,' (ichel )oucault elucidates a critical attitude which is $a certain wa! of thinking, s eaking and acting, a certain relationshi to what e*ists, to what one knows, to what one does, a relationshi to societ!, to culture and also a relationshi to others"'+ ,his critical attitude stems from a recognition of the wa!s in which we are governed, and a challenging desire to be governed in different wa!s"- Such a critical attitude, manifested in terms of scholarshi , would mean to be attuned to the arguments that we are allowed to make, and resist the forces that restrict our argumentative o ortunities" ,o sa! that the ro.ect of critique is an attitude is to sa! that it is not a articular and s ecific action" /! attitude, )oucault refers to $a mode of relating to contem orar! realit!"'0 /! referring to critique as an attitude, he refrains from rescribing articular actions that must be undertaken in order to evade the henomena of being governed" #nstead, he states that criticism is com rised of $analyzing and reflecting upon limits"'1 #t is also $the art of voluntar! insubordination, that of reflected intractibilit!"'2 #n other words, to critique is to think about the wa!s in which current structures limit our ossible modes of action" #n his lecture, he notes several thoughts that emerge in reaction to the genealog! of governmentalit!3 that is, the art of being governed"4 ,hese anchoring oints form the historical foundation for critique" #f a lied to the Digital Humanities, the! reveal a fundamental roblem with the digital humanities that must be remedied" ,he first is, given the religious foundations of governmentalit!, to find another function for the Scri ture unrelated to the teaching of 5od" )oucault sa!s of this that $not wanting to be governed was a certain wa! of refusing, challenging, limiting 6sa! it as !ou like7 ecclesiastical rule 8"""9 seeking out what was authentic in 8the scri tures9"': ,his is to sa! critique was not meant as a re.ection of the Scri ture and religion, but rather a challenging of the ecclesiastical authorit! as being religiousl! .ustified and rescribed" ,his so called anchoring oint remains a licable to the case of the Digital Humanities" Just as )oucault argues the earl! critical theorists challenged the te*tual authorit! of governmentalit!, the olicing of scholarshi 's te*tual authorit! too can be challenged" %hat remains central to such a critique is the reaffirmation of te*tual foundation3 it is true that the arguments a scholar makes must be in accordance to the te*t or sub.ect in relation to which the argument is made that is to sa!, one cannot make an argument that is factuall! inaccurate and e* ect it to be acce ted but restrictions have been e*tended too far" )or e*am le, Digital Humanities re-a ro riation of .ournals and monogra hs as the cru* of scholarshi is roblematic, for these modes of scholarshi are the hallmark of what Deleu;e and 5uattari call State hiloso h!3 the rendering of all ideolog! and thinking into a singular mode of thinking under a singular State"< /! moving awa! from this medium as the format of scholarshi , one has the o ortunit! to be critical and challenge this mode of State hiloso h! that .ournals and monogra hs are indicative of" ,he second anchoring oint for )oucault's critical attitude is $not wanting to acce t these laws
+ (ichel )oucault, $%hat #s &ritique=,' in The Politics of Truth, trans" S!lve>re ?otringer and ?!sa Hochroth 6?os @ngeles, &@A Semiote*t6e7A, -BB:7, 1-" - #bid", 12" 0 (ichel )oucault, $%hat #s Cnlightenment=,' in The Politics of Truth, trans" S!lve>re ?otringer and ?!sa Hochroth 6?os @ngeles, &@A Semiote*t6e7A, -BB:7, +B2" 1 #bid", ++0" 2 )oucault, $%hat #s &ritique=,' 1:" 4 #bid", 12" : #bid" < /rian (assumi, A Users Guide to Capitalism and Schizophrenia: Deviations from Deleuze and Guattari 6&ambridge, (ass"A (#, Dress, +EE-7, 1"

because the! are un.ust because, b! virtue of their antiquit! or the more or less threatening ascendenc! given them b! toda!'s sovereign, the! hide a fundamental illegitimac!"'E ,his la! in staunch o osition to &onservative olitical thought and Cdmund /urke's notion that a law becomes legitimate because of its historical validit!"+B #nstead, )oucault's conce t of critique osits that laws can lose their legitimac! as societ! changes with the assing of time" ,herefore, we ought not sim l! acce t the status quo of scholarshi because it is historicall! rooted3 the fact it is not a roduct of our time challenges its validit! and lace in the mainstream instead of reinforcing it" )urthermore, we ought not acce t the status quo of scholarshi sim l! because the universit!-.ournal assemblage++ dictates it is what ought to be" %hile this is a ower structure of the universit! and not ublishing, it must be noted that both are art and arcel of the same henomena3 State hiloso h!" ,here e*ists a third and final anchoring oint3 one to which )oucault devotes little time, and that is because it roves to be straight forward" )oucault states the final art of the critical attitude's foundation is to not acce t as true what authorit! tells !ou is truth"+- #n short, one can sa! the critical attitude in relation to the digital humanities urges us not to acce t that certain wa!s of engaging in scholarshi are the best, most efficient, or onl! wa!s of engaging in scholarshi " ,his is a battle that scholars of the digital humanities are familiar with, having to confront resistance from those who engage in more traditional modes of scholarshi and re.ect their scholarl! ursuits as inferior, or, erha s, flawed methodolog!" However, this oint gains renewed vigour when one considers the notion that, des ite its a arent resistance to scholarl! tradition, the digital humanities currentl! re roduces the State hiloso h! of scholarshi 3 then, critical digital humanists must argue that we must mobili;e the digital humanities against strains of State hiloso h!, itting digital humanities against digital humanities 6an act that might be met with resistance for the sake of camaraderie7" %hile a clear icture of critique emerges, ,homas ?emke ro oses three other as ects of critique that emerge from considering )oucault's canon of work as a whole" ,he first of these is deficit, arguing that critique $focuses on e istemological roblems conceived as cognitive errors, false consciousness, lack or distortion of knowledge 8"""9 critique aims at correcting or eradicating errors"'+0 ,his returns to the Fantian definition of critique as e* anding the limits of knowledge" However, instead of this e* ansion being de endent u on the facult! of reason,+1 it instead is the result of the governmentalit! reviousl! discussed" )or our ur oses, critique thus boasts the romise of e* anding the eri heries of knowledge of a given sub.ect in scholarshi " /! creating new models through the act of critique, we create venues that will o en the boundaries of knowledge and allow them to e* and be!ond the current limits that are in lace" ,he second notion of ?emke's hermeneutics of )oucaldian critique is de endenc!, arguing $critique is not onl! based on something other, on which it de ends3 8but9 it is also an instrument or a means to achieve something that does not !et e*istA the romise of a better future"'+2 ,his is to suggest that critique will im rove the future of scholarshi " ,he question that must be asked is how e*actl! this will be done" #t can be assumed that scholarshi will im rove b! creating a lane that will value a
E #bid", 14" +B David /oucher and Daul Fell!, Political Thin ers: !rom Socrates to the Present 6G*ford Hniversit! Dress, -BBE7, -<1" ++ @ term from the work of 5illes Deleu;e and )eli* 5uattari referring to $com le* constellations of ob.ects, bodies, e* ressions, qualities, and territories that come together for var!ing eriods of time to ideall! create new wa!s of functioning"' 5raham ?ivesa!, $@ssemblage,' in The Deleuze Dictionary, ed" @drian Darr 6Iew JorkA &olumbia Hniversit! Dress, -BB27, +<" ,he universit!-.ournal assemblage refers to the unison of de artmental ideologies of faculties and universities, the ideologies of articular .ournals in which scholars ublish, and the ressures to ublish in successful .ournals u on which tenure is contingent" +- )oucault, $%hat #s &ritique=,' 14" +0 ,homas ?emke, $&ritique and C* erience in )oucault,' Theory" Culture # Society -<, no" 1 6Jul! +, -B++7A -E, doiA+B"++::KB-40-:41++1B1EB:" +1 @lison Ross, $Fant, #mmanuel 6+:-1-+<B17,' in The Deleuze Dictionary, ed" @drian Darr 6Iew JorkA &olumbia Hniversit! Dress, -BB27, +1B+1+" +2 ?emke, $&ritique and C* erience in )oucault,' 0B"

luralit! of arguments instead of the restrictive olitics of State hiloso h!" ,his adds a certain violence or ower to the act of critique3 it e*ists in art to attack the status quo create a more egalitarian olitics" ,he final of ?emke's oints is the notion of distance, writing that critique $is a reaction or res onse to governmental regimes, and it is this fundamental distance between the ractice of critique and its ob.ect that allows for a critical stance"'+4 ,his is to sa! that the better future that critique strives towards is to bear no resemblance to the current state of affairs, for the current state of affairs is fundamentall! inadequate for the reasons reviousl! outlined in the emergence of critique" @ lied to scholarshi , this means not that current scholarshi will be re laced with new scholarshi 6for this would be to re lace one form of olitics with another7 but that one structure of scholarshi will be re laced with another" ,his new form of scholarshi will be one in which all arguments are held to be of equal value and be equall! accessible and rominent, instead of the current s!stem wherein current arguments are deemed to be valid and given more rominence as are certain .ournals and disci lines" )oucault argues in $%hat #s Cnlightenment=' that critique is not $a gesture of re.ection 8"""9 the critical question toda! has to be turned back into a Dositive one 8"""9 the oint, in brief, is to transform the critique conducted in the form of necessar! limitation into a ractical critique that takes the form of a ossible transgression"'+: #n other words, to engage with this critical attitude against the State hiloso h! of the Digital Humanities calls u on the critic to do more than sim l! assess the inadequac! of current models3 instead, the! must also remed! the roblems the! identif! and rovide a ositive alternative" #t has been clear that to engage in a critical attitude is not sim l! to com lain, but rather the critical act must have a ositive as ect to it3 it must roduce something of value" ,here is indeed a certain uto ian as ect of scholarshi 's critical attitude3 the claims for the future that accom an! a critical attitude of scholarshi and the digital humanities are grandiose and farfetched insofar that it is not conceivable that such a model emerge that will remed! all these concerns" )urthermore, im lementing it im oses a olitics of democrac! u on scholarshi that did not emerge naturall! and democraticall! itself" ?emke notes that )oucault believed the foundations, instruments and aims of critique have been increasingl! weakened" &lassical (ar*ism and s!choanal!sis, which had earlier served as the rinci al references and theoretical resources for social critique, had been attacked for their universali;ing and totali;ing a roaches, their authoritarian and normali;ing effects, and their inabilit! to address the diversit! and heterogeneit! of ower relations" +< ,o argue for these claims derived from )oucault and ?emke's anal!sis of critique creates a form of critical theor! equall! as totali;ing and universali;ing as (ar*ism and s!choanal!sis, and furthermore renders critique not an attitude but a set of rescribed goals that are dictated to be worked towards" ,he essence of this blog is not to rovide an ontolog! of critique that is, a definition of what one who engages in the act of critique is doing but rather a hermeneutics of critique that is, a reading as to what critique is" %hat this e* loration of critique has done, rather then offering rescribed goals, is roblemati;e the status quo and demonstrate how digital humanities boasts the ossibilit! of undermining the State hiloso h! of scholarshi and offering something new" ,herefore, we ought to use these goals and distant goals to work towards3 these uto ian ideals will not be met, but in striving towards them, a more egalitarian lateau of scholarshi will emerge"

+4 #bid" +: )oucault, $%hat #s Cnlightenment=,' ++0" +< ?emke, $&ritique and C* erience in )oucault,' -:"

/oucher, David, and Daul Fell!" Political Thin ers: !rom Socrates to the Present" G*ford Hniversit! Dress, -BBE" )oucault, (ichel" $%hat #s &ritique=' #n The Politics of Truth, translated b! S!lve>re ?otringer and ?!sa Hochroth" ?os @ngeles, &@A Semiote*t6e7A, -BB:" LLL" $%hat #s Cnlightenment=' #n The Politics of Truth, translated b! S!lve>re ?otringer and ?!sa Hochroth" ?os @ngeles, &@A Semiote*t6e7A, -BB:" ?emke, ,homas" $&ritique and C* erience in )oucault"' Theory" Culture # Society -<, no" 1 6Jul! +, -B++7A -41<" doiA+B"++::KB-40-:41++1B1EB:" ?ivesa!, 5raham" $@ssemblage"' #n The Deleuze Dictionary, edited b! @drian Darr" Iew JorkA &olumbia Hniversit! Dress, -BB2" (assumi, /rian" A Users Guide to Capitalism and Schizophrenia: Deviations from Deleuze and Guattari" &ambridge, (ass"A (#, Dress, +EE-" Ross, @lison" $Fant, #mmanuel 6+:-1-+<B17"' #n The Deleuze Dictionary, edited b! @drian Darr" Iew JorkA &olumbia Hniversit! Dress, -BB2"/oucher, David, and Daul Fell!" Political Thin ers: !rom Socrates to the Present" G*ford Hniversit! Dress, -BBE" )oucault, (ichel" $%hat #s &ritique=' #n The Politics of Truth, translated b! S!lve>re ?otringer and ?!sa Hochroth" ?os @ngeles, &@A Semiote*t6e7A, -BB:" LLL" $%hat #s Cnlightenment=' #n The Politics of Truth, translated b! S!lve>re ?otringer and ?!sa Hochroth" ?os @ngeles, &@A Semiote*t6e7A, -BB:" ?emke, ,homas" $&ritique and C* erience in )oucault"' Theory" Culture # Society -<, no" 1 6Jul! +, -B++7A -41<" doiA+B"++::KB-40-:41++1B1EB:" ?ivesa!, 5raham" $@ssemblage"' #n The Deleuze Dictionary, edited b! @drian Darr" Iew JorkA &olumbia Hniversit! Dress, -BB2" (assumi, /rian" A Users Guide to Capitalism and Schizophrenia: Deviations from Deleuze and Guattari" &ambridge, (ass"A (#, Dress, +EE-" Ross, @lison" $Fant, #mmanuel 6+:-1-+<B17"' #n The Deleuze Dictionary, edited b! @drian Darr" Iew JorkA &olumbia Hniversit! Dress, -BB2"