What is the main argument, narrative, or e/affect?The document is a syllabus for an Introduction to Black Digital Humanities course. The course introduces students to this emerging field in Digital Public Humanities, which serves to “unmask the racialized systems of power at work in how we understand the digital humanities as a field” (Rizzo citing Gallon, p. 1).
What concepts, ideas and examples from this text contribute to the theory and practice of archive ethnography?In particular, I like the quote Rizzo uses, citing scholar Kim Gallon, that “the black digital humanities help to “unmask the racialized systems of power at work in how we understand the digital humanities as a field” (p. 1). It made me think of the ways this approach could be applied to archive ethnography. For example, one of the assigned readings for the course is a book by Safiya Noble titled Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism.
The syllabus' objective seems to draw a working relationship between digital humanities and African American studies through the lens of racial power dynamics in both fields. Furthermore its seeks to train the students in the use of digital technology in conjunction with the application of theory, with the end goal of conceptualizing a Black Digital Humanities Project
Gallon seeks to highlight how technology can further expose humanity as a racialized social construct by conceptualizing a relationship between digital humanities and Africana/African American/Black studies, which she names black digital humanities. Naming black digital humanities as such helps to put a name to the unnamed, bringing the concept into existence—though precise definitions of what it constitutes might continue to be elusive.
The primary argument that the author puts forward in the essay is two fold:1. There needs to be a concerted effort to draw connections between African American studies and digital humanities in order to reveal the politics of race and power that constructs the tools of the former as well as the entire itself.
Digital humanities, as the article argues, is the next frontier for academic research in terms of theory, themes, 'case studies' as well as insitutional support for the same. Perhaps the frontier has already started to become the new 'normal''. Archives and ethnography are no different and archive ethnography as a method as well as field is constantly engaging with the digital humanities ( websites, digital tools, virtual installations, virtual ethnography, etc.
Gallon connects the digital humanities to Black studies by using the concept of technology as a space for “expos[ing] humanity as a racialized social construction” (Gallon 2016, 1). Pointing to the nearly nonexistent literature on Black studies represented through the digital humanities, Gallon makes a case for considering technology as a moment in a longstanding mode of Black resistance within practices of Eurocentric oppression. I liked especially that Gallon points out practices of “black technophobia” within academia – the idea that Black people have an aversion to technology.
What is the main argument, narrative, or e/affect?Gallon examines the relationship between the digital humanities and Black studies, emphasizing the racialization of “humanity” within the humanities and how racialized systems of power continue to shape “blackness” and marginalize the voices of black peoples within both the fields of the humanities and digital studies. Gallon argues that through Black Digital Studies, the intersection of digital humanities and Black studies, scholars can “bring forth the humanity of marginalized peoples through the use of digital platforms and tools” (p.
What concepts, ideas and examples from this text contribute to the theory and practice of archive ethnography?The concept Gallon provides in terms of a “technology of recovery” is important for rethinking the ways in which digital tools and platforms such as those used in archive ethnography work can serve to challenge the racialized systemic norms present in the humanities and social sciences, providing spaces for resistance to these hegemonic structures in recovering and preserving marginalized voices. As Gallon notes, we must recognize that race itself can serve as metadata.
Gold, M., &; Klein, L. (2016). Making a Case for the Black Digital Humanities. In Debates in the Digital Humanities. essay, University of Minnesota Press.
