Chapter Title: Reflections on a Movement: #transformDH, Growing Up

Chapter Author(s): MOYA BAILEY, ANNE CONG-HUYEN, ALEXIS LOTHIAN and

AMANDA PHILLIPS

Book Title: Debates in the Digital Humanities 2016

Book Editor(s): Matthew K. Gold and Lauren F. Klein
Published by: University of Minnesota Press

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5749/j.ctt1cn6thb.11

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
This content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives
4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). To view a copy of this license, visit
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

University of Minnesota Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Debates in the Digital Humanities 2016

This content downloaded from

167.206.19.12 on Sat, 29 Mar 2025 21:31:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 part i ][ Chapter 8

Reflections on a Movement: #transformDH, Growing Up

Moya Bailey, Anne Cong- Huyen, Alexis Lothian,
and Amanda Phillips

What happens when we shift difference away from a deficit that must be
managed and amended (with nods in the direction of diversity) and toward
understanding difference as our operating system, our thesis, our inspiration,
our goal? From this perspective, highlighting the brave side of digital
humanities isn’t an act of transformative resolution, but is about reframing
and recognizing which links were already there and which links are yet to
be made.
— Fiona Barnett, “The Brave Side of DH”

Manifesting #transformDH
We have been invited to write a manifesto for #transformDH—a hashtag, perhaps
a movement, that the four of us had a part in beginning. We prefer not to oper-
ate within a formal structure, however, or to lay out our shared aspirations as a set
of concrete demands. Nevertheless, we can begin by identifying the following key
claims as constitutive of #transformDH:

1. Questions of race, class, gender, sexuality, and disability should be central to

digital humanities and digital media studies.
2. Feminist, queer, and antiracist activists, artists, and media-makers outside of
academia are doing work that contributes to digital studies in all its forms.
This work productively destabilizes the norms and standards of institution-
ally recognized academic work.
3. We should shift the focus of digital humanities from technical processes
to political ones, and always seek to understand the social, intellectual,
economic, political, and personal impact of our digital practices as we
develop them. [ 71

This content downloaded from

167.206.19.12 on Sat, 29 Mar 2025 21:31:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
72 ] Bailey, Cong- Huyen, Lothian, and Phillips

We need a digital humanities that will center on the intersection of digital produc-
tion and social transformation through research, pedagogy, and activism, and that
will not be restricted to institutional academic spaces. #transformDH is the name
some of us gave to that digital humanities as we recognized it in our own and
others’ work. Seeking to situate #transformDH within its social, economic, and
institutional contexts, this chapter tracks the emergence of the collective and some
of the challenges that have accompanied it. In so doing, we hope to model an ethical
approach to that which we have been assigned ownership, but over which we have
little control. Our desire is to deflect the academy’s imperative to take personal credit
for work that is always collective. We will end, as we have in the past, with a call to
action. We invite others to join with us, or to claim the hashtag for themselves, and
to actively seek a more transformative DH: a DH that explicitly names the radical
potential of doing scholarship with and about the digital, a DH that addresses the
most pressing social justice concerns of our day.

Origin Stories: Forming a Collective

#transformDH was born out of a sense of absence. It was 2011, the year that “Big
Tent DH” surfaced as a term to describe digital humanities as inclusive and wel-
coming of different disciplines. But for those of us whose academic homes were in
gender and queer studies, race and ethnic studies, and disability studies, and whose
personal and political work embraced the digital, it appeared as if the “big tent” was
not big enough. Our social justice concerns seemed to enter so rarely into conver-
sations and research, even in the “big tent” of the field. Instead, DH seemed to be
replicating many traditional practices of the ivory tower, those that privileged the
white, heteronormative, phallogocentric view of culture that our home disciplines
had long critiqued. The cost of entry for many of us—material demands, additional
training, and cultural capital—as queer people and women of color was high. Evi-
dently, big tent digital humanities still demanded a certain legibility, as panels and
talks such as Stephen Ramsay’s intentionally inflammatory “Who’s In, Who’s Out”
at the Modern Language Association (MLA) that year made clear. The few of us
tweeting queer and critical race studies panels looked across empty social media
tables — set up by the MLA in recognition of digital media’s emerging dominance,
unused at most of the panels in our home fields — and recognized one another as
allies.
We were not the first to think about queer studies, critical race studies, dis-
ability studies, or other forms of activist scholarship in relation to digital humani-
ties. Feminist critique has been central to many of the foundational projects that
set the terms for the field, as in the work of Martha Nell Smith, Susan Brown, and
Julia Flanders. Anna Everett, who chaired the first #transformDH panel, and Lisa
Nakamura, who was in the audience that day, have both demonstrated the centrality
of the knowledge and labor of people of color to digital knowledge production, as

This content downloaded from

167.206.19.12 on Sat, 29 Mar 2025 21:31:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Reflections on a Movement [ 73

well as to the material conditions that enable that production to take place. In addi-
tion, digital tools and networks have been consistently, innovatively, and radically
used by communities of activists, fans, and other nonacademics working for gender,
racial, economic, and disability justice, from IRC and newsgroups to Twitter and
Tumblr. Yet, as Moya Bailey argued in her 2011 essay “All of the Digital Humanists
Are White, All of the Nerds Are Men, but Some of Us Are Brave,” the disciplinary
formation of “digital humanities” had thus far developed in opposition to so-called
identity politics, with its ostensible openness occluding unexamined assumptions
about whiteness, straightness, and masculinity.
Immediately following the 2011 MLA, a group gathered at the Southern Cali-
fornia THATCamp in a session on diversity in digital humanities and drafted a
document titled “Toward an Open Digital Humanities.” The document chronicled
the various barriers to entry in the digital humanities and suggested a number of
ways to increase the field’s inclusivity. Within the next few weeks, some members of
that group organized a panel for the American Studies Association conference that
would take place later that year. “#transformDH” was originally a shortened version
of the panel title, “Transformative Mediations: Queer and Ethnic Studies and the
Politics of the Digital” (Cong-Huyen, “Thinking Through Race”). Only six or seven
people joined the audience, yet it soon became clear that something larger had been
created as the conversations expanded online. The #transformDH hashtag quickly
emerged as a rallying call on Twitter and Tumblr, as well as at other conferences
and institutions (Phillips). The organizers of the panel and several other colleagues
began to self-identify as a collective. The #transformDH movement had begun.

Transforming a Hashtag
If #transformDH was born out of a sense of absence, we made that absence visible
in the form of our hashtag. In 2011, the hashtag was emerging as the tool of choice
for individuals and groups hoping to rapidly spread news or other information and
to cohere communities in person and online. A precursor to the hashtag activism
that has flourished in social movements of the 2010s, #transformDH was meant to
be distributed and used by anyone who saw the need to highlight marginalized work
or issues in the field. The right hashtag at the right moment can spread very quickly,
if—and only if—other people begin to use it. Its efficacy is directly tied to the ease
with which other users can take it up as their own. As Chris Messina, inventor of
the hashtag, explained, “[Hashtags] are born of the Internet, and should be owned
by no one” (Messina). As a hashtag, then, #transformDH was no longer owned by
the collective that had originated it; it had been set loose into the world.
It was not long before #transformDH gained enough traction to attract crit-
ics. The slippage between “transformative” and “transform,” originally an effort to
conserve characters for Twitter, was interpreted as a hostile gesture. DH under-
stood itself as friendly and welcoming (Koh; Scheinfeldt). Why did the field need

This content downloaded from

167.206.19.12 on Sat, 29 Mar 2025 21:31:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
74 ] Bailey, Cong- Huyen, Lothian, and Phillips

transforming? It is true that we outliers, the few women of color and visible queers
at DH conferences and panels, had used the hashtag to voice our distress openly.
Ironically, it was this perception of the collective (made up entirely of graduate stu-
dents) as rabble-rousers who wanted to upset the status quo that highlighted what
#transformDH had been too timid to say at the outset: DH really did need to be
transformed. It was a growing field that was becoming increasingly institutional-
ized, and that was beginning to evince many of the problematic racial, gender, and
economic biases that had plagued other fields as they emerged. We had accidentally
become academic hashtag activists.
“Hashtag activism,” a phrase coined by Guardian journalist Eric Augenbraun
to describe the #OccupyWallStreet movement, was not intended as a neutral term,
but rather as a critique of the ease with which millennials could express concern for
an issue while doing nothing substantive to solve it. But as more and more hashtags
emerged to mark issues and events that would have otherwise gone unnoticed — for
instance, #Jan25 or #BlackLivesMatter — it became clear that hashtag activism
had the power to mobilize people, to question governments, and to enact change.
Hashtags such as #NotYourAsianSideKick and #YesAllWomen initiated wide-
ranging conversations on important issues around race and gender. Our con-
fidence in the possibilities of #transformDH as a distributed, open movement
increased as we saw the work that other hashtag activists were doing, and we
began to recognize that work as transformative digital humanities in itself.
In the most active and ongoing #transformDH project, Moya Bailey curates the
#transformDH Tumblr, reblogging information about the latest digital technologies
created by queer folks, women, and people of color as well as the impact of digital
scholarship on underserved communities. This curatorial work operates outside
of traditional archives and functions to expand the range of projects understood
as DH. For example, a recent post showcased a menstrual cycle tracking app, “No
More Flowers,” built by a group of queer and trans programmers to challenge soci-
etal assumptions that only women have menstrual cycles and that flowers are the
most appropriate symbols for menstruation. This type of app applies critiques from
the fields of women’s and queer studies to popular technology; including it in an
archive like #transformDH places pressure on existing DH communities to under-
stand app production as both scholarly and activist in nature. We deliberately show-
case a wide breadth of material, placing scholarly critique and creative projects in
conversation with one another, with the goal of transforming what “counts” as a DH
project both inside and out of higher-ed institutions.
People interact with our content on a daily basis and employ the #transformDH
hashtag to flag work or events that address questions they perceive as central to the
collective. Rather than perpetuate the existing model of large-scale, grant-funded,
project-based scholarly work, we operate as a widely dispersed, distributed network.
In redefining the term “collective” for a networked context, we bring our commit-
ment to digital social justice to disparate academic and public spheres: game studies,

This content downloaded from

167.206.19.12 on Sat, 29 Mar 2025 21:31:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Reflections on a Movement [ 75

queer studies, ethnic studies, libraries, online spaces, and more. #transformDH
moves through cyberspace as a signal, highlighting conversations, blog posts, con-
ference papers, articles, and other media objects that may be of interest to people
concerned with how race, class, gender, disability, and sexuality shape our world.

Resisting Success
Over time, we have seen transformative digital humanities scholarship gain visibil-
ity. The work that we longed to see as we started #transformDH has materialized in
many shapes and forms—not always explicitly connected with #transformDH, but
often enacting many the transformations the collective has called for. In 2013, the
Dark Side of the Digital Humanities conference brought together senior scholars
like Wendy Chun, Richard Grusin, and Rita Raley in person and on paper to chal-
lenge DH utopianism. Elizabeth Losh and Jacqueline Wernimont have led “Feminist
Digital Humanities: Theoretical, Social, and Material Engagements” at the Digital
Humanities Summer Institute two years running (Wernimont). The FemBot Collec-
tive, which publishes feminist research about technology in long and short form on
its blog and in the journal Ada, has swelled to over 350 members worldwide. Fem-
TechNet organized and supported two years of a Distributed Open Collaborative
Course (DOCC) on feminism and technology as an active pedagogical critique of
the MOOC (Massive Open Online Course). Angel David Nieves founded the Digital
Humanities Initiative at Hamilton College, which supports critical digital humani-
ties projects such as the American Prison Writing Archive, the Soweto Historical
GIS Project, and the Virtual Freedom Trail Project. Adeline Koh and Roopika Risam
founded the influential Postcolonial Digital Humanities with the aim of decoloniz-
ing digital practices. Wendy Hsu brought ethnography and diasporic studies to the
Los Angeles Department of Cultural Affairs. Global Outlook::Digital Humanities
organized “Around DH in 80 Days” to curate and highlight digital projects world-
wide. William Pannapacker has fought for “Digital Liberal Arts” and the recenter-
ing of digital scholarship and pedagogy at teaching-intensive colleges in addition
to resource-rich R1 research institutions. This list is only a partial accounting of the
projects that have emerged in the past few years, but each of them gives us reason
to hope that DH will continue to be more “ambitious,” as Miriam Posner exhorts
in chapter 3 in this volume, “to hold ourselves to much higher standards.” If our
involvement has helped the field to get there, either through direct participation in
these projects or by facilitating connections between them, we have only been suc-
cessful with the cooperation and support of many, many others.
Even as scholars such as Alan Liu point toward the work of #transformDH in
leading these changes, it is important to ask whether assigning the success of
a broader cultural shift to particular groups of people dulls the transformative
potential of our distributed collective. Do we, a handful of named “founders” of
#transformDH, get recognition even as the most challenging projects—projects

This content downloaded from

167.206.19.12 on Sat, 29 Mar 2025 21:31:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
76 ] Bailey, Cong- Huyen, Lothian, and Phillips

that are not necessarily traditional academic ones—get ignored? Contributing our
voices to venues like Debates in the Digital Humanities requires us to name names,
fix dates, and quantify contributions in ways that, while necessary for scholarly
legitimacy, run directly counter to the hashtag ethos. #transformDH was started
by graduate students, and now that we are advancing in our careers, we find our-
selves paradoxically with more access to resources and fewer ways to make the
impact that a simple hashtag did years ago. Grant funding, for example, requires
quantifiable outcomes that may not recognize the types of nontraditional output at
which #transformDH excels. Even when the work that we create, from Twitter and
Tumblr posts to peer-reviewed articles, adds to our CVs and helps us to advance as
individuals employed in the academy, that advancement embeds us further in the
systems we are critiquing, encouraging us to set our sights on the horizons of dis-
ciplinary legitimacy rather than more expansive change. After all, the transforma-
tions that #transformDH at its most radical has called for would not be compatible
with the institutional power that some of us are beginning to accrue: dismantling
institutional hierarchies, prioritizing collective rather than individual achievement,
amplifying the voices of those whose perspectives have not traditionally found a
place in academia, and so on. We initially envisioned this piece as a manifesto, but
that stance felt disingenuous given our new academic positions, our shifting obli-
gations, and the changes to the field itself.
Higher education in the United States is in a moment of simultaneous hope
and despair. While individual actors recognize the need for a deeper commitment
to social justice in the academy, universities have fired professors at the behest of
powerful trustees and donors, threatening academic freedom. On a national level,
the United States elected its first Black president, but experienced an upswing in rac-
ist violence. Feminist voices are making measurable changes in the games and tech
industries, but they have been punished by collective mobs of anonymous harass-
ers. Gay marriage was legalized, but less-privileged queer and trans people, espe-
cially trans women of color, are still targets of violence. Every triumph produces its
own backlash, because hegemony is persistent and reproduces itself, even in pro-
gressive movements.
Are our institutions embracing us, or are they consuming us in the name of
diversity? We must take seriously the warnings of scholars such as Roderick Fergu-
son and Sara Ahmed, who expose how universities incorporate ethnic studies and
other interdisciplines into the fold in order to forestall more radical progress. How
can we make our success, and the success of #transformDH, something that leads to
transformation rather than assimilation? Or, to put it in more concrete terms: how
can academics who are receiving institutional recognition and funding also support
community-based digital activism and internal structural changes? We must be pub-
lic scholars, ethical researchers, promulgators of hashtags, and always teachers. We
must attend political hackathons, host Wikipedia edit-a-thons for underrepresented
communities, champion our underserved students, and lead transformative digital

This content downloaded from

167.206.19.12 on Sat, 29 Mar 2025 21:31:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Reflections on a Movement [ 77

humanities projects. We must continue to acknowledge, assign, and amplify work

by women of color, indigenous, disabled, feminist, and queer activists in commu-
nity and digital spaces. We must, above all, insist on the relevance of social justice
to our work as academics.
By expanding who and what counts as DH, we can model for other academic
communities the transformative power of collaborative energy to address the ques-
tions of our time. We ask for practitioners of DH to be attentive to the ways that
social hierarchies of oppression inform their research. The digital provides the
opportunity for a more democratized relationship to scholarly production, and DH
can continue to be central to the transformative process of shifting academic invest-
ment in cloistered knowledge. Our roles slowly shift as our positions as junior schol-
ars, precarious workers, faculty of color, queer faculty, administrative staff, or alt-ac
continually change, but we are committed to a tactical media approach to DH, as
Rita Raley suggests, “remain[ing] adaptable to new situations and collaborations”
rather than getting settled in comfortable roles (40). As we learn to balance our
family, community, and professional responsibilities, we have come to know even
more fully that we cannot do this work alone. We therefore end with another call
for action. The work of #transformDH is always open to new conspirators, and we
invite you, the reader, to participate in claiming, transforming, and expanding the
digital humanities with us.

Bibliography

Ahmed, Sara. On Being Included: Racism and Diversity in Institutional Life. Durham,
N.C.: Duke University Press, 2012.
Around DH in 80 Days. http://www.arounddh.org/.
Augenbraun, Eric. “Occupy Wall Street and the Limits of Spontaneous Street Protest.”
The Guardian, September 29, 2011. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree
/cifamerica/2011/sep/29/occupy-wall-street-protest.
Bailey, Moya. “All the Digital Humanists Are White, All the Nerds Are Men, but Some of
Us Are Brave.” Journal of Digital Humanities 1 (2011). http://journalofdigitalhuman-
ities.org/1–1/all-the-digital-humanists-are-white-all-the-nerds-are-men-but-some-
of-us-are-brave-by-moya-z-bailey/.
Barnett, Fiona. “The Brave Side of Digital Humanities.” Differences 25, no. 1 (2014): 64–78.
Cecire, Natalia. “In defense of transforming DH.” Works Cited (blog), January 8, 2012.
http://nataliacecire.blogspot.com/2012/01/in-defense-of-transforming-dh.html.
Cong-Huyen, Anne. “Thinking Through Race (Gender, Class, & Nation) in the Digital
Humanities: The #transformDH Example.” Anne Cong-Huyen (blog), January 7, 2013.
http://anitaconchita.org/uncategorized/mla13-presentation/.
———. “Toward a Transnational Asian/American Digital Humanities: A #transformDH
Invitation.” In Between Humanities and the Digital, ed. Patrik Svensson and David
Theo Goldberg, 109–20. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2015.

This content downloaded from

167.206.19.12 on Sat, 29 Mar 2025 21:31:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
78 ] Bailey, Cong- Huyen, Lothian, and Phillips

FemBot Collective. http://fembotcollective.org.

FemTechNet. http://femtechnet.org.
Ferguson, Roderick. The Reorder of Things: The University and Its Pedagogies of Minority
Difference. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2012.
Global Outlook::Digital Humanities. http://www.globaloutlookdh.org/.
Gold, Matthew K. “The Digital Humanities Moment.” In Debates in the Digital Humani-
ties, ed. Matthew K. Gold. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2012. http://
dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu/debates/text/2.
Koh, Adeline. “Niceness, Building, and Opening the Genealogy of the Digital Humanities:
Beyond the Social Contract of Humanities Computing.” Differences 25, no. 1 (2014):
93–106.
Liu, Alan. “Where Is Cultural Criticism in the Digital Humanities?” In Debates in the Digi-
tal Humanities, ed. Matthew K. Gold, 490–510. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press, 2012. http://dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu/debates/text/20.
Lothian, Alexis. “Marked Bodies, Transformative Scholarship, and the Question of Theory
in Digital Humanities.” Journal of Digital Humanities 1 (2011). http://journalofdigit
alhumanities.org/1–1/marked-bodies-transformative-scholarship-and-the-question-
of-theory-in-digital-humanities-by-alexis-lothian/.
Lothian, Alexis, and Amanda Phillips. “Can Digital Humanities Mean Transformative
Critique?” Journal for e-media Studies 3 (2013). https://journals.dartmouth.edu/cgi-bin
/WebObjects/Journals.woa/xmlpage/4/article/425.
McPherson, Tara. “Why Are the Digital Humanities So White? or Thinking the Histories of
Race and Computation.” In Debates in the Digital Humanities, ed. Matthew K. Gold,
139–60. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2012. http://dhdebates.gc.cuny
.edu/debates/text/29.
Messina, Chris. “Why Didn’t the Creator of the Hashtag Patent the Concept?” Quora,
June 15, 2013. https://www.quora.com/Why-didnt-the-creator-of-Hashtag-patent
-the-concept/answer/Chris-Messina.
Pannapacker, William.“Pannapacker at MLA: Digital Humanities Triumphant?” Chron-
icle of Higher Education, January 8, 2011. http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm
/pannapacker-at-mla-digital-humanities-triumphant/3091.
Phillips, Amanda. “#transformDH — A Call to Action Following #ASA2011.” HAS-
TAC, October 26, 2011. https://www.hastac.org/blogs/amanda-phillips/2011/10/26
/transformdh-call-action-following-asa-2011.
Posner, Miriam. “What’s Next: The Radical, Unrealized Potential of Digital Humani-
ties,” Miriam Posner (blog), July 27, 2015. http://miriamposner.com/blog/whats-next
-the-radical-unrealized-potential-of-digital-humanities/.
Postcolonial Digital Humanities. http://dhpoco.org.
Project: No More Flowers. http://projectnomoreflowers.tumblr.com/.
Raley, Rita. “Digital Humanities for the Next Five Minutes.” Differences 25, no. 1 (2014):
26–45.

This content downloaded from

167.206.19.12 on Sat, 29 Mar 2025 21:31:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Reflections on a Movement [ 79

Ramsay, Stephen, “Who’s In, Who’s Out.” Stephen Ramsay (blog), January 8, 2011. http://
stephenramsay.us/text/2011/01/08/whos-in-and-whos-out/.
Scheinfeldt, Tom. “Why Digital Humanities Is ‘Nice.’ ” In Debates in the Digital Humani-
ties, ed. Matthew K. Gold. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2012. http://
dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu/debates/text/36.
Soweto Historical GIS Project. http://www.dhinitiative.org/projects/shgis.
“Toward an Open Digital Humanities.” THATCamp SoCal 2011, January 11–12, 2011.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uPtB0xr793V27vHBmBZr87LY6Pe1BLxN-_
DuJzqG-wU/edit — heading=h.z1yea0vuq550.
#transformDH: This is the Digital Humanities. http://transformdh.tumblr.com/.
Virtual Freedom Trail Project. http://www.dhinitiative.org/projects/vftp.
Wernimont, Jacqueline. “Feminist Digital Humanities: Theoretical, Social, and Material
Engagements around Making and Breaking Computational Media.” Jacqueline Wer-
nimont (blog), June 4, 2014. https://jwernimont.wordpress.com/2014/06/02/feminist-
digital-humanities-theoretical-social-and-material-engagements-around-making-
and-breaking-computational-media/.

This content downloaded from

167.206.19.12 on Sat, 29 Mar 2025 21:31:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 This page intentionally left blank

This content downloaded from

167.206.19.12 on Sat, 29 Mar 2025 21:31:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms