FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2893147988> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2893147988 endingPage "585" @default.
• W2893147988 startingPage "569" @default.
• W2893147988 abstract "The Weak Powers of Digital Modernist Studies Gabriel Hankins (bio) Are digital methods weak or strong? How should we understand the conjunction of digital tools and methods with modernist studies? In some accounts of the rise of weak theories in literary studies, weak theory and digital methods like distant reading are taken as correlative terms, with associative logic and epistemological modesty common to both.1 Yet a nearly opposite set of arguments is as familiar: digital literary methods are too strong, so goes the claim, because they conceal naïvely positivist notions of evidence and proof, reductively quantify cultural production, or advance a neoliberal agenda within the academy.2 Digital methods appear both too weak and too strong for use on literary objects, particularly objects so delicately rebarbative as those of modernism. Generalized glosses such as these call out for more particular accounts of digital practice from within modernist studies itself, and indeed these have begun to appear. Work by Robert Scholes and Clifford Wulfman, Jessica Pressman, Shawna Ross, and James O'Sullivan supports the contention of Stephen Ross and Jentery Sayers that there are special affinities between modernism and digital approaches, and that digital methods afford some of the most promising lines of development for the ongoing expansion of the 'new modernist studies.'3 Shawna Ross and James O'Sullivan's edited volume Reading Modernism with Machines (2016) marks a turn from debating the advantages and deficits of digital methodology and towards embedding new methods and interpretive procedures within the specificity of modernist studies as a field.4 [End Page 569] Rather than surveying the field or advocating a particular digital technique, the present article advances an argument about how digital approaches articulate with modernist subjects. After considering the leading positions on that question, and drawing on current examples of work in the field, I contend that digital modernist studies can and should understand itself through a weak theory of the conjunction of digital method and scholarly field, following the line of thinking developed by Wai Chee Dimock, Bruno Latour, and their common sources in science and technology studies.5 This line of weak theory focuses on relational networks of association, skeins of weak bonds that paradoxically produce strength through dissemination, heterogeneity and the careful plaiting of weak ties (Latour, Actor-Network, 3). The social is continuously woven by human and nonhuman actors, argues Latour, and he has in mind the micro-societies that constitute disciplines, not just the macro-social echelons of politics and economics. For Dimock, these dispersed, episodic webs of association, not supervised and not formalizable, make it an open question what is primary, what is determinative, what counts as the center and what counts as the margins (Weak Theory, 737). The weak conjunction between digital method and modernist studies foregrounds exactly these questions of center and periphery, social determination, long lines of material dependencies, and critical authority. Rather than a static theoretical picture, weak theory is here employed to theorize the process of affiliation, conjunction, translation, and alliance between methods and subjects, and to redescribe the work of digital modernist studies as the careful, conscious plaiting of weak ties between method, object, and field. Digital modernist studies requires a Latourian attention to the intervention of material agents into critical practice, along with long chains of institutions, machines, collaborators, and other mediations between the intimate triad of the world, the text, and the critic. It necessitates the Dimockian work of filiation, comparison, and self-reflective theorization—an emphasis on constructing rather than assuming the boundaries of the field—that increasingly serves as the hallmark of an expanded modernist studies. It compels interdisciplinary conversations that extend beyond the boundaries of the humanities. Over and above the labor of the individual critic, digital modernist studies demands collaborative labor and collective verification, along with new methods of peer review now coming into view. Such methods at their best afford us few of the pleasures of deciphering, uncovering, or excavating meaning associated with the strong theoretical approaches that Paul Ricoeur describes as the hermeneutics of suspicion, despite the now privileged rhetoric of data mining. Nor do they offer historicist critics an escape from the careful composition of texts, contexts, and..." @default.
• W2893147988 created "2018-10-05" @default.
• W2893147988 creator A5017188247 @default.
• W2893147988 date "2018-01-01" @default.
• W2893147988 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W2893147988 title "The Weak Powers of Digital Modernist Studies" @default.
• W2893147988 cites W1487080754 @default.
• W2893147988 cites W1490781083 @default.
• W2893147988 cites W1496054820 @default.
• W2893147988 cites W1506236685 @default.
• W2893147988 cites W1532553204 @default.
• W2893147988 cites W1564237561 @default.
• W2893147988 cites W1585910012 @default.
• W2893147988 cites W1591965929 @default.
• W2893147988 cites W1644932108 @default.
• W2893147988 cites W1792899533 @default.
• W2893147988 cites W1823170511 @default.
• W2893147988 cites W1965092275 @default.
• W2893147988 cites W1981685741 @default.
• W2893147988 cites W1988912997 @default.
• W2893147988 cites W1998441365 @default.
• W2893147988 cites W2001553007 @default.
• W2893147988 cites W2004597467 @default.
• W2893147988 cites W2005073501 @default.
• W2893147988 cites W2006525638 @default.
• W2893147988 cites W2045301275 @default.
• W2893147988 cites W2047976426 @default.
• W2893147988 cites W2050280309 @default.
• W2893147988 cites W2051678521 @default.
• W2893147988 cites W2063712392 @default.
• W2893147988 cites W2072676299 @default.
• W2893147988 cites W2108225913 @default.
• W2893147988 cites W2109575213 @default.
• W2893147988 cites W2127990839 @default.
• W2893147988 cites W2128844271 @default.
• W2893147988 cites W2222577170 @default.
• W2893147988 cites W2271074438 @default.
• W2893147988 cites W2274051121 @default.
• W2893147988 cites W2324307188 @default.
• W2893147988 cites W2341197000 @default.
• W2893147988 cites W2345397350 @default.
• W2893147988 cites W247261228 @default.
• W2893147988 cites W2559546710 @default.
• W2893147988 cites W2606831904 @default.
• W2893147988 cites W2757483682 @default.
• W2893147988 cites W2766979173 @default.
• W2893147988 cites W409440530 @default.
• W2893147988 cites W591488126 @default.
• W2893147988 cites W625355485 @default.
• W2893147988 cites W640913354 @default.
• W2893147988 cites W647869457 @default.
• W2893147988 cites W778777474 @default.
• W2893147988 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/mod.2018.0040" @default.
• W2893147988 hasPublicationYear "2018" @default.
• W2893147988 type Work @default.
• W2893147988 sameAs 2893147988 @default.
• W2893147988 citedByCount "13" @default.
• W2893147988 countsByYear W28931479882019 @default.
• W2893147988 countsByYear W28931479882021 @default.
• W2893147988 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2893147988 hasAuthorship W2893147988A5017188247 @default.
• W2893147988 hasConcept C107038049 @default.
• W2893147988 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W2893147988 hasConcept C124952713 @default.
• W2893147988 hasConcept C128706718 @default.
• W2893147988 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2893147988 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W2893147988 hasConcept C2776242748 @default.
• W2893147988 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W2893147988 hasConcept C554936623 @default.
• W2893147988 hasConceptScore W2893147988C107038049 @default.
• W2893147988 hasConceptScore W2893147988C111472728 @default.
• W2893147988 hasConceptScore W2893147988C124952713 @default.
• W2893147988 hasConceptScore W2893147988C128706718 @default.
• W2893147988 hasConceptScore W2893147988C138885662 @default.
• W2893147988 hasConceptScore W2893147988C142362112 @default.
• W2893147988 hasConceptScore W2893147988C2776242748 @default.
• W2893147988 hasConceptScore W2893147988C41895202 @default.
• W2893147988 hasConceptScore W2893147988C554936623 @default.
• W2893147988 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W2893147988 hasLocation W28931479881 @default.
• W2893147988 hasOpenAccess W2893147988 @default.
• W2893147988 hasPrimaryLocation W28931479881 @default.
• W2893147988 hasRelatedWork W1495584775 @default.
• W2893147988 hasRelatedWork W1985400140 @default.
• W2893147988 hasRelatedWork W2329441450 @default.
• W2893147988 hasRelatedWork W2392074336 @default.
• W2893147988 hasRelatedWork W2462321015 @default.
• W2893147988 hasRelatedWork W2532925148 @default.
• W2893147988 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W2893147988 hasRelatedWork W2798031823 @default.
• W2893147988 hasRelatedWork W3097874916 @default.
• W2893147988 hasRelatedWork W4237723835 @default.
• W2893147988 hasVolume "25" @default.
• W2893147988 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2893147988 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2893147988 magId "2893147988" @default.
• W2893147988 workType "article" @default.