Defining DH: What do you think?

Digital humanities doesn’t do theory.

Digital humanities never historicizes.

Digital humanities is complicit.

Digital  humanities is naive.

Digital humanities is hollow huckster boosterism.

Digital humanities is managerial.

Digital humanities is the academic import of Silicon Valley solutionism (the term that is the shibboleth of bad-boy tech critic Evgeny Morozov).

Digital humanities cannot abide critique. 

Digital  humanities appeals to those in search of an oasis from the concerns of race, class, gender, and sexuality.

Digital humanities does not inhale (easily the
best line of the bunch).

Digital humanities wears Google Glass. 

Digital  humanities wears thick, thick glasses (guilty).

Perhaps most damning of all:  digital humanities is something separate from the rest of the humanities,  and—this is the real secret—digital humanities wants it that way.

(Kirschenbaum, “What is ‘Digital Humanities,’ and Why Are They Saying Such Terrible  Things about It?” differences 25.1 (2014): 46-63. Copyright © 2014 Duke University Press.)