Kelly Baker Josephs, in her essay “DH Moments, Caribbean Considerations: On Reaction, Response, and Relevance in the Digital Humanities”, provides her take on the 2018 NYCDHWeek theme: “DH in the Moment: Reaction, Response, Relevance”. She centers her discussion around defining digital humanities activism by attempting to answer the question “what does the digital humanities do for others?” and why it is that this question has become so important at this point in the DH realm.

From the onset of Josephs’ introduction, I got the sense that the above question would be a lot to unpack despite it appearing at first glance that an adequate, though simple, response could be that digital humanities does a lot for others. Josephs shows that while this may be the case there are quite a number of nuances to consider in defining how DH activists do precisely that.

She begins by reflecting on how a few decades ago that the question of interest was in fact, “what is the digital humanities?”, which I found quite ironic because it was actually a big question on my mind a few weeks ago. This just goes to show that there may yet still be those who are completely unaware of the definition.

She then provides concrete examples of timely digital humanities projects, such as the PRMapathon initiative and Torn Apart Separados. It was during her assessment of the Live Hope Love project that I began to lose faith in mankind, as she implied that activist digital work is rarely well-funded. It was quite disheartening to be told in such plain terms that projects whose fundamental objective is to do good for others in some way do not typically obtain the financial assistance that they require.

Next, she goes on to demonstrate the rapidity with which the digital humanities are changing in that there is now a heavier emphasis on assessment and outcomes so as to serve a tangible and visible purpose. In this regard, she stresses the example of the Instagram activist, Ruddy Roye, which I found was a really good one because I never would have considered Instagram posts to be deemed a DH project or more accurately DH activism. As I would have learned, however, anyone using digital tools to react, respond, and to make change in the moment conducts DH activism.

To close up, she highlighted the example of the Slave Societies Digital Archive. It was here that I realized how difficult it is to categorize DH activism. As I continued to read, the author made me wonder whether all DH projects can be considered DH activism, which, according to my understanding of the term, could very well be the case because all DH projects, particularly those that I have come across thus far, have the potential to generate positive social change.

Finally, Josephs gives her audience a word of caution. She advises that DHers must be careful not to become a privileged group who rushes to be timely, political, and radical in order to receive congratulations on their achievements. I thought this point was particularly appropriate because I have personally observed situations where the person providing assistance to a problem overshadows the issue itself, which, in my opinion, completely defeats the original purpose.

Generally, I thought Josephs did a good job of dissecting a complex, new, but timely topic in the DH sphere, and I particularly liked her technique of presenting several DH initiatives to express her ideas. She has certainly brought to my attention a lot of DH projects and initiatives that I look forward to checking out.