decolonization

In my proposition, I would like to explore the notion of the minor (Deleuze and Guattari, 1986), employed here as a theoretical tool allowing for a critical inquiry into multifarious e-literary post-internet practices, popularly referred to as Third-Generation E-Literature (Flores, 2019), and accompanied by third-wave e-literature scholarship (Ensslin et al., 2020). However, I am going to build on this notion following its recent repurposing by Anne Sauvagnargues (as the minor style) (Sauvagnargues, 2016) and Erin Manning (as the minor gesture) (Manning, 2016). Kathi Inman Berens aptly remarks (Berens, 2020) that de-colonization of e-literature requires multiplicity of perspectives, as it entails not only cultural hegemonies operating along geographical, ethnic and racial axes and following the set of distinctions shaped by modernist aesthetics, but it also needs to address widespread domination of Big Tech companies shaping the popular internet platforms, programming solutions and users' practices. Hence, pointing out to technotexts developed within and with the popular platforms, in instances of "an impersonal assemblage of enunciation" (Sauvagnargues, 2016, p. 25), I would like to explore the conceptual potential of "becoming-minor" (Sauvagnargues, 2016, p.22).

I am going to argue that to provide the accurate critique of the phenomenon, e-literary practices of writing with and within popular social platforms (flurf poetry, memes, Instapoetry) need to be framed in the context of neoliberal landscape of digital, metrics-oriented capitalism (Brown, 2015), exceeding debate fixated on the clash of aesthetic distinctions or generational differences. Seen from such perspective, third-generation e-literary practices often seem to thrive on exploiting the platforms' operational logics and mechanisms, "unmooring its structural integrity, problematizing its normative standards." (Manning, 2016, p. 1).

The strategies - based on mimicry and constituting the "vapors" (Olson, 2017) of ever-present and ubiquitous availability of digital networks - can be seem far from the openly voiced cultural critique. Nevertheless, to grasp the full potential of such "vaporized" collective writing assemblages, hitting the minor key (Manning, 2016, p.1) might be useful. De-colonization of electronic literature might then become less obvious in terms of communicational strategies, but more thoroughly shedding the light on what is below the (textual or even programmable) surface of networked technotexts.

Thinking about the ways in which critical infrastructure studies can allow us to engage in antiracism critiques and practices, Ryan Ikeda provocatively challenges the electronic literature community to address some of the symbolic and material structures that he argues uphold the field. To this end, Ikeda positions elit infrastructure as dynamic and generative sites of cultural activity, and attends, in particular to the ELMCIP Knowledge Base, recent ebr discourses on decolonization, ELO fellowships, and literary historical genealogies, to examine how each constructs, affirms, racializes and extends power, privilege, and status to its members.

All too often, defining a discipline becomes more an exercise of exclusion than inclusion. Disrupting the Digital Humanities seeks to rethink how we map disciplinary terrain by directly confronting the gatekeeping impulse of many other so-called field-defining collections. What is most beautiful about the work of the Digital Humanities is exactly the fact that it can’t be tidily anthologized. In fact, the desire to neatly define the Digital Humanities (to filter the DH-y from the DH) is a way of excluding the radically diverse work that actually constitutes the field. This collection, then, works to push and prod at the edges of the Digital Humanities — to open the Digital Humanities rather than close it down. Ultimately, it’s exactly the fringes, the outliers, that make the Digital Humanities both heterogeneous and rigorous.

This collection does not constitute yet another reservoir for the new Digital Humanities canon. Rather, its aim is less about assembling content as it is about creating new conversations. Building a truly communal space for the digital humanities requires that we all approach that space with a commitment to: 1) creating open and non-hierarchical dialogues; 2) championing non-traditional work that might not otherwise be recognized through conventional scholarly channels; 3) amplifying marginalized voices; 4) advocating for students and learners; and 5) sharing generously and openly to support the work of our peers.

(source: back cover of the book)