A Posthumanist Reflection on the Digital Humanities and Social Sciences

  • Chia-Rong Tsao
Part of the Computational Social Sciences book series (CSS)


The emergence of interdisciplinary studies in the digital humanities and social sciences is relevant to the development of digital technologies. Although the digital humanities were often seen as only a technical support to the “real” humanities studies in the early days, the definition of “digital” changed with the advent of the Internet in the 1990s. Scholars said that, entirely new discipline paradigms were introduced by the two waves of the digital humanities. Thus, researchers in the digital humanities and social sciences currently experience a fundamental transformation of epistemology, in addition to the introduction of new tools and methods. This article investigates this transformation from the “posthumanist” theoretical perspective. The author argues that posthumanist theories can elucidate how researchers and their digital tools coproduce knowledge. In other words, from the posthumanist perspective, this article points out that digital technologies inevitably affect current research practices and knowledge production and, more importantly, researchers also experience fundamental transformations in this coconstitution process.


  1. Berry, D. M. (2011). The philosophy of software: Code and mediation in the digital age. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berry, D. M. (2012). Introduction: Understanding the digital humanities. In D. M. Berry (Ed.), Understanding digital humanities (pp. 1–20). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boyd, D., & Crawford, K. (2012). Critical questions for big data: Provocations for a cultural, technological, and scholarly phenomenon. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 662–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Braidotti, R. (2013). The Posthuman. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  5. Burdick, A., Drucker, J., Lunenfeld, P., Presner, T., & Schnapp, J. (2012). Digital humanites. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, action and belief: A new sociology of knowledge (pp. 196–233). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Clark, A. (2003). Natural-born cyborgs: Minds, technologies, and the future of human intelligence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Clark, A. (2008). Supersizing the mind: Embodiment, action, and cognition extension. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Edwards, A., Housley, W., Williams, M., Sloan, L., & Williams, M. (2013). Digital social research, social media and the sociological imagination: Surrogacy, augmentation and re-orientation. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 16(3), 245–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Evans, L., & Rees, S. (2012). An interpretation of digital humanities. In D. M. Berry (Ed.), Understanding digital humanities (pp. 21–41). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  11. Frabetti, F. (2012). Have the humanities always been digital? For an understanding of 'digital humanities' in the context of originary technicity. In D. M. Berry (Ed.), Understanding digital humanities (pp. 161–171). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gunkel, D. (2000). We are Borg: Cyborgs and the subject of communication. Communication Theory, 10(3), 332–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Haraway, D. J. (1991). Simians, cyborgs, and wormen: The reinvention of nature. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Hayles, N. K. (1999). How we became posthuman: Virtual bodies in cybernetics, literature, and informatics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hayles, N. K. (2012). How we think: Transforming power and digital technologies. In D. M. Berry (Ed.), Understanding digital humanities (pp. 42–66). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ihde, D. (1979). Technics and praxis. Boston: D. Reidel Pub. Co.Google Scholar
  17. Ihde, D. (1990). Technology and the lifeworld. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Ihde, D. (2002). Bodies in technology. Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  19. Introna, L. D. (2011). The enframing of code: Agency, originality and the plagiarist. Theory, Culture & Society, 28(6), 113–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kitchin, R. (2014). Bid Data, new epistemologies and paradigm shifts. Big Data & Society, 1, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lash, S. (2002). Critique of information. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Latour, B. (1992). Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane artifacts. In W. E. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society: Studeies in sociotechnical change (pp. 225–258). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. New York: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Law, J., & Callon, M. (1992). The life and death of an aircraft: A network analysis of technical change. In W. E. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society: Studeies in sociotechnical change (pp. 21–52). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  25. Manovich, L. (2011). Trending: The promises and the challenges of big social data. In M. K. Gold (Ed.), Debates in the digital humanities. Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press Retrieved from Scholar
  26. Marres, N. (2012). The redistribution of methods: On intervention on digigtal social research, broadly conceived. The Sociological Review, 60(S1), 139–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Presner, Todd. (2010). Digital humanities 2.0: A report on knowledge.
  28. Rogers, R. (2009). The end of the virtual: Digital methods. Amsterdam: Vossiuspers UvA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ruppert, E., Law, J., & Savage, M. (2013). Reassembling social science methods: The challenge of digital devices. Theory, Culture & Society, 30(4), 22–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schnapp, Jeffrey, & Presner, Todd. (2009). Digital humanities manifesto 2.0.
  31. Tsao, C.-R. (2016). The hybrid subject: The “post-human” in philosophy of technology. A Journal for Philosophy Study of Public Affairs, 57, 47–93Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chia-Rong Tsao
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Social PsychologyShih Hsin UniversityTaipeiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations