The field of Postcolonial Digital Humanities has been projected as the potential for online platforms of the knowledge economy such as e-commerce (or digital capital) to deliver on the postcolonial maxim: ‘a better world is possible’. However, the imperial metanarrative of the knowledge economy and digital capitalism often ends up in crisis because of its deterministic treatment of knowledge. Postcolonial Digital Humanities is an inter-disciplinary field of inquiry but its practitioners prioritize digital determinism, that is, the power of metanarratives of praxis in virtual/digital capitalism over the humanities as is the usual case in universities with archival projects described in scientific journals. Postcolonial digital humanists are chiefly concerned with praxis, that is, with generating smarter protocols, standards, templates, schema and databases of platforms and with polishing their relationships with funding bodies, universities, and other mediating agencies such as the World Bank, IMF and capitalist institutions charged with overseeing projects, big data analytics and their flexible efficiency. Through digital libraries, editions and e-commerce archives, digital humanities have become a smokescreen for Frederick Taylor’s scientific content management system and entrepreneurship. This has led to a proliferation of programmes, jobs, grants, panels, and publications in the digital humanities with a deterministic focus on science and the appropriation of knowledge rationalism and labour by scientific and technological methods. This, then, has created an uneasiness within the emerging new world order between technology, the humanities and the literary or discursive field. Digital humanities prioritize quantitative over qualitative methods or the rationally explicit over tacit understandings such as text analysis, text encoding, digital editions and archives, online reading tools and resources to practise scholarship with Google Books and occasional Digital Humanities Research Awards. Digital humanities practices play more of an instrumental than a qualitative role to the humanities [20].

This paper upholds the view that this kind of techno-determinism is a severe blockage on the road to the field’s growth. For example, as evidenced by Pascale Casanova’s The World Republic of Letters and Franco Moretti’s Graphs, Maps, Trees, digital technologies have become the new ‘sociology’ of literature that frame out the way literature should be investigated. World literature, for example, also adopted a corporate or system-scale analysis which combined Marxist sociology (with Immanuel Wallerstein’s “core versus periphery” type of investigation), Braudelian historiography and literary comparatism. The practical data and tools, the databases, corpora and distributed repositories, became a new form of culturomics, a type of quantitative analysis of Google Books to which literature was subjected. These scholars deployed Web 1.0, which is a text-based internet culture to create new sites of knowledge. These sites identified new sub-fields like postcolonial science and technology, exposed postcolonial theorists such as Aijaz Ahmad, Ella Shohat, Arif Dirlik, Sandra Harding and Benita Parry, and defined key terms and the stakes for postcolonial studies through US based academic Journals like Jouvert. With publication of these projects, new technological and digital changes provided rich opportunities for the application and analysis of postcolonial studies by interrogating how postcolonial studies could evolve via different stages of the internet culture. These stages include the original postcolonial websites of Web 1.0, the ‘transmedia shift’ starting from the mid-2000s - as Lisa Nakamura and Peter Chow-White refer to it- the move to Web 2.0 and the rise of social media cultures. The digital practices from the mid-2000s transmedia shift started to change because there was an elision of boundaries between media producers, scholars and consumers. These shifts started to raise new questions about the possibility that there may be no epistemological differences in the articulation of identities in digital spaces. From the 1990s, postcolonial scholars clinched on to the affordances of digital media in order to construct knowledge about the field. Postcolonial thinking engaged with science and technology studies via what is referred to as “postcolonial computing,” which is a critical evaluation of the development discourse in the designing of technology [44]. Another term “decolonial computing” embedded postcolonial computing and critical race theory [1]. Even postcolonial scholars deployed new media by exploring networks of capital, digital subalternity and communication, as well as the power that arbitrates between global communities. Postcolonial scholars within the digital humanities, are now generating digital scholarship in the form of archival, cultural heritage and mapping projects.

When in 2014, the MLA Convention met and set up the first panel on postcolonial digital humanities, the line of inquiry that emerged consisted in seeking out a dialogue between, on the one hand, knowledge production in the global spaces in postcolonial studies and, on the other hand, the field of the digital humanities, which is praxis-driven [59]. It is against this understanding that a number of topics were adopted such as: digital archival silences, decolonizing digital humanities, postcolonial game studies, construction of global scholarly networks, the postcolonial digital human, and so forth [14]. The motivation was also to show that a range of conversations have been flourishing at the confluence of postcolonial studies and digital humanities. The issues addressed included the postcolonial digital human, digital archival silences, decolonizing digital humanities, postcolonial game studies, and the construction of global scholarly networks. Thus, there is an increasing range of conversations taking place at the confluences of postcolonial studies and digital humanities. Postcolonial digital humanities cover a broader history of contact between the digital milieu and postcolonial criticism. 

This paper addresses itself to the potentialities but also the crisis and the perspectives at the confluence of this imperial project within the discipline of Postcolonial digital humanities and the knowledge economy of literary studies. Although the knowledge economy of ICTs was configured differently from the post-industrial era of the 1960s as a new frontier for communication and information and as a democratizing space for the propagation of new knowledge embedded in states and nations all over the world, the internet’s tremendous potential for development of the digital cultural record is also embedding huge limitations and perspectives. Based on the ethics of net neutrality, open access and freedom of information and communication, it has offered infrastructural power in Marxist terms to the imperial assumptions behind postcolonial digital humanities and its scholarship. But as we will illustrate in Foucauldian terms, the potentials of that power also carry inherent weaknesses that need to be addressed and redesigned. Figured variously as a new frontier for information and a democratizing space for the proliferation of new communities and knowledge, the internet offers both hope and tremendous potential for developing the digital cultural record. Digital humanities scholarship has proliferated in this digital milieu, guided by an ethics of freedom of information, open access, and net neutrality. And yet the internet is riddled with divides, inequalities, uneven access, and governmental control over flows of information. As controversies over net neutrality demonstrate, the internet is not a space that is apolitical or immune to the vicissitudes of capitalism [59].

Theoretical framework

As theoretical frameworks of the humanities, structuralism and post-structuralism suggest that whether in linguistics, sociology, anthropology or literature, elements of human culture (such as the ICT infrastructure) should be understood in terms of their relationship to a broader, overarching (post)structure or system. The structures that underpin all the issues that humans perceive, do, think and feel in the humanities fields can be uncovered. As defined by Simon Blackburn [9], structuralism is a belief that assumes that all phenomena of human life are not intelligible unless they are considered through interrelationships. These interrelationships constitute a structure and underpinning any local variations in the surface phenomena, are constant laws of abstract structure. It was in the early 1900s of Europe and chiefly in France and Russia that structuralism developed, particularly thanks to Ferdinand de Saussure’s structural linguistics and the Prague, Moscow and Copenhagen Schools of linguistics [16,69]. In the 1950s and 1960s, when structural linguistics was confronted with challenges from Noam Chomsky, some scholars in the humanities deployed Saussure's ideas in their fields of investigation. Claude Lévi-Strauss applied the structuralist mode of thinking to anthropology. Other scholars like the linguist Roman Jakobson, and the psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan applied the theory in sociology, psychology, literary criticism, economics and architecture. As an intellectual progression, structuralism was thought to replace existentialism [36]. Nevertheless, from the 1960s, structuralism's basic tenets were assaulted by Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Louis Althusser and Roland Barthes. Although their writings carry elements of structuralism, they were referred to as post-structuralists. In the 1970s, structuralism was criticized for its ahistoricism and rigidity. Nonetheless, many of its proponents like Lacan continued to influence continental philosophy because the basic assumptions of post-structuralism are a continuation of structuralism [66]. The term structuralism influenced the structural Marxism of Nicos Poulantzas. 

Ferdinand de Saussure’s writings on linguistics, and the linguistics of the Prague and Moscow Schools laid the foundation for the theory [67]. Structural linguistics propounded three ideas. Saussure maintained that there is a distinction between langue (that is, an ideal abstraction of language grammar) and parole (that is, grammar as actually employed in daily life). He argued that the "sign" is comprised of both a "signified", an abstract idea and a "signifier", which is the perceived sound or visual image. Since different languages possess varying words to refer to the same objects or concepts, therefore there is no intrinsic reason why a particular sign is employed to articulate a given signifier. The signifier is thus "arbitrary". In this way, signs gain their meaning from their relationships and contrasts with other signs. According to Ferdinand de Saussure: "in language, there are only differences 'without positive terms.'" [67]. The English translation of this important book was effected by Wade Baskin [71]. Structuralist proponents maintain that a specific domain of culture may be understood by means of a structure which is modelled on language and that is distinct both from the organizations of reality and the organizations of ideas or the imagination, which is the "Third Order" [14,69]. In Jacques Lacan's theory of psychoanalysis, for instance, the structuralist order of "the Symbolic" is distinguished both from "the Real" and "the Imaginary". In the same fashion, in Louis Althusser's Marxist theory, the structuralist order of the capitalist mode of production is different both from the actual, real agents involved in its relations and from the ideological forms in which those relations are comprehended. When one blends Sigmund Freud and Ferdinand de Saussure, he emerges with the model of the French (post)structuralist Jacques Lacan, who applied structuralism to psychoanalysis. Jean Piaget applied structuralism as constructivism, and considers structuralism as "a method rather than as a doctrine, because there is no structure without a construction, genetic or abstract [53]. Although Louis Althusser’s structural social analysis engendered "structural Marxism", Althusser himself was not persuaded in that light because he associated 'structuralism' with ambiguity. Marx was interpreted as a 'structuralist' but with ambiguity, and ideology [4]. The feminist theorist Alison Assiter elaborated four ideas in structuralism, namely, that a structure determines the position of each element of a whole; every system has a structure, structural laws deal with co-existence rather than change and structures are the "real things" that lie beneath the surface or the appearance of meaning [5]. 

In de Saussure’s Course in General Linguistics, the analysis focuses not on the use of language (named as "parole", or speech), but rather on the underlying system of language (called "langue"). This approach considers language elements in terms of how they relate to each other in the current period and synchronically rather than diachronically. Saussure maintained that linguistic signs are comprised of two major parts, namely, a "signifier" (the "sound pattern" of a word, either in mental projection as when one silently recites signage lines, a poem to one's self or in actual, any kind of text, physical realization as part of a speech act, a "signified" (the idea or meaning of the word). The previous approach focused on the relationship between words and things in the world that they designated. Structural linguistics integrates other paradigms, namely, the syntagm and values such as "idealism" which is a class of linguistic units (lexemes, morphemes or even constructions) that are possible in a certain position in a given linguistic environment (like a sentence). The different functional roles of each of these members of the paradigm is named as "value". 

Ferdinand de Saussure's Course impacted on different linguists during World War I and II. Leonard Bloomfield developed structural linguistics in the US, Louis Hjelmslev did same in Denmark, Alf Sommerfelt in Norway, Antoine Meillet in France and Émile Benveniste, and Prague School linguistics like Roman Jakobson and Nikolai Trubetzkoy did experimental research that was captivating [67]. Nevertheless, during the 1950s, de Saussure's linguistic ideas were beginning to be criticized and ignored. Literary critics use signifiers and signifieds, with little reference to Chomsky [26]. But Prague School structuralism used phonemics rather than a compiled listing of which sounds occur in a given language, and how they were related. It determined that sounds inventory in a language should be investigated in terms of a series of contrasts. For example, in English, /p/ and /b/ represent distinct phonemes because there are cases (minimal pairs) where the contrast between the two is the only difference between two distinct words (e.g. 'pat' and 'bat'). By investigating sounds in the light of contrastive features, a comparative scope is also opened up that explains the difficulty Nso’ speakers have distinguishing /r/ and /l/ in English given that these sounds are not contrastive in Lamnso’. Phonology thus became the paradigmatic foundation for structuralism in many different areas of scholarship. 

Structuralist anthropology and structuralism in social anthropology assume that meaning is engendered and reproduced within a culture via various practices, phenomena and activities that serve as systems of signification. Structuralism investigates activities as varied as food-preparation, religious rites, rituals, games, literary and non-literary texts, and entertainment to discern the deep structures by which meaning is generated and reproduced within a culture. In the 1950s, Lévi-Strauss studied cultural phenomena such as kinship (the alliance theory and the incest taboo), myths and food preparation. He enforced Saussure's distinction between langue and parole in his search for the basic structures of the human mind, contending that the structures that form the "deep grammar" of society originate in the mind and function in people unconsciously [17]. In structural anthropology, the Prague School of linguists like Roman Jakobson investigated sounds based on the presence or absence of certain features (e.g. voiceless vs. voiced). Lévi-Strauss integrated this in his notion of the universal structures of the mind, based on pairs of binary oppositions such as hot-cold, male-female, culture-nature, cooked-raw, or marriageable vs. tabooed women. Marcel Mauss, who published on gift-exchange systems, was deployed by Lévi-Strauss to contend that kinship systems are founded on women exchange between groups (a position known as 'alliance theory') in contradiction to the 'descent'-based theory portrayed by Edward Evans-Pritchard and Meyer Fortes. Lévi-Strauss's writings became widely popular in the 1960s and 1970s and they engendered the term "structuralism" itself. Scholars like the British Rodney Needham, Edmund Leach, and the French Maurice Godelier and Emmanuel Terray merged Marxism with structural anthropology. The American Marshall Sahlins and James Boon deployed structuralism to analyze human society. But structural anthropology was confronted with a number of problems because in the 1980s, it was not possible to verify assumptions about the universal structures of the human mind. Political economy and colonial rule were suggested by Eric Wolf as signified that should be prioritized in anthropology. Pierre Bourdieu argued that cultural and social structures are changed by human agency and practice in Sherry Ortner’s 'practice theory'. However, the biogenetic structuralism group maintained that there is a structural foundation for culture as all humans inherit a similar system of brain structures. Neuroethology laid the foundations for cultural similarity and variation. 

Structuralist criticism in literary theory links literary texts to a larger structure, such as a genre, intertextual connections, a universal narrative structure or a recurrent system of patterns or motifs [7,19]. Structuralist semiotics contends that a structure exists in every text [50], and this explains why experienced readers interpret a text more than non-experienced ones. Everything written is governed by specific rules, or a "grammar of literature", that one learns in educational institutions and that are to be unpacked [65]. A potential problematic of structuralist interpretation is its reductionism: "the structuralist danger of collapsing all difference." [8]. An example of such a reading might be if a student concludes that the authors of West Side Story did not write anything "really" new, because their work has the same structure as Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. In both texts a girl and a boy fall in love (a "formula" with a symbolic operator between them would be "Boy + Girl") despite the fact that they belong to two competing groups that hate each other ("Boy's Group - Girl's Group" or "Opposing forces") and conflict is resolved by their death. Structuralist readings focus on how the structures of the single text resolve inherent narrative tensions. If a structuralist reading focuses on multiple texts, there must be some way in which those texts unify themselves into a coherent system. The versatility of structuralism is such that a literary critic could make the same claim about a story of two friendly families ("Boy's Family + Girl's Family") that arrange a marriage between their children despite the fact that the children hate each other ("Boy - Girl") and then the children commit suicide to escape the arranged marriage; the justification is that the second story's structure is an 'inversion' of the first story's structure: the relationship between the values of love and the two pairs of parties involved have been reversed. Structuralist literary criticism maintains that the "literary banter of a text" resides chiefly in a new structure and not in the particularities of characterization development and voice in which that structure is expressed. Vladimir Propp, Algirdas Julien Greimas, and Claude Lévi-Strauss considered basic deep elements in stories, myths, and anecdotes combined in various ways to engender multiple versions of the ur-story or ur-myth. Structural literary theory and Northrop Frye's archetypal criticism, is also indebted to the anthropological study of myths. Some critics have also tried to apply the theory to individual works, but the effort to find unique structures in individual literary works runs counter to the structuralist program and has an affinity with New Criticism. 

The 1940s and 1950s were marked by existentialism propounded by Jean-Paul Sartre. But structuralism rose to prominence in France in the wake of existentialism, particularly in the 1960s. The initial popularity of structuralism in France led to its spread across the globe. Structuralism objected to the idea of human freedom and choice and focused instead on the way that human experience and thus, behavior, is determined by various structures. The most important initial work on this score was Claude Lévi-Strauss's 1949 volume The Elementary Structures of Kinship. Elementary Structures considered as kinship systems from a structural point of view and it demonstrated how apparently different social organizations were in fact different permutations of a few basic kinship structures. In the late 1950s he published Structural Anthropology, a collection of essays outlining his program for structuralism. In the 1960s, structuralism adopted a single unified approach to human life that embraced all disciplines. The writings of Roland Barthes, Jacques Derrida, Lévi-Strauss, Lacan and Foucault constituted the points where structuralism intersected with post-structuralism and deconstruction because structuralism was criticized for being ahistorical and deterministic as opposed to the ability of people to act evidenced by the political turbulence of the 1960s and 1970s, the student uprisings of May 1968, their impact on academia, questions of power and political struggle [37]. In the 1980s, deconstruction and its emphasis on the ambiguity of language as opposed to a logical structure, became popular. By 2000, structuralism was considered as a historically important School of thought, but the movements that it spawned, rather than structuralism itself, commanded attention [2]. Structuralism was criticized by the French hermeneutic philosopher Paul Ricœur and criticized Lévi-Strauss for constantly overstepping the limits of validity of the structuralist approach, ending up in what Ricœur described as "a Kantianism without a transcendental subject" [58]. The anthropologist Adam Kuper [27] maintained that "'structuralism' came to have something of the momentum of a millennial movement and some of its adherents felt that they formed a secret society of the seeing in a world of the blind. Conversion was not just a matter of accepting a new paradigm; it was, almost, a question of salvation." [27]. Philip Noel Pettit called for an abandoning of "the positivist dream which Lévi-Strauss dreamed for semiology" arguing that semiology is not to be placed among the natural sciences [52]. 

Post-structuralism started to emerge when scholars like Cornelius Castoriadis criticized structuralism for failing to explain symbolic mediation in the social world [13]. Structuralism was seen as a variation on the "logicist" theme, and he argued that, contrary to what structuralists advocate, language and symbolic systems in general cannot be reduced to logical organizations on the basis of the binary logic of oppositions. Critical theorist Jürgen Habermas accused (post)structuralists, such as Foucault, of being positivists; he remarked that while Foucault is not an ordinary positivist, he nevertheless paradoxically uses the tools of science to criticize science [23]. The sociologist Anthony Giddens drew on a range of structuralist themes in his theorizing, by dismissing the structuralist view that the reproduction of social systems is merely "a mechanical outcome". [22].

A very significant dimension of Postcolonial digital humanities is rethinking the role of representation in digital platform archives and the design methods subtending them. Digital archives have been embraced for their promise of openness and access to theorized knowledge, and they seem to offer possibilities for democratizing collections and expanding the digital cultural record. This is particularly the case as new open-source tools and technologies facilitate collaboration between archivists, librarians, museum workers, students, and community members. In direct contrast to the well-understood link between material platform archives and colonial power, digital platform archives are often heralded prematurely for their contributions to the historical and intellectual [59]. As digital humanities have gained traction over the last decade, the question of its geography has gained increasing attention. At stake in this matter is the following: who has control over world making in digital humanities, establishing the shape and boundaries of the global landscape of digital humanities, which in turn influences the practices that are integral to developing the digital cultural record. The Alliance of Digital Humanities Organizations (ADHO), the umbrella professional organization for the digital humanities, has positioned itself as an international body, but it has been overdetermined by the influence of scholars from the Global North namely, the United States [59]. Remaking the Global Worlds of Digital Humanities. 

While the global dimensions of digital humanities shape its practices, so too does the important task of introducing students to the transformative possibilities facilitated by digital humanities methods. This is not an easy endeavor, given its pedagogical and ethical challenges. At the confluence of digital humanities and postcolonial studies, however, there is great potential for engaging students in interpreting the intersection of power politics that shapes knowledge production and teaching them how to become critical producers of discourse, thereby preparing them to engage in the task of intervening in the digital and cultural record. Both postcolonial studies and digital humanities can be challenging to teach from this light [59].

Discussions on the positive values of knowledge theories in the humanities and literature are slim and those that are aligned to the digital technology are rare. Literature is ‘tacit’ (as opposed to explicit) knowledge of the humanities and functions not only to teach (that knowledge) but also to entertain, that is, to communicate knowledge in delightful ways. Besides, the determinism of power in Postcolonial Digital Humanities, digital praxis is a highly structured metanarrative of imperial capitalism, the Internet, ICTs and platforms. The strength of the signified of technology transcodes into weaknesses in the context of knowledge of the humanities and discourses because of issues such as definitional inadequacies, uncertainties about the value and meaning of data stored, as well as ‘freezing’ and ‘fossilization’ of knowledge in website archives without any particular programmatic outcomes to their exploitation, any more than in the colonial past when print technology was invented, and the writing system was deployed very inefficiently for the same purpose of archiving content in libraries and with the same effects [72]. 

The crisis in digital archiving praxis started centuries ago with crisis in the print technology in terms of its inability to claim signification of critical theory or knowledge. When William Caxton introduced the print technology in the late 1470s in England, the intention was to bring ideas efficiently to new, subaltern readerships [70]; however, the print medium plunged into a crisis of power because it impacted in very limited ways by concentrating the literary culture of knowledge around a restricted group of well-established men at the English royal court such as Bacon, Marlowe, Wyatt, Raleigh, Shakespeare, Surrey, Spenser and Sidney. The writing tradition could not ‘reach’ the ordinary masses in order to emancipate them and this created a class and social divide. In today’s neo-imperial era, the digital media are being put out again and are in a crisis already because they are at the service of only a few corporate establishments with platforms and websites, like Facebook, Google, Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn, etc, as well as the elites of educated intelligentsia groups, university research institutions, etc, where projects, teaching and scholarship generate and emphasize profit, hence capital, to the detriment of humanistic benefits that could have come to the ordinary public and masses, and this has resulted to what is now called the ‘digital divide’ particularly in nation states of the developing world. Just like the print media, the digital technology has potential to assist humanists to answer new questions that they are already invested in; however, the power of this technology of capitalist imperialism to transcode the sphere of the humanities into an emancipative narrative is now in the sphere of the Derridean difference, a site of deferment and impasse.

This new imperial technology, which is a signified metanarrative based on rationalization of praxis is now uncoupling from the signifiers of knowledge theory and production in the humanities and discourse and generating a Foucauldian power/knowledge dynamic that is alienating and compromising its long-term sustainability. Although the archival platform is open to, for example, medieval English poetry, annotated on the website www.Genius.com in order to protect skills of ‘close reading’, and digital-mapping projects of knowledge are being utilized to increase students’ comprehension of the complexities of segregation and racism, the staging of the power/knowledge dialectics in the field is represented more as a new institutionalist and capitalist investment than as a humanistic and discursive project. In addition, this investment in virtual technology itself is often equated with a new form of knowledge [59]. The institutionalization of investments in ICTs (e-commerce platform, Internet, digital channels and websites) is only related to the potential to document knowledge theory; yet, this signified of digital capital is often made to appear as though it has the power to replace the signifiers of knowledge theory in the humanities. But this eventuality is deferred because one can be in full possession of the praxis of ICTs, e-commerce platforms, Internet and websites without assimilating the contours of knowledge theory in the humanities and literary discourse. For example, universities and colleges are co-opting digitized teaching and research but for the wrong purposes. It is therefore worrying that the digital humanities are creating a framework for lucrative tech deals in classrooms by promising a vast automation of teaching. Higher education researchers are deploying digital techniques in their disciplines as a category ‘mistake’ because the challenge with lucrative tech deals is the lucre and not the tech. So, in the formulation: ‘the digital humanities’, the impression given is that the new imperial investment of capital encapsulated in ICTs, platforms, Internet and websites can be equated with generation of a new form of knowledge by itself, which is and cannot be the case. The signified of ICTs, Internet and e-commerce platform archives, with their coda in technology, is not necessarily the same thing as the signifiers of theory in the humanities and literary discourse. However, although the field of digital humanities is being signified as a practice of corporatist restructuring of the humanities in universities and schools in such a way as to transcode higher education into an intellectual movement of the e-learning knowledge economy, it is also being deconstructed as an objectionable form of academic politics that is suspect as a social movement with capitalist undertones determined to redefine the human civilization of the future along the tenets of the neoliberal ideology of the free market capitalism. In this way, there is a marked contrast between ‘the digital humanities’ with emphasis on prowess of technology and ‘the digital humanities’ with emphasis on traditional forms of painstaking erudition, research and individual scholarship prioritizing the generation of theoretical knowledge forms with less immediate profit or economic application for benefits.

On the other hand, the determinism of theory in the humanities and discourse (the ‘humanities’ for short) is also in a deep crisis. For example, the humanities played a major role in the ‘toxification’ of institutional politics in nation states and in international diplomacy when, in the Nineteenth and early Twentieth centuries, they were practiced chiefly by Middle-class, wealthy, European men, who provided the intellectual justification and rationale for capitalist projects like the slave trade, colonial rule, internationalism and globalization. Even today, the outcomes of mismanaged capitalist projects such as the First and Second World Wars, nationalist genocides against Muslims and minorities in Eastern Europe and elsewhere, etc., are justified in humanities terms like nationalist, fascist, (post)Hitlerian Europe (e.g. the superiority of the Aryan race), apartheid in South Africa (white superiority over black people), civil war in 1994 Rwanda (e.g. calls for elimination of Hutu ‘cockroaches’ and cutting down of Tutsi ‘tall trees’ in Radio ‘Mille Collines’), ethnic and religious breakups in Yugoslavia, Boko Haram and ISIS in Africa and elsewhere (based on purification of space), corruption in Africa and other nation states around the world (e.g. proverbialized by the saying that when one’s ethnic brother is on a plum tree, he has to receive the ripest/darkest fruits), and so forth. So, the determinism of the humanities has also been undergoing a crisis leading to a cultural, nationalistic impasse with long term prospects of a possible civilizational shutdown. The privileging of narratives of knowledge such as philology in the early Twentieth century also characterized the ephemerality of the humanities. 

After the epoch of the May 1968 student riots in France, the humanities emerged triumphantly in the form of a cultural criticism that had lost its edge in the past. Following from that movement, in the 1970s and 1980s, a Zeitgeist manifest by cyber-libertarianism emerged in combination with activities of social-justice concerns. For example, the Association named as Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR), which went operational in the US Silicon Valley area in 1981 articulated preoccupations about the military deployment of computer systems, and subsequently, these concerns were extended to incorporate other social justice concerns connected to the computer. In the 1990s, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) championed the call for digital rights for the benefit of the public interest. But curiously enough, during these years in which a plethora of net critics, provocateur artists, hacktivists, poststructuralist theorists, post-1960s media theorists, tactical media theorists and political critics went into full action, the digital humanities (i.e. ‘humanities computing’ as it was known then) failed to show any interest and were indeed ‘missing in action’ on the scene of critical culture [40]. While digital humanists were developing various instruments, tools, data, and metadata and discussing questions about the use of computers for truth finding in the humanities, how to order the hierarchy of content objects, ‘deformance’ issues, etc, no attempt was made to expand their discussions to integrate issues in the register of culture, society, politics, history, law, anthropology or the economy [68]. In digital humanities associations, journals, conferences, projects, etc, there is no interest shown in how the digital humanities are channeling, advancing, resisting or otherwise the neoliberal, postindustrial, corporate, and globalization flows of capital as ideological signifiers (information-cum-capitalism): consequently, emerging questions such as the ‘digital divide’, privacy, copyright, surveillance, digital labour, mistrust of information, defamation, hate speech, fake news, and so forth are swept under the carpet of power whereas they expose the virtual technology to discourses of indetermination. 

Any review of Postcolonial digital humanities whether on the deterministic perspective of technology or the deterministic grounds of humanities and the literary is therefore very challenging indeed because both at the level of praxis and of theory, one has to emerge with an equilibrated techno-politically acceptable history of this trans-disciplinary field of studies. Today, the real anxiety over postcolonial digital humanities also resides in the crisis of the humanities itself in universities. This crisis is reinforced by the fact that the Twenty first century University and society have restructured themselves on the model of capital that the corporate world of neoliberalism imposed. As a result, the way institutional energies were being managed in the humanities during the Nineteenth and early Twentieth centuries can be considered now as ‘obsolete’ when compared with the contemporary deanification, adjectivization and corporatization of universities and with the current projectification of everything in society. So, when universities adopt digital scholarship, and society witnesses a ‘digital divide’, humanists do not take it as a new cross-disciplinary field, but rather as an existential threat to their specialty.

The determinism in the praxis/theory divides which marks the field of Postcolonial Digital Humanities is not necessarily an epistemological problematic, because the pragmaticism of academic institutions and the knowledge they pursue have always stood in a symbiotic but incommensurate relationship in history. One may know the world differently (through digital technology, for example) but this does not, in itself, change the world. One may generate knowledge with value even in appalling institutional circumstances; but, as well, it does not become ‘knowledge’ until it is exposed to the world through communicative technology. This then raises the content/form dialectical issue.

There is also a deep tension in the digital humanities ‘betrayed’ by some of its commitments to Leftist politics and poststructuralist theories of power/knowledge. One of the challenges is for the megacorporations to endorse the kind of intellectual work that is valued for imagining and obtaining a better world, and to even facilitate that work. The digital humanities are considered as a field that is ruining the representation of knowledge by deploying chiefly quantitative methods [46] which are against the methods that humanists value such as qualitative interpretation in literature, critique, the slow and close reading of texts, re-reading, thinking against the grain or against prevailing norms and the scholarship that is openly critical of existing social relations. Critique itself of meaning, and therefore, of theory and/or language and literature, is the reason why the humanities exist. From this epistemological light, digital technology cannot be signified as ‘knowledge in the humanities’ but rather as ‘power in the service of the humanities’, just as print technology could not absorb orality so that the two become indistinguishable. There is evidence that orature is being disputed because ‘writing’ and ‘orality’ cannot share the ‘same bed’ comfortably; besides, Ngugi wa Thiongo’o has drawn our attention to this issue sufficiently enough [6]; so, it is unnecessary to dwell much on that point. 

Consequently, the absence of cultural criticism within the digital humanities has become a major obstacle for it to become a full partner of the humanities. From the literary perspective, the intrinsic method which proximates the digital humanities to ‘close reading’ and alienates ‘distant reading’ associated with the post–May 1968 cultural criticism, had its antecedent in literary history [24]. During the Nineteenth-century, which was marked by the broad-based religious, philosophical, moral, historicist, and philological reading, the culling of documents from archives to synthesize a Geist (“spirit”) of the times, was marked by a resistance of Western peoples, nations, and languages, because they felt that they were haunted by the prospect of the Other, ‘darker’ people’s identities repeating the French revolutionary mob narrative. As a result, ‘close reading’ came into dominance with the New Criticism scholarship that battled against the prior age of cultural criticism with its own methods of ‘distant reading’. New Criticism scholars managed to displace this historismus, while at the same time urging an equivalent project of modernization reclamation based on unfalsifiability, self-reflexion, self-containment and ahistoricism. By rejecting historismus and the intellectual practice of Geistesgeschicte, and adopting the scientific discourse related to mass media information, New Criticism ended up defending the sensitivity of the human being as rooted in an organic culture [32]. Consequently, literary scholarship could not really turn its attention to cultural texts beyond the traditional readings of literature as theorized and practised in New Criticism scholarship. 

The month of May 1968 marked the era of homecoming of the ‘repressed’ beyond the modernism of New Criticism, namely, a poststructuralist gush in the postmodernist, post Marxist and post colonialist turn that identified the human being as a systemic as well as a collective existence. With this flourishing of discursivity theories of culture, a new decentralized ideology of the human existence emerged marked by what has been referred to as wolf packs, Mongol hordes, and schizos, that is, by forces completely alienated from the Nineteenth-century Geist, as theorized by Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari [18, 21]. Humanity’s existence became epistemic, identity-group based (racial, ethnic and gendered), structural and class oriiented. Distant reading became the cultural and critical method for this revolution that extended to earlier than May 1968 as pointed out. Franco Moretti and Matthew Jockers captured this spirit of distant reading by drawing from Marxist literary sociology with Georg Lukács’s method of the mode, Braudelian historiography of the Annales, genre theory and New Criticism, and started the Stanford Literary Lab on quantitative stylistics research [46]. This was one of the most important contexts that benchmarked introduction of the field of the digital humanities. This signified a symbolic moment when the digital humanities became a practising partner of distant reading. 

However, this moment spotlights the fact that digital humanities practice started to emerge at a destabilizing moment of the post-May 1968 epoch when New Criticism and postmodern critical methods après 1968 positioned themselves in readiness for a ‘cold war’. The Generation of 1968, to which cultural critics belonged, stood again on the high ground of ‘theory’. New Criticism continued to ground itself in pedagogy and close reading practices, while deconstruction, new historicism, and microhistory of anecdotes emerged outside this disciplinary boundary. The expectation was that the digital humanities would constitute a ‘demilitarized zone’ between close reading and distant or culturally-critical reading. In a sense, the digital humanities have attempted to break this ‘cold war’ détente through methods, programmes and metadata schema, but not through a practice that is reminiscent of tacit, close reading methodologies. For example, Moretti and his laboratory collaborators explore what is referred to as ‘the great unread’ of huge volumes of literature thanks to data mining, text analysis, pattern recognition, topic modeling, and visualization methods; however, the difference is that these methods are practiced at the beginning and not simply at the theoretical or interpretative end of literary study [3]. So, the contrast between the digital humanities and close reading was so bare that it was transforming the conception of what was referred to as a ‘text’. The ‘text’ was no longer the New Critical novel, play or poem, but rather the corpus, archive, network, etc. Even quotations dropped out of perception because the focus was now on features of micro-level linguistics like word frequencies that were prioritized over macro-level realities like nationalities and genres of plays. Hypertext theorists, inspired by Roland Barthes, used ‘lexia’ or modular chunks in larger networks [28]. The data visualizations of large text patterns created by Moretti [56] and Jockers, replaced block quotations. Consequently, one could now ‘close read’ diagrams and graphs with same cognitive weight and even visual size on a page as block quotations with a different mode of “meaningfulness” of the visualizations. So, what was emphasized was the breadth of the field rather than its emplacement or depth.

But, in all of these projects, the picture of the digital humanists was missing in terms of critical thinking about metadata, power, finance, and other governance protocols. The digital humanities were playing a ‘servant’ role in the humanities instead of a ‘leadership role’ by advocacy for the humanities and through commitment to cultural criticism. The challenge was not just to add cultural criticism in the mode of followers but rather to become full partners by adopting a leadership role with the requisite competencies. The service function of the digital humanities which consists in running the servers was not able to go beyond facilitating research in the academy. 

With the commencement of the Great Recession of 2007 that caused universities and governments to squeeze funding for the arts and humanities in favour of the STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) disciplines, postindustrial and neoliberal corporate trends, dominated by the ideology of shifting knowledge value away from the academy and the arts and humanities that depend on public funding, the humanities in universities were now in peril of systematic de-funding. In addition, there was a continuous breakdown in the ability of universities to communicate with the public followed by a decline of the university ‘public intellectual’ in the Twentieth century and the rise of the thought leader or motivational, entrepreneurial speaker. Web 2.0 changed the idea of efficient public communication by transforming the relationship between ‘experts’ and the public, which used to take value from expertise reports and responded with fee payments, voting in institutions, and so forth in order to encourage the expert professions, consultancies and their institutions. With Wikipedia, which is a networked public creating its own groups of expertise via refereeing, governance, credentialing, and so on, the academia was now facing huge challenges to adapt to the institutional practices, protocols and technologies capable of negotiating new forms of knowledge between expert and the public. For example,’ peer review’ is now in high competition with ‘crowdsourcing’ while the humanities are facing a communicational impasse of expertise. Although the general public desires expert knowledge from STEM disciplines, they have less patience for focused knowledge in the humanities, and this is often left in the hands of the autodidact. So, at a time when the humanities need to communicate their idea of humanity and value to the public, the digital humanities are not helping to ease this process. The leadership role expected of the digital humanities in alliance with social scientists, social activists, etc, is not materializing in terms of innovative deployment of new media and advocacy through, for example, Open Journal Systems, the Public Knowledge Project, reading tools, search and aggregation tools, Simile Exhibit and Timeline widgets capable of generating poster, brochure, video, and other high-impact knowledge forms that can impact on and change public consciousness.

Beyond the instrumental role, the Digital humanities field has failed to expand the very notion of humanities, thereby creating a field that is too instrumentalized, dominated by mainly technological preoccupations of execution and a focus on technological orthodoxy and standards with the absence of the spirit of innovation and the ethos of building [55]. This dichotomous apportioning of roles, namely, the one on instrumentality and rationality of technology and the other on provision of critical skills necessary for life and work, needs to change because the humanities are presented as though they were non-instrumental and almost useless. In the post-May 1968 epoch, the humanities were presented reductively as being only interpretive, skeptical, politically marginal, reflective, or nihilistic and therefore as being un-realpolitik [57].

Contemporary society is uncomfortable with technological determination for its own sake, and its instrumentalization, as against a Kulturgeschichte (cultural history or history of civilization) where man is confronted with the forces of determination and free will stemming from psychological, historical, natural and social contexts and the will to be Geist or whole from a Humanistic viewpoint, Thus, beyond the service industries, and corporate culture, there is the free spirit of innovation and laissez-faire entrepreneurship; beyond tools, paradigms, and ideas about digital technologies, there is the need to rethink the notion of instrumentality, to critically rethink metadata, SEO, as well as power, finance and marketing strategies, and other governance protocols of the technology. There is a need to rethink instrumentality as a whole because, whether in text encoding, text analysis, pattern discovery in the humanities, e-commerce marketplaces, ICT for development, online platforms for politics, e-dating channels, the creation of digital archives in e-learning or in platforms for entertainment and games, it is the narrowly technological and purposive that reigns. The ideal of service to Humanity requires incorporating of the cultural, entering into fuller dialogue with the archaeologies of other fields to expand the instrumentalization of the technologies in new culturally and historically sustainable directions and promote dialogue with their tacit meanings that can enrich the discussion of tools, building, and instrumentality through new understandings of the way researchers, technicians, processes, communication media, and literal instruments come together in what Andrew Pickering calls the “mangle of practice” that is inextricably linked to society and culture [54]. Bruno Latour, for example, is canonical in his assumptions when he stresses upon the history of changing ideals of “objectivity” through his “actor-network theory, that is, his melding of the notions of machine instrumentality and human agency. Postcolonial digital humanities should not embrace interstitially and the hypertext as a methodology of productivity.

The production of knowledge was conceived as ‘scientific’ and therefore as disinterested and universal in knowledge economy discourse. But this is inaccurate: this type of knowledge was envisioned as facilitating technical decision-making. This was a form of knowledge that was based on instrumentation and calculation, whereas ideology is expressive and emotional. The technological form of knowledge had to be ‘administered’, unlike ideology that cannot be ‘managed’. Although the ‘scientific’ and ‘management’ elements of this knowledge are currently prioritized, critical theorists like Barthes, Adorno and Horkheimer perceived ‘technological knowledge’ in itself as being ‘ideological’ in the extreme and as an exemplification of myth at the critical level. This kind of knowledge form was envisaged as denying any relationship to the human interest and its claim to corresponding to reality as absolute. From this light, simply showing how ideas originated and evolved, minimizes their claim to naturalization of self-evident truth. 

Over the last decade, it has been accepted by many commentators [15] that the economy is moving into a new phase of development based particularly on knowledge production and consumption. And although the 'knowledge-based economy (KBE) thesis' may have been overstated, it is difficult to deny that important changes have been occurring in the ways that economies work, and that these changes do indeed revolve in part around the creation, transfer and use of knowledge. Since the 1980s we have, for example, witnessed the expansion of ICT and the internet, and the emergence of knowledge-intensive business services, as well as a significant deepening of R&D inputs into manufacturing industry. Unfortunately, however, the KBE thesis is also associated with an excessive emphasis on the last of these changes on the role of science and technology in manufacturing an emphasis that has led to the neglect of other economically relevant forms of knowledge. Here we examine this emphasis and its consequences, and we suggest that policy research should be rebalanced to produce a more interesting and realistic assessment of the ways in which knowledge now contributes to economic development [15].

Critical thinking is very important in the new knowledge economy. The global knowledge economy is driven by information and technology. One has to be able to deal with changes quickly and effectively. The new economy places increasing demands on flexible intellectual skills, and the ability to analyse information and integrate diverse sources of knowledge in solving problems. Good critical thinking promotes such thinking skills, and is very important in the fast-changing workplace.

1. Ali, S. M. "A brief introduction to decolonial computing." XRDS: Crossroads, The ACM Magazine for Students, vol. 22, no. 4, 2016, pp. 16–21.

2. Finlayson, A. et al. Politics and post-structuralism: an introduction. Edinburgh University Press, 2002, p. 8.

3. Allison, Sarah et al. Quantitative formalism: an experiment. Stanford Literary Lab Pamphlet Series 1, Jan. 2011, http://litlab.stanford.edu/LiteraryLabPamphlet1.pdf.

4. Althusser, L. et al. Reading capital. Translated by Ben Brewster, NLB, 1970, p. 7.

5. Assiter, Alison. "Althusser and structuralism." British Journal of Sociology, vol. 35, no. 2, 1984, pp. 272–296, doi: 10.2307/590235.

6. Balogun, Fidelis Odun. Ngugi and African post-colonial narrative: the novel as oral narrative in multi-genre performance. vol. 1, World Heritage Press, 1997.

7. Barry, P. "Structuralism." Beginning theory: an introduction to literary and cultural theory., Manchester University Press, 2002, pp. 39–60.

8. Belsey, Catherine. "Literature, history, politics." Literature and History, vol. 9, 1983, pp. 17–27.

9. Blackburn, Simon. Oxford dictionary of philosophy. 2nd ed., revised, Oxford University Press, 2008, p. 353.

10. Blum, Hester, editor. Turns of event: nineteenth-century American literary studies in motion. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2016.

11. Calhoun, Craig. Critical social theory. Blackwell, 1995.

12. Cassarino, Jean-Pierre. "Theorising return migration: the conceptual approach to return migrants revisited." International Journal on Multicultural Societies, vol. 6, no. 2, UNESCO, Paris, 2004, pp. 253–279.

13. Castoriadis, Cornelius. The imaginary institution of society. Translated from L'institution imaginaire de la société, Polity Press, 1987, pp. 116–117.

14. Caswell, Michelle, and Samip Mallick. "Collecting the easily missed stories: digital participatory microhistory and the South Asian American Digital Archive." Archives and Manuscripts, vol. 42, no. 1, 2014, pp. 73–86.

15. Collinge, Chris, and Adreene Staines. "Rethinking the knowledge-based economy." Built Environment, vol. 35, no. 2, 2009, pp. 165–172.

16. Deleuze, Gilles. "How do we recognise structuralism?" In Desert Islands and Other Texts 1953–1974., Translated by David Lapoujade, ed., 2002.

17. Dosse, François. History of structuralism: volume 1: the rising sign, 1945–1966. University of Minnesota Press, 1997, p. 24.

18. Duarte, German A. "Gilles Deleuze’s ideas on non-Euclidean narrative: a step towards fractal narrative." Rhizomes: Cultural Studies in Emerging Knowledge, no. 23, 2012.

19. Slavutin, Evgeny, and Vladimir Pimonov. Plot structure. Flinta - Nauka, 2018.

20. Flanders, Julia. "The productive unease of 21st-century digital scholarship." Digital Humanities Quarterly, vol. 3, no. 3, 2009, http:// digitalhumanities. org/ dhq/ vol/ 3/ 3/ 000055/ 000055.html.

21. Fuller, Matthew, and Roger F. Malina. Media ecologies: materialist energies in art and technoculture. MIT Press, 2005.

22. Giddens, Anthony. New Rules of Sociological Method: A Positive Critique of Interpretative Sociologies. Stanford University Press, 1993, p. 121.

23. Habermas, Jürgen. The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity. Translated from Der Philosophische Diskurs der Moderne, MIT Press, 1990, p. 276.

24. Hayles, Katherine. "How we read: close, hyper, machine." ADE Bulletin, no. 150, 2010, accessed 20 Nov. 2020, http://nkhayles.com/how_we_read.html.

25. Held, David. Introduction to Critical Theory. University of California Press, 1980.

26. Holland, Norman N. The Critical I. Columbia University Press, 1992, p. 140.

27. Kuper, Adam. Anthropologists and Anthropology: The British School 1922–72. Penguin, 1973, p. 206.

28. Landow, George P. Hypertext: The Convergence of Contemporary Critical Theory and Technology. Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992.

29. Latour, Bruno. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford University Press, 2005.

30. Lévi-Strauss, Claude. Totemism. Translated by R. Needham, Beacon, 1963.

31. "Where is cultural criticism in the digital humanities?" Lecture presented in truncated form, The History and Future of the Digital Humanities Panel, MLA Annual Convention, Los Angeles, 7 Jan. 2011.

32. Liu, Alan. "Close, distant, and unexpected reading: new forms of literary reading in the digital age." Lecture, HUMlab, Umeå University, Sweden, 10 May 2011, http://blog.humlab.umu.se/?p.3366.

33. Local Transcendence: Essays on Postmodern Historicism and the Database. University of Chicago Press, 2009.

34. Lukács, Georg. The Theory of the Novel: A Historico-Philosophical Essay on the Forms of Great Epic Literature. Translated by Anna Bostock, MIT Press, 1971.

35. Macey, David. The Penguin Dictionary of Critical Theory. Penguin, 2001.

36. Mambrol, Nasrullah. "Structuralism – literary theory and criticism." Literariness.org, 20 Mar. 2016, https://literariness.org/2016/03/20/structuralism.

37. Marshall, J. D., editor. Poststructuralism, Philosophy, Pedagogy. Springer, 2004, p. xviii.

38. McCarty, Willard. "In denial?" Humanist listserv, vol. 24, no. 905, 25 Apr. 2011, http:// lists. digitalhumanities. org/ pipermail/ humanist/2011-April/002122.html.

39. "Industrialisation of the digital humanities?" Humanist listserv, vol. 24, no. 422, 21 Oct. 2010, http:// lists. digitalhumanities. org/ pipermail/ humanist/ 2010-October/001644.html.

40. McGann, Jerome J. A Critique of Modern Textual Criticism. University of Chicago Press, 1983.

41. "The rationale of hypertext." Radiant Textuality: Literature After the World Wide Web, Palgrave, 2001, pp. 53–74.

42. AFJO "Rethinking textuality." Radiant Textuality: Literature After the World Wide Web, Palgrave, 2001, pp. 137–160.

43. McKenzie, D. F. Bibliography and the Sociology of Texts. Cambridge University Press, 1999.

44. Merritt, Shiloh, and Shaowen Bardzell. "Postcolonial language and culture theory for HCI4D." CHI'11 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2011, pp. 1675–1680.

45. Michel, Jean-Baptiste et al. "Quantitative analysis of culture using millions of digitized books." Science, vol. 331, no. 6014, 14 Jan. 2011, pp. 176–182, http:// www. sciencemag. org/content/331/6014/176.

46. Moretti, Franco. Graphs, Maps, Trees: Abstract Models for a Literary History. Verso, 2005.

47. Murray, Soraya. "The work of postcolonial game studies in the play of culture." Open Library of Humanities, vol. 4, no. 1, 2018, p. 13.

48. Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o. Writers in Politics: Essays. East African Publishers, 1981.

49. Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o. Something Torn and New: An African Renaissance. Basic Civitas Books, 2009.

50. Nöth, Winfried. Handbook of Semiotics. Indiana University Press, 1995, p. 312.

51. Payne, Michael, editor. A Dictionary of Cultural and Critical Theory. Blackwell, 1997, p. 118.

52. Pettit, Philip. The Concept of Structuralism: A Critical Analysis. University of California Press, 1975, p. 117.

53. Piaget, Jean. Le Structuralisme. PUF, 1968.

54. Pickering, Andrew. The Mangle of Practice: Time, Agency, and Science. University of Chicago Press, 2010.

55. Ramsay, Stephen. "On building." Stephen Ramsay Personal Website, 11 Jan. 2011, http:// lenz. unl. edu/ papers/ 2011/ 01/ 11/ on-building.html.

56. "Who’s in and who’s out." Lecture, The History and Future of the Digital Humanities Panel, MLA Annual Convention, Los Angeles, 7 Jan. 2011.

57. Reid, Alex. "Alan Liu, cultural criticism, the digital humanities, and problem solving?" Digital Digs (personal blog), 17 Jan. 2011, http:// www. alex- reid. net/ 2011/ 01/ alan- liu- cultural- criticism- and- the – digital - humanities.html.

58. Ricœur, Paul. The Conflict of Interpretations: Essays in Hermeneutics. Translated from Le conflit des interprétations: Essais d’herméneutique, Continuum, 2004, pp. 49, 78ff.

59. Risam, Roopika. "Postcolonial digital pedagogy." In New Digital Worlds: Postcolonial Digital Humanities in Theory, Praxis, and Pedagogy, Northwestern University Press, 2019, pp. 89–114, http:// www. jstor. org/ stable/ j. ctv7tq4hg. 8.

60. "Remaking the global worlds of digital humanities." In New Digital Worlds: Postcolonial Digital Humanities in Theory, Praxis, and Pedagogy, Northwestern University Press, 2019, pp. 65–88, http:// www. jstor. org/ stable/ j. ctv7tq4hg. 7.

61. "Breaking and building: the case of postcolonial." In The Postcolonial World, edited by Jyotsna G. Singh and David D. Kim, Taylor & Francis, 2016, pp. 345–364.

62. "Colonial violence and the postcolonial digital archive." In New Digital Worlds: Postcolonial Digital Humanities in Theory, Praxis, and Pedagogy, Northwestern University Press, 2019, pp. 47–64, http:// www. jstor. org/ stable/ j. ctv7tq4hg. 6.

63. BMNB "The stakes of postcolonial digital humanities." In New Digital Worlds: Postcolonial Digital Humanities in Theory, Praxis, and Pedagogy, Northwestern University Press, 2019, pp. 23–46, http:// www. jstor. org/ stable/ j. ctv7tq4hg. 5.

64. Rush, Fred. "Conceptual foundations of early critical theory." In The Cambridge Companion to Critical Theory, Cambridge University Press, 2004, pp. 6–39.

65. Selden, Raman et al. A Reader's Guide to Contemporary Literary Theory. 5th ed., Harlow, 2005, p. 76.

66. Sturrock, John, editor. Structuralism and Since: From Lévi-Strauss to Derrida. vol. 71, Oxford University Press, 1979.

67. de Saussure, Ferdinand. Cours de Linguistique Générale. Edited by C. Bally and A. Sechehaye, Payot, 1916.

68. Schreibman, Susan. "Computer-mediated texts and textuality: theory and practice." Computers and the Humanities, vol. 36, no. 3, 2002, pp. 283–293.

69. Taormina, Michael. Semiotext(e) Foreign Agents Series. Semiotext(e), 2004, pp. 170–192, ISBN 1-58435-018-0.

70. Tonry, Kathleen Ann. William Caxton and the Labor of Literature in Fifteenth-Century England. University of Notre Dame, 2005.

71. Baskin, Wade. Course in General Linguistics. Philosophical Library, 1959.

72. Weiskott, Eric. "There is no such thing as ‘the digital humanities.’" Chronicle of Higher Education, 2017, http://www.chronicle.com/article/The-Long-Last-Miles-to-College/241399.

73. Wiggershaus, Rolf. The Frankfurt School: Its History, Theories, and Political Significance. MIT Press, 1994.