From Golumbia’s The Cultural Logic of Computation (2009): 

I argue that we must also keep in mind the possibility of de-emphasizing computerization, resisting the intrusion of computational paradigms into every part of the social structure, and resisting too strong a focus on computationalism as the solution to our social problems. This study is written in the belief that computationalism aids some of the pernicious effects of institutional power; and that the best solutions to our pressing social problems lie in the social fabric itself and in social action, and less than we may imagine via computational transformation. (5)

From Golumbia’s “‘Communication,’ ‘Critical’” (2013):

It is not just the job but the responsibility of scholars of media to subject the entire range of their practice to the most general forms of critique and the most comprehensive forms of understanding, constantly correcting for biases and hidden assumptions. In many ways, despite the proliferation of communicative modalities, our age is less the age of critique than was Kant’s, a tendency that has become even more pronounced in the recent enthusiasm for digital media. We would do well to work harder to combat that tendency and to show our subjects and our students the respect demonstrated by letting all aspects of our practice invite critical thought. (252)

--

Dedicated to the memory of digital studies scholar David Golumbia, this special issue of b2o: An Online Journal invites scholars and writers from a variety of disciplines to examine and reflect on the subject of “critique as care” in contemporary digital culture. We engage the ethos of “critique as care” as a framework to hold space for simultaneity and contradiction. We conceptualize critique as the application of critical theory and the developments made by scholars working in its tradition to explore all facets of a phenomena, particularly those in digital culture that have been misunderstood or presented as being somehow distinct from previous forms. We conceptualize care in the spirit of disability justice scholars such as Leah Lakshmi Piepzna-Samarasinha and Eli Clare, defining care as expansive webs of interdependence that center collective liberation while defying the rigidity of perfectionism and solutionism. Following David’s distrust of computationalism’s capacity to (re)solve, embracing critique takes shape as navigating muddied boundaries and seemingly oppositional ideas within structures of interconnectivity and subversive imperfection – without clear endings, punctuation, and tidy solutions. We’re interested in the consideration of divergent sensibilities that do not foreclose the opportunity to take firm positions, while interrogating both uncritical acceptance of and resistance to the polemical. Critique as care subverts spaces of neutrality and neoliberal diplomacy, while refusing inflexible commitments to disciplinary boundaries. We accept a porousness of theoretical questioning, exploring spaces between binaries – life and death / forward and backward / light and dark / right and wrong – without disavowing stance or the capacity to be reflexive in firm positions. Some inquiries we’re considering while rooted in a critique as care framework: What ethical questions arise with the spread of A.I. and A.R.? How is the online death care industry transforming or monetizing the '‘informational bodies’ of the sick or dead, which in turn is to be seen as a violation of the principle of human dignity” (Öhman, Floridi 2017)? How can a critical perspective on the intersection of technology, politics, and identity shape or radically reconfigure the boundaries of online/offlines spaces?

Material may take the form of scholarly essays (approximately 5,000-7,000 words), brief response pieces (2,000 word minimum), and/or multimedia works that take advantage of the affordances of online publication. For examples of creative works see Video Essay: All That Is Solid Melts Into Data(Ryan S. Jeffery and Boaz Levin),Res Nulla Loquitur: A Multimedia Essay in Seven Parts(Sora Han), ENTER_FACE(Ryan S. Jeffery), and Naked Painting (On the Work of Becky Kolsrud) (Arne De Boever).

Topics for this issue might include:

• Electronic colonialism and the geopolitics of digital media

• Representations of death, memory, memorialization, and health care in digital media

• Representations of gender, race, and (sub)culture in digital media

• Critical analysis of online communities and their platforms

• Ethics of A.I. development and its implementation

• Posthumanism, transhumanism, and representations of the body, embodiment, disembodiment

• Conspiracy theory and/or extremist communities and forums

• Surveillance culture/technology, privacy, and data ethics

• Digital activism/hacktivism, intersectionality and inclusivity in digital spaces

• COVID-19 and the media

• Internet/Web histories

• Contemporary art/artists that engage with digital culture, either in its making or its critique of these systems, applications, etc. ex. Subversive hacktivist art, games, glitch, bots, etc.

Submission Directions

Please send abstracts of no more than 300 words and a brief biographical statement of no more than 75 words to Norberto Gomez Jr. at norberto.gomez@montgomerycollege.edu.

• Deadline for abstracts: September 30, 2024*

• Deadline for completed drafts: December 1, 2024

• Anticipated date to return comments to author: 6 weeks

• Anticipated publication date: March 17, 2025*

*We will continue accepting abstracts and publishing pieces on a rolling basis following these dates.

IMPORTANT NOTE

Because of the controversial topics and the dangers associated with speaking out about them in public, contributors to this special issue of b2o: An Online Journal are welcome to publish pseudonymously or anonymously, and will work with authors to provide proof of authorship for purposes of tenure and promotion and so on.