I struggled with the assigned content for this week’s readings. I didn’t struggle specifically due to the visceral nature of some of the content, which I chose to avoid, for the most part. Instead, I struggled for reasons we discussed during last week’s class, mostly regarding the idea(s) behind data collection itself. I am not opposed to the idea of collecting data and posting it publicly, whether online or elsewhere; however, I do have questions about the assumptions that are made about what it means to make data available.

One question I ask is, what does having data available do? We have an abundance of bigger and bigger data on phenomena, more and more archives on more and more atrocities, yet I do not see what is changing about our material conditions, prevailing economic systems, existing social relations, etc. While I am certainly not advocating for the erasure of all data, there is something about the idea that collecting/having more data is a net good, that irks me. For what purpose is it good? How is it good? Why do we presume that having images of Rwandan genocide, or Egyptian uprisings, or lynchings is a good thing? And, for instance, what material changes have come from the increasing numbers of videos of unarmed people being murdered by police?

I believe many people are at risk of (or have already fallen victim to) the essentialization of data, wherein the descriptive power of data (to the extent it exists in a given scenario) is understood to be the endpoint of the discussion on a particular “atrocious” topic. We “know,” therefore we have accomplished something. This completely omits the importance of prescription: what do we do with this information? How does it inform the way we understand the material and ideological forces shaping our reality? Is there a political line that the involved DHers have established they want to move society to? And is there a clearly-defined political program to get us there? I believe these questions often go unanswered, and the result is that the data exists, but is not then used to move people to action.

Perhaps most importantly (for me at least), all of this feels very after-the-fact—collecting data on atrocities like the Rwandan genocide or lynching in the Amerikan South necessarily means that the atrocity happened. I am much more interested in addressing why the atrocity happened. I want to know, what economic, political, social systems were in place to encourage, enable, or defend such terrible things? Further, I want to know what changes could have been made to prevent it from happening?

As I understand it, while there is certainly vital use in these data-collection projects to the extent they guard against nationalist narrative erasure (which a few of the articles speak to), they also do not necessarily subscribe to a particular political program. I’d want to know what others in this course think re: the potential compelling reasons for doing these post facto collections not for any other recognizable purpose beyond saying that a thing happened. The details are of course important, but I guess I just have a problem with the fact that these projects do not insist on saying what should be done, too. I think the result is very liberal (aka status-quoist).