In the wave of Digital Humanities (DH), we are accustomed to celebrating the growth of knowledge. Algorithms reveal patterns on an unprecedented scale, databases make vast archives accessible, and data visualization promises to transform complexity into intuitive insights. All of this points to an exciting prospect: knowing more and knowing more definitively. However, a more disruptive idea is emerging, challenging this "knowledge filling" paradigm, and suggesting that the most productive areas of digital humanities may not exist within the data we know, but rather in the vast "void" constituted by data absence, archival silence, and historical forgetfulness.
This perspective posits that the ultimate value of research should not merely be to fill in the gaps, but to explore the reasons for the formation of those gaps themselves. It requires us to redefine "not knowing" from a cognitive deficiency to be overcome into a positive, creative analytical starting point. This epistemological shift not only provides a new defense for the role of the humanities in the digital age but also points the way for the future practices of knowledge institutions such as libraries and archives.
Genealogy of Thought: From Deconstructing "Presence" to Exploring "Absence"#
This emphasis on the "void" is not a creation of the digital age but a profound response to the legacy of 20th-century critical theory. Its core logic stems from the deconstruction of "metaphysics of presence" in Western thought. Post-structuralist thinkers, such as Jacques Derrida, have long revealed that meaning does not originate from a stable, present entity, but is generated within a network of "absence" marked by difference, traces, and deferral.
When we apply this insight to historical research and digital archives, its disruptive nature becomes evident. The value of an archive lies not only in what it records but also in what it reveals through silence. For example, in early film historical materials, records of female editors or screenwriters are exceedingly rare. Traditional DH methods might strive to uncover forgotten individuals through data mining, which is undoubtedly an important form of "historical course correction." However, a deeper inquiry would ask: how did this systemic "absence" come about? What industry power structures, gender biases, and mechanisms of historical memory filtering does it reflect? Here, the vast "void" itself becomes a more grand and eloquent historical text than any single data point.
This line of thought also resonates with Michel Foucault's archaeology of knowledge. Foucault is concerned with delineating the discursive rules that define the boundaries of the "sayable" and the "unsayable." The "void" in digital humanities is precisely the realm of the "unsayable" in Foucault's sense. Analyzing this void means analyzing the power operations that exclude specific groups or practices from "knowledge." Thus, the focus of research shifts from "discovering facts" to "interrogating the conditions under which knowledge is formed."
Pathways of Practice: How to Transform the "Void" into Productivity?#
Translating this philosophical speculation into concrete practice requires systematic innovation in research methods, technical tools, and institutional philosophies.
First, it demands a shift in research paradigms. Researchers need to transition from "treasure hunters" to "detectives." The goal of the "treasure hunter" is to find definitive evidence, while the "detective" can read the most important clues from a scene of "nothingness." Research questions will shift from descriptive to interpretive and critical, from focusing on individuals to examining structures. For instance, contemporary scholar Saidiya Hartman, faced with the vast absences in the archives of slavery history, pioneered the method of "Critical Fabulation," engaging in theoretically grounded imaginative reconstruction based on limited historical materials to counteract the violence of the archives. This is a radical example of transforming "not knowing" into knowledge production.
Second, it calls for new design concepts for technologies and tools. Current DH tools are mostly aimed at optimizing the presentation and retrieval of information. Future tools should focus on visualizing "information absence." We can envision a "Counter-Database" or "Map of Silences," which, through algorithmic analysis of collection metadata, reveals not what we have, but the systematic biases in collections along specific dimensions (such as gender, ethnicity, geography). Such tools will transform the "void" into a dynamic research object, an interface that actively stimulates new questions. It will no longer merely be a "form of knowledge," but a "formalization of ignorance."
Finally, it presents a new mission for knowledge institutions such as libraries and archives. The role of these institutions will expand from being "guardians" of knowledge to "stimulators" of knowledge "possibilities." This means that, in addition to providing access, they must actively reveal the limitations of their collections and provide users with tools and contexts to explore these limitations. A digital academic service should not only provide data but also include a "critical guide" explaining data sources, potential biases, and significant gaps, thereby transforming users from passive consumers of information into critical participants in the knowledge production process.
Necessary Vigilance: Embracing the Risks and Balances of the Void#
Of course, elevating "not knowing" as a guiding principle is not without risks. The primary danger lies in potentially sliding into a nihilism that undermines empirical foundations. If we overly emphasize the unknowability of history, we may lose our position in the public sphere to defend facts and combat fallacies. Therefore, the exploration of the "void" must never replace rigorous empirical research, but must be built upon it as a solid foundation. It is a charge toward a higher level of understanding after we have exhausted the "knowable," not an excuse to evade factual verification.
Moreover, "speculation" and "fabulation" place high demands on researchers' theoretical literacy and self-reflective abilities, carrying the risk of being misused or devolving into a new round of academic elitism. At the same time, the current academic evaluation system, with its preference for "certain outcomes," may also hinder research that explores "uncertainty."
However, these risks highlight the importance of this epistemological shift. It compels us to reflect: within a humanistic framework, what is "knowledge"? What is "progress"? Perhaps the most enduring contribution of digital humanities to our era is not how many new answers it provides, but how it reveals the vast voids in our knowledge landscape with unprecedented clarity, empowering us with a new courage and methodology to confront, explore, and draw strength from it. Ultimately, seeking productivity in the void affirms the core value of the humanities: to maintain questioning in an uncertain world.
Reading Material#
The DH Dilemma: Knowing More & Knowing for Sure vs. Never Knowing At All