Risam and Gil, in their paper The Question of Minimal computing of 2022, declare that the minimal computing approach is “platform- and software- agnostic” and that “the decisions we make when designing digital humanities project […] are not inherently virtuous (or lacking virtue)” (Risam, Gil, 2022) . Their reason for claiming so is that minimal computing is an approach that intends to encourage DHers to embrace the constraints of the context in which they are developing the project to make their work sustainable. My thesis here is that, as of today, there is (at least) one factor that characterizes all the possible contexts where projects might be developed: the environmental crisis we all live in. I also believe that there is therefore one aspect that should constrain every project, that is the environmental impact the project might have.
I am aware of the many pressing issues that surround Digital Humanity, such as accessibility and the empowering of historically silenced communities, but I believe the environmental factor should be taken into account in any project (or, better, in every act we perform in the world), because it is an issue our own existence depends on. Of course I am not implying that it should be the main concern of every single project, but rather that it should always be taken into account at least to some extent, and that the answer to the question “what do we have?” in minimal computing should always entail a “a planet whose resources we are destroying with an unsustainable pace of growth” part.
Despite the universality of the presence of this constraint, which I am still convinced of, I do agree with the authors of the paper that all contexts are different, and I believe this should be reflected in the measure in which scholars developing DH projects are concerned with the environmental issue: in contexts where financial and political constraints are stronger, for example, the answer to “what must we prioritize?” might already be long and complicated, and therefore the ecological aspect might not be the priority (but, again, it should still appear as an answer to the other previously mentioned question). On the other hand, in contexts where there are only few other constraints, that is where a minimal computing approach is a choice rather than the only possible one, scholars should regard the reduction of the projects’ environmental impact as their first priority.
I am obviously aware that DH projects contribute to the destruction of the environment in a proportionally small amount if compared with the extensive development and use of new technologies (e.g. LLMs ) by big companies, and it is self-evident that the impact of DH scholars using a minimal computing approach won’t change the planet’s destiny; but I also believe that, like Alexander Dunst says, to be coherent with the humanistic part of the discipline’s name DH should have a critical stand on most matters and be concerned with social and political issues (Dunst 2016), that is also taking into account the consequences of actions, imagining and trying to suggest and embrace alternative approaches like minimal computing.
Dunst, Alexander. “Digital American Studies: An Introduction and Rationale.” Amerikastudien / American Studies, vol. 61, no. 3, 2016, pp. 381–95. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44982297. Accessed 12 Oct. 2026.
Risam, Roopika, and Alex Gil. “Introduction: The questions of minimal computing.” Digital Humanities Quarterly, vol. 16, no. 2, 25 June 2022, https://doi.org/10.63744/b49fzhuz9hhz. Accessed 12 Oct. 2026