As you have quite correctly surmised, progress is contingent upon collaboration; hence, civility is (and will continue to be) a necessity. But I don’t see any reason why civil discourse should be the exclusive domain of method over theory. NPR talk show host Diane Rehm somehow manages to moderate a most civil discourse that is rooted in the subjective (hypothesis & opinion–”theory,” if you will), and I believe we can (must!) encourage the same in DH. Let’s work to keep DH “nice”!

As you note early on, the sort of collegiality and collaboration you see among DH practitioners emerges also from position of DH in the academy, and, more specifically it’s relationship to older, more established disciplines. This is something I’ve observed with composition and rhetoric, whose practitioners typically emerge from English and which is typically housed in English departments. DH is “nice” for the same reason that Composition and Rhetoric has been”nice” for about 40 years: given the vexed glances, dubious credulity, and suspicions of academic charlatanism by traditionalist colleagues, we look to a community of fellow travelers — the community of practice — for validation and celebration of our work, its intellectual merit, and its value to the academy. (It doesn’t help too that comp/rhet is often regarded as the service sector of English departments.) Given the emphasis on collaboration in comp/rhet and and DH, it makes pretty good sense that we’d be able to establish meaningful relationships with colleagues and form communities of practice in which we can be nice to one another.

After last night, I’m not really in a mood to defend the Celts, which I’m sure makes you very happy.