I was intrigued with Samuel and McGann's creation of the word "deformance". If we think of the field of the Digital Humanities as fluid and constantly changing, which it truly is, Sample's argument, especially in coherence with the word "deformance", does make sense. I thought that looking at DH as a method of "undoing" and deconstructing really interesting. However, we could take a very severe post-structuralist approach and go so far as to say that the field just cannot be defined with language because it is constantly changing and morphing everyday. One thing I had to read over and over was the very last paragraph- "The Deformed Humanities—though most may not call it that—will prove to be the most vibrant and generative of all the many strands of the humanities. It is a legitimate mode of scholarship, a legitimate mode of doing and knowing. Precisely because it relies on undoing and unknowing." How can something be truly generative if it "relies on undoing and unknowing"?
If we break down the word "post-structuralism", we can deduce that it is merely an extension and rejection of structuralism itself, which was primarily concerned with form and the way language works within a system. From what we have learned, post-structuralists have an alternate view of binary oppositions and the inherent meaning (or lack thereof) of language.
As for the future of Critical Theory and the Digital Humanities, I think it is impossible to say for sure where they will end up and what their course will be. It is arguable that DH has no future because it is running its course as we are using it each day. Although it sounds cliche and silly, we are immersed in the future of it now.