What I’d add is that digital humanists are a subset of humanistic scholars recognizing that the institutional practices of academia have impeded not just the production of interpretation and scholarship in the present, but our ability to recognize and describe how culture and text have been produced in the past. E.g., this is not just modifying or reforming practices in the present (Fish’s ‘political’) and recentering the way we understand the human subject in relationship to culture (Fish’s ‘theological’) but seeing our valued cultural and textual subjects for what they have been. The history of printing and the book in the last decade has been a fantastic curative for our previous habit of imagining literary history as a succession of original, isolated authors producing work out of their individually distinctive consciousness.
I also think what Kathleen says above is crucial: that much DH is not as rigorously aligned with postmodernist/poststructuralist views of the subject as Fish implies in his column. The author is not dead in Planned Obsolescence and other DH manifestos: just scaled down to human size.