MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1556767013

In the Face of Difference: Molineux, Cribb, and the Violence of the Fancy (abstract)

2013· article· en· W1556767013 sur OpenAlexaff
Daniel O’Quinn

Notice bibliographique

RevueIndiana Magazine of History (Indiana University) · 2013
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
ThématiqueCinema and Media Studies
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Guelph
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésFace (sociological concept)LinguisticsPhilosophy
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Unlike many of its competitors, the Public Ledger and Daily Advertiser saw the public enthusiasm for boxing-or, the "Fancy"-and in particular the overwhelming interest in the fights between the coal merchant, Thomas Cribb, and the "Baltimore black," Thomas Molineaux, in 1810 and 1811 as an alarming sign of the "frivolity" of the nation.Complaining that Britons were more versed in the staged bouts between Cribb and Molineaux outside Stratham than in Wellington's struggles against Marmont on the continent, the editors correctly identified a failure in the public's comprehension of the scale of the respective conflicts, but themselves failed to understand that the "hammering" doled out in the ring was laden with historical significance beyond the conventional notions of geopolitics.The vast majority of the press was cognizant that something crucial was going on; it is my contention that a thorough examination of the fights as moments of social and cultural performance throws up a number of important historical and methodological questions for the study of race and decolonization in the eighteenth century.The most important of these concerns the differential relation between singular acts of performance and the nascent historicity of performativity itself.What is so remarkable about this example is that the methodological import of the relationship between iteration and present performance is thoroughly entwined with a series of racial problematics which engage questions of "difference" that conventionally stabilize temporal disjunctions in their analysis of identity.Thus two critical paradigms normally at odds with one another have the potential to critique one another fruitfully in this essay.It is my hope that the exploration of differential engagements with temporal issues in performance will open new ways to address questions of social and racial distinction and vice versa.At one level, the events in question were politically overdetermined.Cribb was widely lauded as not only the champion of Britain, but also as the very epitome of specifically English national character.A large portion of the commentary on the fights turns on very subtle distinctions in ethnicity and there is throughout the papers a latent understanding that his performance reflects on many aspects of what it means to be a Briton in the midst of war with France.This latent pressure put on Cribb's performance is a direct result of the challenge posed by Thomas Molineaux.Molineaux's threat to Cribb's supremacy was palpable: he was an extremely imposing figure and a highly skilled fighter considerably younger than the champion.But the anxiety generated by Molineaux is doubly coded.At some points, the distinction between the fighters is racialized in brutal ways; at others, the distinction is national because Molineaux is repeatedly identified as an American.What is interesting is that these codes are often in direct conflict with each other and prone to internal incoherence.For instance, much of the unresolved tension regarding the American war turned on the lack of distinction between Britons and Americans.And there are moments in the first fight, and in the intervening fight with Rimmer, when the "English" fighters are figured as defective citizens and Molineaux accedes to qualities conventionally assigned to Britons.The first section of the essay seeks to untangle these conflicting and conflicted codes in order to show what is at stake in the overall Cribb/Molineaux narrative.The second section focuses on the repetitive structure of that narrative in order to demonstrate how repetition and performance come together in a particularly resonant fashion in this case

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,371
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,366

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,017
Tête enseignante GPT0,172
Écart entre enseignants0,155 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2013
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueIndiana Magazine of History (Indiana University)Même sujetCinema and Media StudiesTravaux en français237 207