MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2005817011 · doi:10.1353/esc.2007.0070

Introduction: Whose Guilt?

2006· article· en· W2005817011 sur OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Joel Faflak

Notice bibliographique

RevueEnglish studies in Canada · 2006
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueCanadian Identity and History
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPromotion (chess)CriticismPoliticsPresentation (obstetrics)Statement (logic)PsychologyLawPsychoanalysisPolitical science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction:Whose Guilt? Joel Faflak (bio) I. "Why me?" That was my first thought when invited to edit a special issue on the topic of guilt for English Studies in Canada. I accepted immediately, although my reasons for doing so were at the time, and are still at the time of this writing, rather mysterious to me. Having no particular critical association with guilt, I have felt ill-equipped to speak on or to edit what others have to say about the topic. I guess this is the immediate response of an academic: to feel guilty that I don't know enough. And if I turned down the opportunity, one of my brighter or more ambitious colleagues would do a better job, which, of course, inevitably she or he would because, well, I'm dumber and lazier. Academic guilt—the worst kind—crystallizes itself when one gives one's first seminar presentation or conference paper, or leaps the tenure and promotion hurdle, or feels guilty for having tenure and promotion when so many don't, or feels not so secretly satisfied that one does but then feels guilty for being happy. As Adam Frank says in his contribution to this issue, even "[t]hinking about guilt … makes me feel guilty" (11). Or perhaps the attempt to mask my ineptitude is a symptom of the academy's inability to confront its own, a version of Deena Rymhs's [End Page 1] statement that "literary criticism avoids dealing with the larger political issues that may shake at its own foundations" (119). After awhile such sin starts to feel rather primal. Part of my reluctance to take on a topic I knew so little about was, I also now realize, due to the fact that I knew too much. Guilt is too much and so much with us that we often take no notice of its presence. We need to ask what this eternal return of our shame might portend at the dawn of the twenty-first century, at a time when a consciousness of our responsibility for the globe is met by an equal sense that we don't matter, that we exist in some neglected corner off to the side of an infinite cosmos. Such is the nature of original sin. The human is a desire that understands all too well the uncanny relationship between a creation that cares little for it and a creature in whom such neglect returns in kind. Shame is the primal matrix of feeling that accompanies such hateful vulnerability; guilt is the human's compensatory staging of shame in order at once to repress and to recuperate its menacing affect. Our suffering for this compensation is the price we pay for our knowledge of it. In a postcapitalist, Internetted, global arena of social interaction, the knowledge Prometheus or Adam took on in order to know the world of the gods' making, the knowledge that is the rabid spirit of the scientific mind mapped onto a planet that wants to know and thus to wed together all aspects of itself—by whatever means, to whatever ends, at whatever cost—makes guilt as profitable an affective commodity as it ever was. As Lacan writes, "the desire of man … has quite simply taken refuge or been repressed in that most subtle and blindest of passions, as the story of Oedipus shows, the passion for knowledge. That's the passion that is currently going great guns and is far from having said its last word" (324). Or as Jung knew in his re-reading of Freud's Oedipal scenario, well in advance of Lacan's, guilt is the squandering of our psychic energy, an overcompensation for our neurotic lives. At what point, Jung asks, will the incestuous sin we have fetishized as a passion for knowledge become instead the incest of our desire to truly know the other as ourselves? Is such a knowing ever possible? Or is guilt the inevitable, even necessary, price we pay, as Jung or Lacan might say, for resisting our blindness as blindness? In one way or another the following essays address themselves to the issue of guilt as a passion for knowledge, the heterogeneous...

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)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,707
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,996

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
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 Opus0,012
Tête enseignante GPT0,236
Écart entre enseignants0,224 · 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'étudeSans objet
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

Citations1
Publié2006
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueEnglish studies in CanadaMême sujetCanadian Identity and HistoryTravaux en français237 207