Flaunting: Style and the Subversive Male Body in Renaissance England
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Flaunting: Style and the Subversive Male Body in Renaissance England, by Amanda Bailey. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007. Pp. 190. Cloth $65.00 For Amanda Bailey, the devil is in the definitions. In Flaunting, Bailey offers some intriguing insights into English Renaissance society by tweaking definitions for terms frequently encountered in Renaissance studies. Her central thesis rests on such a tweaking. After echoing the long-established New Historicist tenet that power . . . resides in the ability to transform the materials of dominant culture into the symbols of subversion . . . , Bailey attempts a new twist by asserting that young men of the English Renaissance ... did not assume the elite signs of privilege, but rather appropriated them for their own ends (4) (italics mine) - a rather fine distinction. Bailey then returns to a comfortable New Historicist insistence that the theater not only produced awareness that clothes make the man, but also that the theater encouraged sartorial irreverence among those with little discretionary income and no social authority, and in doing so created the conditions for a subculture of style (5). The remainder of her introductory chapter addresses other relevant definitions (fashion, art, publish, and flaunt, among others) as she differentiates her study from earlier scholarly works, and argues for a defiant aesthetics, practiced by the above-mentioned youthful subculture. In her second chapter, Bailey demonstrates the monstrous manners (another useful definition for her discussion) of her subversive young men by linking the to early modern theatrical practices. In keeping with a plethora of scholars of the English Renaissance, Bailey extends her definition of clothing laws to include a variety of texts that sought to influence sartorial behavior. Including sermons, anti -theatrical tracts, and satires, these texts echo the concerns of the official (proclamations and statutes) with the behavior of the meaner sort which she defines as an amorphous group of male apprentices, servants and students (25). When Bailey cites her primary sources, she is on solid ground: it is gratifying (and not surprising) to learn that Philip Stubbes ranted against young men who rioted and flaunted daily. While Bailey then admits that the specific behaviors associated with flaunting remain unclear, she assumes that the definition in early modern culture includes the notion that practitioners openly wrested luxurious items of apparel from their proper place. Further, she suggests that these flaunters may have modified the associations of items traditionally used in certain ways by a particular social group, producing unorthodox combinations and exaggerated a particular aspect of a given item - assumptions not necessarily borne out by the evidence in the primary texts (46). In this chapter, Bailey also identifies the theater as a particularly vital site for the young men's subversive behavior. Bailey concludes her theoretical chapters by proposing that the young men that she has identified were seen as especially subversive minority, a claim that she substantiates by close readings of three plays in the next three chapters. According to Bailey, past interpretations of these plays have been negatively affected because they ignore the presence and particularized behavior of this subversive minority in the plays. To prove this point, Bailey returns to her incisive use of definitions by reminding us that shrewishness was, in this period, a non-gendered form of class conflict: a shrew was a social outcast or newcomer of either gender, and, more importantly for Bailey, someone who challenged authority (76). …
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».