MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2146121032 · doi:10.1353/dis.2011.a484315

Re-flexion: Genocide in Ruins

2011· article· en· W2146121032 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
David Kazanjian

Notice bibliographique

RevueDiscourse · 2011
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiquePolitical Economy and Marxism
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésGenocideHumanityCrimes against humanityHumanismIdeologyAestheticsAllianceMeaning (existential)SociologyConscienceLawHuman rightsPolitical scienceInternational lawPhilosophyEpistemologyPoliticsWar crime

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Re-flexion: Genocide in Ruins David Kazanjian (bio) Since the early 1990s, the term “genocide” has been used more and more persistently as a powerful instrument in popular discourse and in geopolitics. Indeed, the term seems to have passed into the troublesome field of common sense.1 This is not to say that the meaning of “genocide” has become more clear, so much as to say that it has taken on an uncritical air of self-evidence. As a result, we are confronted with something akin to what Louis Althusser, writing in 1946, called “the International of Decent Feelings,” a consensus among certain postwar intellectuals that one “can avert the fatality of war by conducting an international moral campaign.”2 According to Althusser, those intellectuals claimed that Europeans could put the catastrophe of World War II to rest and prevent similar catastrophes in the future simply by acknowledging everyone’s mutual humanity. Foreshadowing what would later become his influential critique of humanism, Althusser examined the peculiar form of this putative human alliance: We must ask ourselves what this alliance really signifies. For we are confronted with a phenomenon that is international in scope, and with a diffuse ideology which, though it has not yet been precisely defined, is capable of assuming a certain organizational form: it is said that Camus envisages creating protest groups bent on denouncing crimes against humanity before the conscience of the world, while the “Human Front” is contemplating the use of cinema or radio to induce humanity to [End Page 367] abandon war. One senses, in these attempts, a mentality in search of itself, an intention eager to embody itself in concrete form, an ideology seeking to define itself, entrench itself, and also furnish itself with means of action. If this mentality is international, and in the process of taking institutional form, then a new “International” is in the making. There is perhaps something to be gained from trying to discover what it conceals.3 For Althusser, this “new ‘International’” conceals the sociohistorical complexity of catastrophic events beneath a politics of moral outrage proclaimed in the name of an abstract humanity held together by a fear about a generalized threat to humanity.4 By the end of “The International of Decent Feelings,” this critique itself gives way to the twenty-eight-year-old Althusser’s own, Marxist– Christian notion of humanity.5 However, we need not follow the young Althusser into such comforts. Let us rather consider what and how a particular iteration of “genocide”—sustained by its own International of Decent Feelings—conceals. Starting in the 1970s, Armenian diasporic politics began to settle into an entrenched, institutionalized form of Althusser’s “new International.” As such, it offers a foundational instance of the current, much more widespread politics of genocide, which global powers—especially the United States—regularly and cynically instrumentalize. All too often, critiques of such politics are prohibited by nationalist and/or humanist investments, themselves animated by the fear that any critique will aid and abet the revisionists, deniers, and—in the case of ongoing campaigns of mass violence—the executioners, who themselves still operate vigorously within the framework of what Marc Nichanian has called the “genocidal will.”6 However, a number of us working on the fringes of the Armenian diaspora have rejected this prohibition on critique in the hope of generating a certain active, radical, deinstitutionalized internationalism: a politics of mourning that rejects both the genocidal will and genocide’s international of decent feelings, and whose relationship to the past opens intimately to self-estrangement and the future.7 In the spirit of this ongoing work, in this essay I want to show how “genocide,” from the moment of its coinage in the 1940s, entombs both critiques and alternative visions of the human in the name of “civilized man.” I then suggest that Armenian-Canadian filmmaker Atom Egoyan’s Calendar (1993) offers us a reflection on the ruination of this tomb. Finally, I argue that Armenian-American filmmaker Tina Bastajian’s experimental short Pinched Cheeks and Slurs in a Language That Avoids Her [End Page 368] (1995) thrives amongst these ruins, offering us a glimpse of an other life, unconcealed. Tomb The...

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 candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: Théorique ou conceptuel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,833
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

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 technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

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 Opus0,087
Tête enseignante GPT0,361
Écart entre enseignants0,274 · 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.

Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
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

Citations4
Publié2011
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueDiscourseMême sujetPolitical Economy and MarxismTravaux en français237 207