"A Combination of the Spontaneous and the Strained": 1 Collision, Transformation, and the Book of Jessica
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
MARIA: In community work there's exchange of power, a sharing, and as a result all get strong. But what I've learned from Jessica in the last little while . . . why do I when talk about these things? It's because I can never own it either [....] It's so hard ... the world is all ownership [....] But in Jessica, who created the story? I didn't create it myself and you didn't either. We have to stop thinking and me. 'LINDA: [...]/ on the land that is Jessica because I'm the mother that tilled that soil. That's where I come from too, and I don't think it's entirely reprehensible, although I know it completely wrecked the land for your people. (Griffiths and Campbell 90-92, emphasis added)2Women's collaborative writing engenders relational processes that can be both knotted and resilient with markedly asymmetrical effects. Cree Metis writer and scholar-activist Maria Campbell articulates a hurt (90) in the opening dialogic epigraph, for example, that directly corresponds with her settler collaborator's stand (92) yet flags a struggle that proves difficult to disentangle. Carey Kaplan and Ellen Cronan Rose are theorists and practitioners who claim to have happily stumbled on almost by accident (Kaplan and Rose 547) and argue that women's collaborative writing provides unparalleled opportunity for seamless, joyous exchange bom of intellectual and emotional synergy (547). Susan Leonardi and Rebecca Pope are similarly excited about the queering of labor and the erotics of collaboration (Leonardi and Pope, (Co)Labored Li(v)es 632) made possible through women's co-authorship, and though a third pair - Daphne Marlatt and Betsy Warland - express careful preoccupation with territory - & the at the edges of losing our way in the mind-direction of the other (Marlatt and Warland 159), their terror relates to a disorienting immersion within rather than alienating friction between one another. By deconstructing literary authority and ownership with eye to how much knowledge is cocreated and coproduced (Lunsford and Ede 4), theory interrogates the depth to which processes of coming-to-know necessarily challenge the primacy of individual thought or expression alongside the tenacious attendant belief in a singular (unmarked white male) author. Feminist literary criticism, then, follows as intuitive ally: if women's collaborative writing is capable of denaturalizing both solitary authorship and heteronormative patriarchy, then its tools presumably potentiate radically interactive, cooperative, and mutually reaffirming processes. Yet Maria Campbell and Linda Griffiths attest to a substantially different collaborative experience, one that is based on sharply conflicting assumptions and intersubjective struggle. Just as Lorraine York expresses a skepticism towards celebratory cor- -relations between women's collaborative work and feminist practice, encouraging instead a theoriz[ation of] women's collaborations as ideological projects that harbor various ideological potentials, some more hierarchical, some more liberatory and subversive (York 4), I argue that the ideological conflict undergirding Campbell and Griffiths's project demands a shifted look at collaborative theory and practice. Campbell and Griffiths's resulting text - The Book of Jessica: A Theatrical Transformation - documents emphatically difficult that critics have been quick, and accurate, to note for its unrelenting conflict, and yet The Book of Jessica also gestures towards potentially transformative practice that may - slowly, tentatively, and painfully - transfigure socio-political relationships through difficult pauses held at sites of particular hurt. While the opening epigraph underlines property's role in complicating an exchange of power, a sharing within community work through which we all get strong (Griffiths & Campbell 90), it also presents experience of relationality that urgently calls for challenging always-already hierarchical configuration of 'you and me' (91). …
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 | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| 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 ».