MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2930253639 · doi:10.1353/esc.2003.0030

“Making up Stories”: Law and Imagination in Contemporary Canada

2003· article· en· W2930253639 sur OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Lorraine Weir

Notice bibliographique

RevueEnglish studies in Canada · 2003
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueLaw in Society and Culture
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésLawContext (archaeology)SociologyObedienceStorytellingRepresentation (politics)HarmSuspectAestheticsHistoryLiteratureNarrativePolitical sciencePhilosophyArtPolitics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

“Making up Stories” : Law and Imagination in Contemporary Canada Lorraine W eir University of British Columbia “Adeimantus,” I said, “you and I are not making up Stories at the moment; we’re founding a community.” Plato, Republic, Book n I n Plato’s c a v e, as we know, representation was already a problem and troping of representation—art—even more so. The “distortions” produced by written words occasioned “danger” and potential “harm,” a particular concern in the establishment of a “well-regulated community” where “at least for the general rank and file, obedience to those in authority and establishing one’s authority over the pleasures of drink, sex, and food” were paramount (Republic Book hi). In Canada since R. v. Sharpe and R. v. Malmo-Levine we appear to be less concerned with drink and food and more with sex and drugs but the concern with representation remains and I suspect that Plato would feel right at home. In this paper I want to consider some of the things that happen when the Court thinks about making up stories, especially when the artistic merit of those stories is at issue, and what happens when the Court thinks about harm and the public good in the context of art. I am going to suggest that in this hall of interpretive mirrors, art runs a great risk of going up in smoke just as individual freedom recently did in Malmo-Levine. Given that the Court has maintained that in certain contexts the perceiver, the perceived and the maker are all liable, I am also going to maintain that teachers have a vested interest in this debate and should prepare accordESC 29.3-4 (September/December 2003): 25-33 Lorraine Weir, Professor in the Department of English at u b c , served as an Expert Witness for the Defence in R. v. Sharpe (B.C. Supreme Court, 2002) and was also involved in the Little Sister’s and Surrey School Board cases. A writer and theorist, she is currently working on a book on the literary theory of the Canadian courts. ingly. But let's return to Plato briefly while bearing in mind that this inter­ disciplinary approach situates the law in the context of theory ancient and modern rather than undertaking the rigourous analysis of precedent and the rigourous distinction between obscenity and child pornography which a longer paper and the conventions of legal scholarship would require. Sex, Lies, Plato, Aristotle For Plato, the rhapsode’s gift was inseparable from the underworld of Orphic cults, Dionysian frenzies, and, as we would say now, sex and drugs. The requirement that art depict and serve “the good” was the cor­ ollary of the rejection of art produced by “possessed or crazed” hysterics disseminating their misleading and seductive messages so harmful to the young and vulnerable. In the Ion, the rhapsode is mocked as an ignorant singer of Homeric verses, devoid of social responsibility and intellectual acumen, inciting the equally ignorant and misguided to delusion and potential riot. The poet, as a well-known passage from the Republic puts it, disseminates artistic “lies” which have no “redeeming” value and must be banned since if the young men of our community hear this kind of thing and take it seriously, rather than regarding it as despicable and absurd, they’re hardly going to regard such behavior as despicable in human beings like themselves and feel remorse when they also find themselves saying or doing these or similar things. (Republic Book 111) Under these circumstances, “making up stories” becomes serious busi­ ness indeed, fraught with anxiety and obsessed with the production of the “good use of language, harmony, grace and rhythm [which] all depend on goodness of character” (Republic Book 111). “Goodness” becomes the entry ticket for art into the republic and the only context in which “making up stories” can be justified. Where, as Luce Irigaray puts it, “[r]e-semblance is the law,” “founding a community” requires the elimination of any further levels of “distortion” (149-50). Aristotle’s response in the Poetics is to undertake a redaction of rhetorical analysis, formalizing Plato’s delusion as catharsis, embedding transformation at the center of...

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 machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,009
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: Théorique ou conceptuel
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: Autre
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,207
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,920

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0090,013
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0030,005
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0920,146
Communication savante0,0360,012
Science ouverte0,0050,012
Intégrité de la recherche0,0130,018
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0070,001

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 Opus0,054
Tête enseignante GPT0,325
Écart entre enseignants0,271 · 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

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

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
Publié2003
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueEnglish studies in CanadaMême sujetLaw in Society and CultureTravaux en français237 207