Risky Cosmopolitanism: Risk and Responsibility in Catherine Bush’s The Rules of Engagement
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Characters repeatedly ask other characters what they would risk (for love, for safety, for others) in Catherine Bush's 2000 novel The Rules of Engagement; avoidance of risk, and search for its opposite, caution, act as primary catalyzing forces for action in novel.(1) Arcadia Hearne, novel's protagonist, abandons her family and Canada for (seeming) safety of London in face of personal violence when Evan, her boyfriend, and Neil, man with whom she has had an affair, fight a duel over her. Basra Alale, a Somali refugee whom Arcadia encounters in London, must leave Somalia via Kenyan refugee camps and London to arrive in Toronto in face of lingering violence of Somali civil war and broader legacies of Somali clan traditions. Amir Barmour, with whom Arcadia becomes romantically involved in London, must leave Iran on foot, arriving in England via Frankfurt to escape ideological violence of Iranian mullahs. The global movement of all three characters centres on questions of risk and responsibility as, in all three cases, they are forced to leave others behind in order to evade risk. Yet, instead of a narrative that progresses towards safety and away from risk, Rules of Engagement posits risk-taking as inevitable, suggesting that one must engage it rather than avoid it. Nonetheless, novel does not suggest that all risks are commensurate; instead, Bush outlines a model of cosmopolitical engagement that centers on transformation of personal risks into global cosmopolitical responsibility. I argue in this paper that Rules of Engagement theorizes a model of cosmopolitanism that brings together competing theoretical discourses on topic by emphasizing connection between/inseparability of elite and subaltern cosmopolitan subjects in a system defined (per Ulrich Beck) by global risk. For Bush, this recognition of risk foregrounds necessary centrality of responsibility to a global cosmopolitics, acknowledging affective potential of personal experience (and, by extension, aesthetic). Hannah Arendt argues that while our political life rests on assumption that we can produce equality through organization, because man can act in and change and build a common world, together with his equals and only with his equals, the 'alien' [remains] a frightening symbol of fact of difference as such, of individuality as such, and indicates those realms in which man cannot change and cannot act and in which, therefore, he has a distinct tendency to destroy (301). This link between an artificial (yet reassuring) equality and a terrifying individuality highlights ideological ground of a critically reflexive or ethical cosmopolitanism. Such a cosmopolitanism is ultimately compelled to address interconnection rather than just self, refiguring relationship between individual citizen and global polis. Rules of Engagement offers one possible way of speaking to this problem: question of responsibility--and a particularly cosmopolitan version--as a way of mediating between narcissistic self and global common. Rather than privileging one version over other, or outlining possibility of existence of subaltern cosmopolitanism, Rules of Engagement instead brings these two versions together, showing way they operate in concert. The narrative and character twinning that Bush establishes between Arcadia and Basra mirrors connection between (so-called) elite and subaltern cosmopolitan subjects. Through global systems of capital and cultural exchange, elite and subaltern are never so far apart as these two words would suggest; instead, they are intimately linked and mutually constituting. In other words, it might be helpful to think of experiences of elite and subaltern cosmopolite as expressing a difference in scale rather than a fundamental difference in kind. But what does this mean? What does this connection entail? …
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 | 0,000 |
| 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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| 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) | 0,001 | 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 ».