MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2998196263 · doi:10.1353/vcr.2019.0022

Victorian Bodily Fluids Forum: An Introduction

2019· article· en· W2998196263 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Abigail Boucher, Daniel Jenkin-Smith

Notice bibliographique

RevueVictorian review · 2019
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueGothic Literature and Media Analysis
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésEmbarrassmentShamePeriod (music)TabooArtArt historyHistoryLiteratureSociologyAestheticsLawPsychologyAnthropology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Victorian Bodily Fluids Forum:An Introduction Abigail Boucher (bio) and Daniel Jenkin-Smith (bio) Click for larger view View full resolution Fig 1. Richard Newton, "Samples of Sweethearts and Wives," 23 July 1795. Courtesy of the Lewis Walpole Library. This forum—based on papers given at the "Blood, Sweat, and Tears: Bodily Fluids in the Long Nineteenth Century" conference (Aston University, July 2018)—is dedicated to exploring the taboo nature of bodily secretions in the literature and culture of the period.1 Although most human fluids are infrequently depicted in Victorian art and literature (and are often only obliquely alluded to when they are discussed), it does not necessarily follow that the much-maligned Victorians were actually as prim about bodies and their functions as Michel Foucault would have us believe. Significant critical work in recent decades has chipped away at claims of prudery, while the hyperrealism of twenty-first-century neo-Victorianism has reintegrated the filth and corporeality that was successfully expunged from many glossy mid-twentieth-century adaptations and works.2 The organization of this conference, however, reinforced its necessity: the mature, academic dispassion we thought we would possess could not fully override the deep-seated embarrassment we felt in promoting such an [End Page 1] event. To link one's name publically and professionally to processes that are best left private caused us to question not only how the Victorians thought about issues of privacy and the body but whether this shame, felt in 2018, was connected to the Victorian era at all. Was this notion of taboo just a prevalent misunderstanding generated by twentieth-century academics and artists? Was it a genuine remnant of the nineteenth century, which saw shifting mores regarding the privacy of the home and body as part of the rise of the middle classes? Or is it a human constant, reappearing in different palimpsestic manifestations since the ancient—or even prehistoric—world? The more we considered our own contemporary squeamishness, the more ambiguous its provenance became. What follows it is an exploration of bodily fluids—some discrete, some overlapping—in a variety of contexts, and of how these fluids were understood and portrayed in Western (largely British) culture, art, and science of the long nineteenth century. Where possible, historical context is given that extends beyond the long nineteenth century: to engage with notions of the taboo (if these notions may even be accurately applied) is to recognize that they did not form in a vacuum. The specifically nineteenth-century conceptions of and responses to bodily fluids were frequently centuries or even millennia in the making, and were often formed far beyond the confines of the individual or even collective human body. Click for larger view View full resolution Fig 2. Alexandre Wenger, "Le livre sans titre: Les conséquences fatales de la masturbation," 1830. [End Page 2] The following essays—which discuss a range of issues, from the tears of bourgeois readers to the portrayal of the "prolactarian" wet nurse, from spiritualist ectoplasm to syphilitic incontinence—show that the denizens of the long nineteenth certainly had more nuanced reactions to and engagements with their physical emanations than they are often given credit for; their responses were often dependent on which fluid was being discussed, in what context, in which media, and by whom. The conditionality of such discussion makes it difficult to know (beyond what is preserved in writing, of which there is relatively little) what the tenor of the general public's opinion was, assuming public opinion was any more cohesive than it is today. This topic is paradoxical: intimate yet universal, related to basic human functions but also the locus of whole systems of infrastructure, behaviour, manners, and signification—it is as if the taboo status of bodily fluids derives more from their analytical potential than from any simple sense of squeamishness. Abigail Boucher ABIGAIL BOUCHER is a lecturer in English literature at Aston University. She specializes in genre and popular fiction of the long nineteenth century, with interests in the body, class, the gaze, and medicine and science in literature. Daniel Jenkin-Smith DANIEL JENKIN-SMITH is a second-year PhD student at Aston University, in Birmingham. His...

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)0,001
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 consensuellesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,822
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,001

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 Opus0,010
Tête enseignante GPT0,298
Écart entre enseignants0,289 · 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; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2019
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueVictorian reviewMême sujetGothic Literature and Media AnalysisTravaux en français237 207