MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W318018927 · doi:10.1177/030437540402900504

Sanctuary Practices, Rationalities, and Sovereignties

2004· article· en· W318018927 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Randy K. Lippert

Notice bibliographique

RevueAlternatives Global Local Political · 2004
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueFoucault, Power, and Ethics
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Windsor
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPolitical scienceSociology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

All human behavior is scheduled and programmed through rationality. There is a logic of institutions and in behavior and in political relations. --Michel Foucault These people are not cases to us. They are human beings with names and faces. --Southern Ontario Sanctuary Coalition Placing on display a masked and hooded Guatemalan migrant threatened with immediate deportation by immigration officials at a televised press conference in January 1984, an ecumenical group of church officials pronounced Saint Andrew's United Church on the outskirts of Montreal to be a public sanctuary. Referred to only as Raphael, the migrant, positioned next to church officials and who had been living concealed in the church building for weeks, remained silent during the entire spectacle. Within hours, the minister of immigration had publicly announced that all deportations to Guatemala would be temporarily halted and that sanctuary providers would be spared prosecution. This unprecedented act of granting sanctuary to this migrant, the first of its kind in Canada, was exceptional, its spectacular character programmed and rational. At least two issues have endured in the innovative literature inspired by Michel Foucault's later writings and lectures. One is how liberal and nonliberal governmental rationalities of rule relate to one another. If liberalism as a governmental rationality is not to be understood as totalizing or systematizing (1) and having surpassed or incorporated all other logics, then nonliberal rationalities may be present in particular instances of governing society today. Questions about their current character and relevance and how they relate to dominant liberal rationalities therefore warrant more attention. A second but related issue concerns sovereign power and its relationship with governmentality. It has been increasingly recognized in the governmentality literature that sovereign power cannot be easily dismissed as archaic or as altogether superseded by governmentality. (2) However, sovereign power has been narrowly conceived, assumed to be essentially coercive and to take the form of symbolic punishment, violence, or exclusion. (3) This coercive form of power also tends to be foreseen to flow from a single space and source, the (nation-)state. (4) Sanctuary practices in Canada, along with immigration practices that they at once parallel and challenge, promise to shed some light on these two issues. Sanctuary entails churches and communities harboring in a physical shelter individual migrants or migrant families faced with imminent arrest and deportation by immigration authorities and actively seeking to display the existence of their protection efforts. (5) This article draws from detailed research pertaining to twenty-eight sanctuary incidents that occurred in Canada from 1984 to 2002. (6) The vast majority of the approximately 239 migrants who received sanctuary in these incidents were refugee claimants, or immediate family thereof, who had attempted, but failed to gain, formal legal status through official means. (7) This article seeks to clarify via empirical research how the various powers--liberal, nonliberal, and sovereign--can be distinguished, the relations among them better understood. (8) I first briefly discuss what sanctuary practices reveal about a nonliberal pastoral rationality and how this specific logic relates to a dominant neoliberalism. Following Foucault's account of sovereign power, I then show how sanctuary is an instance of sovereign power. Sanctuary suggests that sovereign power is not restricted to the (nation-)state, that it can flow from other spaces and sources, and that it is not always coercive in nature. This analysis has several implications for understanding governing society today, the most basic of which is to suggest the need to allow for a plurality of sovereignties and rationalities in specific contexts. …

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)0,005
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,006
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: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,019
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,047

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0050,006
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0050,077
Communication savante0,0120,008
Science ouverte0,0010,004
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,000

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 Opus0,049
Tête enseignante GPT0,402
Écart entre enseignants0,353 · 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
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

Citations45
Publié2004
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAlternatives Global Local PoliticalMême sujetFoucault, Power, and EthicsTravaux en français237 207