Postcolonial Affects:Victim Life Narratives and Human Rights in Contemporary India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay looks at life writing by homeless children, prisoners and child abuse victims to argue that such narratives serve as claims narratives in the field of human rights. These claims generate affective narratives. Such narratives, the essay argues, move across various stages. They open as trauma narratives, detailing suffering, brutalization and injustice where the narrators describe the denial of agency. In this component the narrator adopts two primary modes: of the captivity and demoralization narratives. In the second moment, these narratives move toward a detailing of affect. Human rights require the establishment of identity as human. It is through affective speech and emotion narrative that the victim begins to articulate a self, a subject with a certain amount of agency. Through affect the victim also speaks for other victims, and appeals to us, readers. This is the making of a moral web. Finally, the victim asserts agency – and therefore their identity as humans requiring human rights – by proposing a break with the past. It is in the conscious decision to choose a different life that the subject emerges out of the traumatic past. The affective rhetoric sentimentalizes public culture. Affect, the essay suggests, is an important mode of articulation of human rights within postcolonial India.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".