<b>David Glimp</b>, <i>Increase and Multiply: Governing Cultural Reproduction in Early Modern England</i>, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2003
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Foucault has been a presence in studies of the English literary Renaissance at least since his visit to Berkeley in the early 1980s, often seen as the big bang moment of New Historicism, a mode of approach developed by the Shakespeare scholar Stephen Greenblatt but which has influenced the study of all periods and genres of literary production.New Historicism was and is many things; in Greenblatt's hands, it is a vigorous genre of writing that defies in many ways the artificial disciplinary divisions between the critical and creative.Commencing with the description of an early modern anecdote, the genre reads small cultural moments to tell big stories about big power.Despite the fact that Foucault was not much for big bang narratives, nor for the notion that monolithic power structures such as the state or commerce determine absolutely the governed lives of humans, the narrative suggests that New Historicism consistently finds cultural subversion to be "contained" by the order it would challenge by virtue of its relation to Foucault.On the other hand, New Historicism and other literary approaches to history since the 1970s have usefully questioned, after Foucault, the categorical difference between literary and historical documents.In their claims for "the historicity of [literary] texts and the textuality of history" these new historicisms have changed in irrevocable and positive ways our approaches to the study of English literature.Shakespeare is now a dense historical archive, while letters, conduct manuals, navigational treatises and tracts on health are mined for their rhetorical strategies and narrative structures.The discourses revealed in such works are examined in moments of creative tension as they provide differing representations of and commentary on living and knowing in the early modern period.The problem remains that for some historians and literary scholars, (many of whom appear not to have read Foucault), Foucault is New Historicism and especially its weaknesses; in this regard, Foucault as "author function" can evoke hostility in the interlocutors of those who cite him.Historians complain that not only were Foucault's methods faulty, but that the arguments he made about crime and punishment, sexuality and health
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.004 |
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".