MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1855086567 · doi:10.3138/topia.13.55

Economies of Dissimulation: The Western Bourgeois Woman and the Limits of Libidinal Power

2005· article· en· W1855086567 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Julia Emberley

Bibliographic record

VenueTOPIA Canadian Journal of Cultural Studies · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Economy and Marxism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBourgeoisieSociologyBiopowerMarxist philosophyPoliticsAestheticsGender studiesLawPhilosophyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This essay examines the politics of desire in the formation of the Western Bourgeois Woman. I argue that this figure belongs to an economy of dissimulation: the circulation and exchange of a generative libidinal power in the symbolic production and commodity consumption of white feminine artifice. Furthermore, I address the problem of how this figure displaces labouring female bodies in an international context. Two theorists whose work both constitutes and organizes the limits of the labour/desire opposition are Karl Marx and Michel Foucault. I am particularly interested in re-reading Marx through Foucault, with an emphasis on the gender and materiality of the body and in re-reading Foucault’s “Marxism,” his attempt to distinguish his theory of sexuality from Marx’s theory of class relations as the privileged 19th-century discourse of historical truth. My approach is to deconstruct the symptomaticity of Marx’s and Foucault’s analytical fields by using the female bourgeois subject as a critical wedge within their respective conceptual schemes. My aim is a transnational and materialist feminist politics of reading that critically challenges labouring and desiring relations of power in colonial, postcolonial and global contexts. This is a partial and provisional attempt to do so by working through an initial theoretical problematic.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.790
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTOPIA Canadian Journal of Cultural StudiesSame topicPolitical Economy and MarxismFrench-language works237,207