A “Choreography of Becoming”: Fathering, Embodied Care, and New Materialisms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article souligne l'absence du corps dans les études sur la division sexuelle des responsabilités parentales et soutient qu'on doit y intégrer le concept clé de l'embodiment masculin dans les soins proférés aux enfants. Issue d'une recherche qualitative qui se penche depuis vingt ans sur les mères pourvoyeuses économiques et les pères pourvoyeurs des soins, je cite les penseurs fondateurs de ce concept (Dorothy E. Smith, Merleau‐Ponty, Bourdieu, Goffman) et aboutis à une réflexion informée par de nouvelles approches matérialistes, en postulant l'indivisibilité ontologique du lien corps/social et l'interrelation entre donneurs et receveurs de soins. L'article se veut une invitation au débat, une réponse tentative à l'exhortation d'Anne Fausto‐Sterling ( ) de “reformuler nos vieilles questions pour pouvoir arriver à une façon systématique d'aborder l'entrelacement corps‐culture” (pp. 1516–1517). This article points to the recurring invisibility of the body in studies of parental care giving and argues that one critical missing link within our understandings of gender differences in care work is that of male embodiment in care giving. Rooted in a two‐decade‐long qualitative and ethnographic research program on breadwinning mothers and care‐giving fathers, I begin with several key thinkers on embodiment (Dorothy E. Smith, Merleau‐Ponty, Bourdieu, Goffman) and I end the article with thinking‐in‐progress, informed by new materialist lenses, and argue for the ontological inseparability of body‐social linkages and care‐giving relations between carers and the cared‐for. This article is an invitation to debate and a quiet taking up of Anne Fausto‐Sterling's (2005) plea that “(w)e need to ask old questions in new ways so that we can think systematically about the interweaving of bodies and culture” (pp. 1516–1517).
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".