Hasana Sharp's <i>Spinoza and the Politics of Renaturalization</i>: A Response
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hasana Sharp's Spinoza and the Politics of Renaturalization revitalizes the power of Spinoza's naturalism by bringing it into close proximity to strands of contemporary theory with which it bears strong affinities.In the process, Sharp generates a new concept, the "politics of renaturalization," which, like the finite modes of Spinoza's ontology, acquires its form and force partly in agonistic relation to rival concepts-such as Judith Butler's post-Hegelian politics of recognition-that threaten to diminish its potency.Key categories in Spinoza's system (affect, idea, reason) combine with Elisabeth Grosz's "renaturalization," Gilles Deleuze's "ethology," Gilbert Simondon's "transindividuality," among others, to accentuate the strengths of cuttingedge theorizing and abate the dominative effects of new humanisms.Sharp's book thus endeavors not only to explicate but also to enact a project of renaturalization, understood as a "strategy to attenuate the antipathy that plagues our psyches and our life in common" (5).Stated more fully, what Sharp finds in Spinoza's naturalism is an effort "to engender selflove in humanity by eroding those models of man that animate hatred, albeit indirectly, by suggesting that we are, at one extreme, defective Gods or, at the other, corrupt animals who need to be restored to our natural condition" (5).She discerns the contemporary legacies of such super-and sub-natural paradigms in modes of thought ranging from social constructivism to socalled normative political theory to deep ecology.That's not to say these bodies of work are to
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".