Construire son identité européenne grâce à l’Autre : le cas des légendes urbaines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé: Dans la société européenne actuelle, les individus ont tendance à effectuer un repli identitaire sur l’un de leurs groupes d’appartenance. Chacun d’entre eux veut devenir autonome par rapport aux autres et en même temps, s’homogénéiser. C’est seulement en refusant de s’identifier à un “Autre”, à l’étranger, que ce “nous” pourra se construire en une entité auto-suffisante. Par leur narration, les légendes urbaines permettent, aux Européens, la réaffirmation de leurs normes et de leurs valeurs, et ainsi la clarification de l’une de leurs identités. L’analyse sémio-pragmatique de centaines de légendes nous a permis de montrer les intentions, les représentations, la relation et les rôles de leurs diffuseurs européens. Ces récits mettent tous en scène la confrontation de deux protagonistes et ses conséquences: l’un représentant la communauté des sujets-transmetteurs, l’autre une entité opposée jugée «négative». Cette opposition permet d’associer certains individus à des actes ou des événements renvoyant à la peur, l’interdit, le mystère et l’espoir. Même si l’approche interactionnelle nous a montré que les situations de construction ou d’affirmation d’une identité sont plus complexes et ne peuvent se résumer en une stricte et permanente opposition entre deux groupes, le contenu des légendes urbaines européennes se construit sur une simplification de la réalité qui facilite la représentation du monde et de soi. Comme cette désignation de l’Autre n’est pas reliée à des faits mais à des croyances et des stéréotypes, cet Autre devient un bouc-émissaire qui permet par opposition de savoir comment les Européens s’identifient aujourd’hui. Mots clés : légendes urbaines, construction identitaire, bouc émissaire, récits Abstract: In European society, individuals tend to fall back on their communal identity. Each community wants to be autonomous vis-à-vis all other communities and at the same time wants to be homogeneous within in itself. Only through a refusal of identifying with the " Other", the "Foreigner" can "We" be asserted, and thus build up a self-sufficient communal identity. Over the years, the exclusion principle of the "Other" considerably intensified in Europe with the introduction of new divisional factors, such as ethnicity, continental and institutional, which have been used to define "Us". Through their narration, urban legends allow Europeans to reaffirm their norms and values as a means of clarifying one of their identities. The semio-pragmatic analysis of hundreds of urban legends allows us to show the intentions, representations, connections and roles of their subjects/transmitters. All of these stories explain the confrontation of two protagonists and its consequences: one protagonist represents the community that includes the subjects/transmitters, the narrator and the hero, all sharing the same moral values and humorous complicity; the other represents an opposing group considered "negative". This opposition allows the adherents to the urban legend to associate individuals with frightening, forbidden or mysterious acts or events. If the interactional approach shows that situations of identity construction or affirmation are complex and cannot be summarized by a strict and unchanging opposition between two groups, the content of the European urban legends nevertheless builds on a simplification of reality that facilitates the representation of the world and of oneself. As the designation of the " Other" does not rely on facts but rather on beliefs and stereotypes, the "Other" becomes a scapegoat which, by opposition, enables us to understand how Europeans identify themselves today. Key Words: urban legends, identity construction, narratives, scapegoat
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".