Bibliographic record
Abstract
The strategy of sociocultural critique through the ‘problematization’ or ‘defamiliarization’ of the habitualized character of everyday life is one that is well-established in the literature, especially for adherents of various neo-Marxisms. However, in recent years, several prominent critics have taken issue with the concept of defamiliarization, arguing that the habit-bound, ‘distracted’ and routinized character of the everyday cannot be easily contrasted with, or superceded by, the exceptional or the extraordinary. Such a position, it is suggested, both denigrates the integrity of daily life and promotes a kind of incipient transcendentalism. The work of Henri Lefebvre is often taken to be representative in this regard, and various phenomenologies or pragmatisms are promoted in his stead. In this article, I take issue with such critics, by analyzing Lefebvre’s writings on such key points as his treatment of routine in everyday life, as well as his concepts of totality, dialectics and critique. I end up asserting that, contrary to what is often said, Lefebvre does not promote a dualistic transcendentalism in which daily life is denigrated, but rather an ‘everyday utopianism’ in which routine and creativity, the trivial and the extraordinary, are viewed as productively intertwined rather than opposed. As such, I seek to defend the notion of ‘critique’ vis-à-vis the everyday, and to demonstrate the on-going relevance of Lefebvre’s work, as well as that of the ‘counter-tradition’ that is loosely associated with his name.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".