MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2007099953 · doi:10.1353/can.0.0179

Strangers in Our Midst: Sexual Deviancy in Postwar Ontario (review)

2009· article· en· W2007099953 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Mariana Valverde

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Historical Review · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman sexualityYesterdayFaithGender studiesInstitutionalisationSociologyCriminologyPsychoanalysisPolitical sciencePsychologyLawTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Strangers in Our Midst: Sexual Deviancy in Postwar Ontario Mariana Valverde Strangers in Our Midst: Sexual Deviancy in Postwar Ontario. Elise Chenier. University of Toronto Press, 2008. Pp. 384, $75.00 cloth, $35.00 paper It was only yesterday, historically speaking, that historians of sexuality made a living from part-time teaching and community [End Page 346] activities: academic jobs were nonexistent. While tenure-track jobs in the history of sexuality are still rare, reflecting on Chenier’s insider critique of certain trends in ‘gay history’ points to a more general conclusion: despite the precariousness of our wins, it has become necessary to critique our own quasi-institutionalization. Like Chenier, I too have been part of the move to make room in the academy for sexuality studies, but I am increasingly unhappy with the assumption that sexuality is a distinct field of human activity and governmental concern. Chenier’s book is thus wonderfully timely, since, beyond the particular findings about the postwar period, its methodological arguments will provoke self-critical reflection. Substantively, Chenier’s book contributes greatly to the interlinked histories of criminal justice, psychology/psychiatry, and sexuality. It does so by focusing on a time and place (postwar Ontario) in which age-old populist fears about ‘strangers in our midst’ coexisted with a remarkable, historically specific optimism about the ability of science and medicine to identify and treat various forms of ‘deviance’ – and an equally specific faith in enlightened, welfare-oriented solutions promoted not only by experts but also by citizens’ groups such as the Toronto Parents’ Action League. Without theoretical fanfare, Chenier shows that the rich postwar category of ‘sexual deviancy’ cannot be properly understood as simply another chapter in ‘the history of sexuality,’ much less as an episode in ‘gay history.’ The ‘deviancy’ question turns out to have included within it all manner of other issues and problems, from child abuse to adult homosexuality to the role of ordinary citizens in the elaboration of Canada’s postwar welfarist consensus. Challenging conventional views of the postwar period as a time of oppressive conformity, unchallenged medical expertise, and moral narrowness, Chenier documents the activities of parent groups that –unlike similar groups today – promoted enlightened, therapeutic approaches to both criminality and sexual diversity. She also maps the efforts made by some psychiatrists and psychologists to provide sympathetic therapy to prisoners as well as to private patients, in an account that will forever revise the standard gay-liberation account of the medical horrors of the fifties. Unlike in the United States, Canadian psychiatrists advocated the decriminalization of homosexuality, and Chenier shows that, contrary to the One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest scenario, most treatment provided to homosexuals for their ‘deviance’ was driven by patients’ own requests. As it happened, the views of the specialized psychiatrists did not prevail: the 1954 Royal Commission on the Criminal Law Relating to Criminal Sexual Psychopaths sided not with psychiatry and its popular supporters but [End Page 347] rather with the law-and-order views that were prevalent in the Ontario ministries responsible for law enforcement. But the views of the commissioners were not necessarily representative of either medical opinion or even popular opinion. If Chenier’s book presents a serious challenge to the simplistic view of the 1950s put forward by gay-liberation researchers, it simultaneously challenges the conventional criminological picture of the recent past. In mapping the prehistory of the current category of ‘dangerous offender,’ Chenier uncovers some very sharp conflicts between the therapeutic approaches favoured by many social workers and psychologists, on the one hand, and the ‘tough on crime’ approach of top Ontario correctional officials – conflicts sometimes culminating in mass resignations. This is methodologically important, since Canadian criminal justice policy is usually discussed as if every era could be characterized by a single unified mentality, and as far as I know nobody else has studied the records of Ontario’s postwar correctional system in such detail. Chenier’s Strangers in Our Midst is a remarkable work that will be of interest to a very broad range of scholars (in women’s studies, in criminology, and in sexuality studies) and also to those who are today participating in community activities...

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.477
Threshold uncertainty score0.959

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Historical Review→Same topicCanadian Identity and History→French-language works237,207→