MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053173871 · doi:10.3138/utq.76.3.990

Dionne Brand's Global Intimacies: Practising Affective Citizenship

2007· article· en· W2053173871 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Toronto Quarterly · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPostcolonial and Cultural Literary Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCitizenshipPsychologyGender studiesHistorySociologyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rosi Braidotti suggests that ‘The human has been subsumed in global relations of intimacy, complicity and proximity with forces of the inhuman and post-human kind: scientific, industrial and military complexes, global communication networks, processes of commodification and exchange on a global scale.’ She argues further that it is the task of critical theory to track the ‘fluctuations’ of this new disorder (264). In this paper, I ask what tracking these fluctuations ‘in global relations of intimacy, complicity and proximity’ involves for the poet Dionne Brand, who sets herself this task in her long poem, Inventory, and for the critic who reads her work fully attentive to the historical legacies of humanism and their entanglements with the humanities and the humanitarian. 1 Beyond merely tracking such changes, however, I subscribe to Simon Gikandi’s belief that ‘the role of the critic,’ at least in part, ‘is to make literature the medium of problematization.’ Literature itself, he suggests, ‘problematizes experiences which might appear to us to be easily accessible and consumable’ (4). But, as he goes on to observe, these attempts at problematizing literature risk co-option when translated into the institutional contexts provided by disciplines, the media, and the university. The call for papers for this special issue asked two related questions that I want to pursue here: ‘What good is the study of literature?’ and ‘How does the turn to ethics position literary criticism in relation to politics?’ While it is not possible to answer these questions definitively, I follow Brand’s lead into registering the visceral force of the kinds of global intimacies enumerated by Braidotti to ask what these practices imply for the political projects of citizenship and community in contemporary times. I argue that to fully grasp the implications of how Brand’s poetry engages and is engaged in these emerging global complicities, critics need to attend to the experiential dimensions of its affect as well as its explicit meaning. 2

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.436
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.201 · 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