Re-thinking the relationship between self and other: Levinas and narratives of beautifying the body
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the consumer research literature, the automatic consideration of one’s knowledge of self in the evaluation of others is taken for granted. The ‘idea of the other’ — which the authors here term ‘representational subjectivity’ — is at the heart of consumer decisions. Philosopher Emanuel Levinas suggests another path: the concrete relation to the other person is the basis of subjectivity. He makes the distinction between ‘other’ (as in environment and things) and ‘Others’ as in persons. Affective subjectivity arises in the enjoyment of things around an individual and precedes representation. Ethical subjectivity makes an individual realize that not everything can be assimilated to the self. It is in this moment that ethical subjectivity is realized. The authors explain these themes in the realm of beauty, a domain where ongoing moral judgments are made. The authors offer a correction to the taken-for-granted relationship between the self and the other with a focus on the pre-reflective affective self and the ethical self, each of which is shaken out of its complacency with the appearance of another person.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".