From political emergencies and states of exception to exceptional states and emergent politics: a neo‐Durkheimian alternative to Agamben
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Agamben's Homo Sacer (1998) here serves as a stimulus for developing a neo‐Durkheimian approach to the political. Durkheim's sociology of the sacred and government is read symptomatically to highlight the extent to which sacralisations refer to a real but underdetermined ontology of the social that threatens to break loose into violence against the mechanisms of rule that regulate institutions, actions and the broader normative terrain in which collective fates are thought about and problematised. This neo‐Durkheimian approach is deconstructive of Agamben and reconstructive of an alternative to his state‐focused conception of sovereignty, the political and sacralisation. The political field is reconceptualised as structured by the sacred difference between politics and rule, instantiated by a limen – a door – through which the violence of politics may break, opening social life to the field of the contingency of history. This alternative thus shifts the focus from a political emergency to which states of exception, decided by state sovereignty, are a violent response, to exceptional states of an emergent politics grounded in the sacred power of popular sovereignty that may result in violence against rule.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".