Sexual Citizens: The Legal and Cultural Regulation of Sex and Belonging (review)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reviewed by: Sexual Citizens: The Legal and Cultural Regulation of Sex and Belonging Rebecca Johnson Sexual Citizens: The Legal and Cultural Regulation of Sex and Belonging Brenda Cossman Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 2007. x, 244 p.; 25 cm (HB) I confess. I have a terrible weakness for 'transformation tv.' All too frequently, at the end of a long week, confronted with my mortality in the form of my ever-expanding list of tasks not yet done (writing projects, committee work, children's science projects, laundry), I can be found curled up in front of the tv with an episode or two (or three) of What Not to Wear, Extreme Home Makeover, Supernanny, or even The Dog Whisperer: any of that myriad of shows in which people, families, or homes are pulled apart and then put back together in new and improved versions of their true inner selves. Thus, the speed with which Brenda Cossman drew me into her book, Sexual Citizens: The Legal and Cultural Regulation of Sex and Belonging was unsurprising. The book opens with a discussion of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, a 'transformation tv' show where five gay men undertake an emergency makeover of a heterosexual man. Rather than treating the show as a piece of pop-cultural cotton-candy, Cossman takes it as a site of important socio-legal action. It is not simply that the show takes five gay men and makes them visible as 'heroic' characters in a way unimaginable twenty years ago.1 It is also that the men are engaged in the project of helping hetero men be better versions of their hetero selves. Both gay and straight men are transformed by the staging of this encounter, both become different kinds of citizens. And so, the turn to transformation tv provides the locus for an exploration of citizenship. For citizenship, Cossman argues, is about a process of becoming – of becoming recognized citizens. In Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, Cossman sees the contours of what she calls the new sexual citizenship. This new modality of sexual citizenship, she argues, is one in which 'gay and heterosexual subjects alike are being increasingly sexed but not too much, privatized through a celebration of market consumption, and transformed into projects of self-governance' (2). [End Page 1045] Cossman draws on the citizenship literature in what might be non-traditional ways for some, but ways that push in productive directions. Thus, in exploring the 'what' and the 'how,' Cossman draws on, but departs from, approaches that focus on the normalizing or transgressive dimensions of sexual citizenship. Her interest is in the ways sexuality is brought to bear on both homosexual and heterosexual self-formation, and indeed, on the ways that those processes occur together. Her focus is also on the 'private' or 'marketized' (45) dimensions of these processes. That is, rather than focusing solely on the role of government in the making of citizens, she explores the making of 'good' and 'bad' citizens through popular culture and in the private spaces of home and market. She also draws on the governmentality literature, with its focus on projects of self-help or self-disciplining, along with its attention to the languages of responsibility and individual choice. Cossman explores sexuality as a regulatory domain and does so using a wide lens to capture both legal and popular culture. For this regulatory domain exceeds the boundaries of disciplinary (or geographic) jurisdiction. As she notes, the 'images, norms, and narratives of popular culture seep into legal discourse' and 'legal discourse casts its shadow over popular culture' (18). Her thesis is this: 'Sexual freedom has become a terrain to be managed, preferably through a privatized self-disciplined subject. We are all called upon to manage our sex lives, to make "good" sexual choices and engage in the "right" sexual practices, affirming both our sense of sexual autonomy while governing in and through it.' (206) In four chapters, she explores different dimensions of the conversations in which law and popular culture engage on this terrain in which this new sexual citizenship is being made and remade. In the first chapter, she looks at the ways citizens are produced through the...
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".