The Emotional Contradictions of Identity Politics: A Case Study of a Failed Human Relations Commission
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This case study of the birth and death of a human relations commission in California contributes to our understanding of the emotional stakes of social movement participation and the meaning of multiculturalism in the U.S. post–civil rights era. The research indicates the extent to which resonant movement frames are necessary for movement success and how their absence can cause emotional harm to movement adherents. In this account of institutional activism, the frameworks of human relations and multiculturalism—simultaneously affective and amorphous— attracted participation but produced a harmful emotional climate and ultimately proved insufficient to inspire collective identity and action. Thus, instead of transforming social movement behavior, the state project of human relations deployed here succeeded in invigorating entrenched grievances and identities. Other factors, such as leadership, social movement identity work, and the “emotion culture” of movements are also discussed. Findings presented herein are based on one year of participant observation, twenty-four interviews, and analysis of public records.
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 | 0.008 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.057 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".