Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. This paper argues that Foucault's proposed positive program of practical critique in his later work, which he calls ‘critical ontology,’ provides a response to his critics. The goal of critical ontology is to “separate out, from the contingency that has made us what we are, the possibility of no longer being, doing or thinking what we are, do, or think.” However, it may be objected that, since Foucault emphasizes going beyond contingencies, it appears that he is guilty of committing a kind of genetic fallacy. I will defend Foucault against such a charge by using concepts and practices in child development as an illustration. The example of child development is fitting for political theorizing because the development model of childhood is now central to the practices and policies of healthcare providers, social workers and educators. Such practices and policies aim to enhance the abilities of individuals to be both citizens and autonomous agents. Yet the effects of these policies on individuals are not always positive. The paper concludes with a discussion of the implications of critical ontology for practices grounded in the model of child development. Résumé. Cet article cherche à démontrer que le programme positif de critique pratique que Foucault propose dans ses derniers ouvrages, et qu'il qualifie d'une “ontologie critique,” constitue une réponse à ses détracteurs. Le but de cette ontologie critique est de dégager “de la contingence qui nous a fait être ce que nous sommes la possibilité de ne plus être, faire ou penser ce que nous sommes, faisons ou pensons”. Néanmoins, il est possible d'objecter que Foucault commet une sorte d'erreur génétique, puisqu'il insiste sur la nécessité de dépasser les contingences. Je cherche à defendre Foucault contre cette accusation en utilisant les concepts et pratiques du développement des enfants comme illustration. L'exemple du développement des enfants convient à la théorie politique puisque le modèle d'aménagement de l'enfance est maintenant au coeur des pratiques et des politiques de ceux qui travaillent dans les secteurs de la santé, de l'aide social, et de l'éducation. Telles pratiques et politiques ont comme but d'accroître la capacité des individus d'agir en même temps comme citoyens et des êtres autonomes. Pourtant, les effets de ces politiques sur des individus ne sont pas toujours bénéfiques. L'article se conclut par une analyse des implications d'une ontologie critique pour des pratiques fondées sur le modèle du développement des enfants.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| 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".