MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153722253 · doi:10.1353/sex.2004.0044

The Wedding Complex: Forms of Belonging in Modern American Culture (review)

2004· article· en· W2153722253 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Karen Dubinsky

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the History of Sexuality · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIrish and British Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDramatizationJokePopular cultureHistoryTheme (computing)DialecticSociologyLiteratureArtArt historyAestheticsTheologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: The Wedding Complex: Forms of Belonging in Modern American Culture Dubinsky Karen The Wedding Complex: Forms of Belonging in Modern American Culture. By Elizabeth Freeman. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 2002. Pp. xix + 288. $19.95 (paper). There's a crass old joke—still popular in low-end greeting cards—that goes something like this: "If I knew how much fun the honeymoon was, I would have got married years ago." In The Wedding Complex Elizabeth Freeman plays on the same theme, using the wedding rather than the honeymoon as her starting point. To Freeman, our culture got it backward. Marriage is the lifelong hangover after a really great party that starts and, sadly, ends with the wedding. Freeman's idiosyncratic research strategy, which ranges from the American literary canon to modern experimental film to U.S. presidents' daughters' weddings, yielded what she calls an "archive of found objects." From this archive she "disinters" two main themes: a dialectic between "the wedding form and the institutional control of heterosexual couplehood" and the possibility of making "minoritized or subjugated affinities between people more culturally legible" (xiv). There is, for Freeman, a "productive non-equivalence" between marriage as an institution and its great kickoff, the ritual that "represents and guarantees" it (xv). Thus weddings can subvert marriage. By examining the wedding, particularly those that are the easiest to see (i.e., the ones in fiction, film, or elsewhere in pop culture), Freeman invites us to view the dramatization of ties "altogether outside of, beyond, or even antithetical to couplehood itself" (3). The power of the wedding, she declares, is the way it "preserves exactly what it claims to renounce: cultural possibilities for organizing social life beyond either the marital or mass imaginary" (44). [End Page 100] Weddings are indeed a curious combination of medieval and modern, at once sexually demure and boisterous, carnivalesque and consumer-driven. The ritual bears the marks of the ages, and every garter, vow, and grain of rice can be deciphered and dated. Indeed, there is a vast literature—by sociologists, anthropologists, and historians—that has done just that. Freeman's original contribution to this topic stems from her feminist and queer sensibility and her own ambivalence about where the current drive for same-sex marriage is leading us. Concerned about a movement that praises monogamy and mortgages as the apex of commitment, Freeman wishes instead that we could collectively imagine "new ways of being in relation . . . to produce something like a deployment of affinity" (x). Freeman is on much stronger ground in her analysis of the present than the past. Her excursion through literary and cultural representations of American weddings is too fast and too loose. This study is "American" only when Freeman wants to make a (selective) point about nationalism; it is uninformed by basic texts on the history of ritual and carnival, and, most frustratingly, the choices of books and films are never really explained. Imagine how many novels and films have weddings in them; on what basis did Freeman make her selections? Why Father of the Bride and not, to draw one random example, The Philadelphia Story? Why an entire chapter on Faulkner's Absalom, Absalom and seven (truly fascinating) pages on Tricia Nixon's wedding? I also note crankily that this is the second book in cultural studies I've read recently that lists "cocktail party conversation" about the subject as a means of research. Could we not simply agree that everyone writing a book talks about it with friends and colleagues? And while I'm all in favor of the conversational style, some conversations—like the national, temporal, or geographic framework of one's research, for example—are more important than others. So the contemporary analysis definitely outshines the historical and literary argument here. But the timeliness, sophistication, and originality of the argument make this a worthwhile book, even (actually, especially) for those beyond the field of "wedding studies." It's also well written and occasionally hilarious. I write from Canada, where in the past month alone same-sex marriage has become a lifesaver for a desperate tourist industry, a serious political liability for the federal government, and an...

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.233
Threshold uncertainty score0.348

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the History of SexualitySame topicIrish and British StudiesFrench-language works237,207