Hasana Sharp's <i>Spinoza and the Politics of Renaturalization</i>, Feminism, and Embodiment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I first picked up Spinoza and the Politics of Renaturalization for my feminist reading group last year.While a book about Spinoza was not the most obvious choice for a feminist reading group, we found ourselves enthusiastically delving into Spinoza's weird and wonderful universe.Sharp presents Spinoza's ideas in such a way that they spoke to the group's widely varied philosophical and political concerns and interests, leading to some of our most engaging and thought-provoking discussions of the term.It is this wide appeal that I wish to focus on in my comments here; rather than evaluate this book on the basis of its Spinoza scholarship-something to which others in this symposium are better suited-I'd like to consider what Spinoza and the Politics of Renaturalization has to offer to non-Spinozists.More specifically, I want to consider what Sharp's work can offer to feminist readers.Throughout Spinoza and the Politics of Renaturalization, Sharp uses her Spinozist framework to provide a unique perspective on current feminist debates.She dedicates Chapter Four, for example, to an exploration of Judith Butler's neo-Hegelian politics of recognition, which Sharp takes to be "the best expression of normative political thought today, especially from a feminist perspective" (12).This is followed by a consideration of Elisabeth Grosz's call for feminists to abandon a politics of recognition in favour of a "politics of imperceptibility" (155-84).In addition to participating in these recent discussions, Spinoza and the Politics of
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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".