The veil and the search for the self: From identity politics to cultural expression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wagner, Sen, Permanadeli and Howarth compare the reasons for wearing the veil of Muslim women in a Muslim majority society, Indonesia and in a society with a Muslim minority, India. They conclude that particularly Muslim minority women display a variety of reasons and strategies with regards to the headscarf, which according to Wagner et al. serve in the construction of identity and as a means of opposition against stereotypes and prejudice. Taking the case of Muslim women in Western societies, I argue that the language of identity, stereotypes and prejudice is insufficient for understanding the agency of women donning the veil. Instead I propose a genetic cultural psychological approach focused on the cultivation of affect and the acquisition of durable bodily dispositions through cultural training. The veil is part of an entire expressive style and discursive accounts are only a minor part of that style. Recognizing that style – unlike propositional accounts – is inherently ambiguous and polysemic allows us to see how Muslim women are creating for themselves the space of an agency that is not primarily defined in terms of opposition or of other people's demands for proper reasons.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".