Decolonize or Destroy: New Feminist Poetry in the United States and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay points to techniques and strategies in contemporary feminist poetry that primarily seek not to resist or critique frameworks of white supremacy or capitalist imperialism, but to begin from coordinates that, experientially and historically, do not align with the striations of historical time mirrored and institutionalized by these frameworks. The author argues that Marie Annharte Baker's and Dawn Lundy Martin's poems not only orient themselves antagonistically against the very concrete, physical violence of structural domination in the context of histories of slavery and genocide; they also understand that today, as always, ascriptive processes of racialization function to make structural inequality appear inevitable and fair. As such, the author proposes that it is possible to read a lateral solidarity across the work of Annharte and Martin in their joint rejection of the liberal politics of recognition, and through the transformative possibilities of aesthetic experience highlighted by their work, where the material antagonisms structuring contemporary social relations emerge aesthetically too. The author suggests, however, that the object of transformation in Annharte's and Martin's poems is not a ‘thing’, but mediation, given that these works attempt to interrogate and undermine the psycho-affective attachments that, through a contemporary discourse of recognition, actually serve to reproduce colonial structures of domination. In making this claim, the author underlines the ways in which the antagonisms in their work are constitutively and formally different, while in both cases showing how a position of antagonism can be transformative, and potentially revolutionary, in itself.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.042 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".