Queer time in global city Singapore: Neoliberal futures and the ‘freedom to love’
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the Southeast Asian city-state of Singapore, efforts to shake off an authoritarian image and foster a creative economy have led to significant changes in sexual citizenship since the early 2000s. Most remarked upon has been the government’s new liberalized approach to public expressions of homosexuality while it simultaneously upholds legislation and policies that discriminate against gays and lesbians. Critical scholarly and activist responses to this state of affairs abound, with many pressing for the ‘freedom to love’ for sexual minorities. In this article, I extend this emergent queer critique by arguing for the need to move laterally away from a single-issue, sexual identity-based project in order to launch other lines of critique and highlight additional avenues for political struggle. I situate this ostensible contest between heterosexuality and homosexuality as just one facet of a much larger story about the ways in which heteronormativity works through teleological narratives of progress and social reproduction in Singapore. Specifically, I highlight the family’s function as a regulative governing fiction in the city-state, setting out the ways in which the ‘proper family’ has been carefully cultivated throughout Singapore’s colonial and postcolonial history to produce both a stable population of ‘quality’ citizens as well as multiple ‘queered’ others who fall outside the very particular heterosexual family norm upon which Singapore’s developmental aims have come to rest.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".