Emancipation in an Islamophobic age: Finding agency in "nonrecognition," "refusal," and "self-recognition"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The existing Islamophobia literature has aptly illustrated how the tragedy of 9/11 and the discourses that followed have situated ‘Muslims’ in a multifaceted system of reductive caricatures and security structures such that the Muslim subject “can at a moment’s notice be erected as [an] object of supervision and discipline” (Morey and Yaqin 2011: 5-6). The current paper builds off this structural analysis, however orients attention to the agents that sit at the receiving end of this architecture. Examining an annual multi-medium exhibit featuring the artistic works of Muslim women in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), I ask what (re)imaginings and possibilities of place, voice and emancipation are available in our Islamophobic age? What possibilities can we detangle from closely engaging with the negotiation patterns of the agents living the everyday of Islamophobia. (Mus)interpreted - an amalgamation of misinterpreted and Muslim interpreted - is an exhibit oriented towards uncovering-dismantling-and-rectifying the politics of living and finding ‘home’ amidst the backdrop of the problematic subject frame. The paper will engage with the ‘artistic statements’ of nearly two dozen multi-medium curated pieces, and ask what possibilities of place, voice and emancipation remain for the post 9/11 Muslim subject in our increasingly securitized and racialized age. There will also be a sustained attention given to issues of recognition/misrecognition /nonrecognition, broadly asking if the politics of recognition is framed as the site for emancipatory re-imaginings, or as the curators put it, as the grounds for “inclusive-future[s]”?
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.021 | 0.058 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".