Bibliographic record
Abstract
I argue seventeenth century social and political theory, while having the explicit goal of justifying new social, political, and economic arrangements, depended upon and demanded a division of the world into the distinct and separate ontological realms of nature and culture populated, respectively, by the non-human and the human. The explicit point of this move was to create a normative realm for the human free from the inhuman forces of nature. However, this division had severe normative consequences for both humans and non-humans. I focus on four sets of texts in order to demonstrate how this division and separation took place. First, I discuss Charles Butler's The Feminine Monarchie, first published in 1609, as an example of a transitional text which denies the split between nature and culture, but which draws upon concepts that demand such an ontological split. Second, I discuss Thomas Hobbes's political works (The Elements of Law, De Cive, and Leviathan) focusing upon how the movement from the state of nature to the commonwealth depends upon a transformation of the "human animal" into the "human animal." The production of both the human and the non-human is the primordial task of the sovereign. Third, I discuss Samuel Pufendorf's Elements of Universal Jurisprudence, Of the Laws of Nature and Nations, and On the Duty of Man and Citizen focusing upon his distinction between physical entities and moral entities; the latter of which depend upon what he calls "properly human action," but which does so inconsistently. Fourth, I discuss John Locke's Two Treatises of Government focusing upon how his theory of property functions to legitimate the domination of the non-human by the human. Finally, I discuss how the modern division between the human and non-human is untenable, that it leads to perverse consequences, and suggest that the distinction between both human and non-human as well as nature and culture ought to be abandoned in favour of an ecological social science.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 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".