Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the more perplexing terms to appear across Claude Lefort’s later oeuvre, ‘wild’ or ‘savage’ democracy ( démocratie sauvage) has proved a difficult and divisive facet of Lefort’s political philosophy. Enigmatic, provocative, stubbornly undefined, while savage democracy is often simply ignored by many scholars of Lefort’s work, others, such as Miguel Abensour, place it at the very centre of their interpretation of his thought. This essay confronts the question directly. What is savage democracy? What is it that Lefort invites us to think with this curious phrase? How does it relate to his larger theory of democracy as a symbolic mutation or form of society? And is Abensour, who provides the most exhaustive analysis of the concept, correct to identity savage democracy as the key to grasping democracy as a spontaneous and emancipatory political activity? Considering both its conceptual origins and historical associations, this article contends that beyond a mere descriptive qualifier, savage democracy may ultimately be understood as a philosophical vehicle through which we are compelled to conceive democracy according to its most creative and transformative dimensions and capacities.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".