MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2950885767 · doi:10.1353/vcr.2018.0016

Victorian Pain by Rachel Ablow

2018· article· en· W2950885767 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fraser Riddell

Bibliographic record

VenueVictorian review · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Theory and Influence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeelingArgument (complex analysis)MillPsychoanalysisBiographyAestheticsSociologyPain and sufferingIdentity (music)HistoryPsychologySocial psychologyArtLawArt historyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Victorian Pain by Rachel Ablow Fraser Riddell Victorian Pain by Rachel Ablow; pp. 208. Princeton UP, 2017. $39.95 cloth. Rachel ablow’s Victorian Pain explores the destructive creativity that makes a paradox of bodily pain in nineteenth-century culture, tracing modes of sociality—between human bodies, the natural world, material objects—that are rendered animate through suffering. In readings of texts by John Stuart Mill, Harriet Martineau, Charlotte Brontë, Charles Darwin, and Thomas Hardy, the book explores ways in which pain functions to form and reform subjectivities and social identities, drawing some sufferers into shared empathetic communities while orienting others toward isolation and withdrawal. Ablow’s argument emerges from the tensions between two opposing approaches to pain: Elaine Scarry’s influential claim that physical pain “shatters language” in its incommunicability, and Veena Das’s argument that pain “makes a claim on the other” and thus is an inherently social phenomenon. Ablow’s discussion of pain in Mill’s Autobiography (1873) and Martineau’s Life in the Sick-Room (1845) will be of particular interest to scholars engaged with embodied experience and personal identity in Victorian liberalism. One result of Mill’s notorious breakdown, Ablow shows, was a reconceptualization of the nature of painful feelings; rather than concluding that suffering renders the subject uniquely isolated, Mill comes to understand his pain as simultaneously deeply personal and profoundly social. The affirmation of emotional experience that Mill uncovers is the “feel [of ] feelings generated by a social relation—and then, too, the feelings generated by those feelings” (40). Martineau’s attitude toward pain is strikingly different. Here, the isolation afforded by ill health is cherished as a precondition of disinterested personal autonomy. The experience of chronic pain removes Martineau from the responsibilities of direct social connection. It thus provides a space in which to posit an abstract “impersonal relationality” (70) quite different from that espoused by Mill. Charlotte Brontë’s Villette (1853) is similarly preoccupied with the role of pain in reconfiguring the boundaries of individual autonomy. In Ablow’s adept close reading of the place of hypochondria in the text, Lucy Snowe’s often debilitating suffering emerges as an indirect means of clinging to her mental independence. Lucy’s narrative short-circuits conventional modes of sympathetic connection because to be enfolded in the reader’s pity is to become subject to those homogenizing and normalizing imperatives that Brontë strives to refute. One of the most impressive aspects of Ablow’s study is the sophistication of its theoretical framework, which allows for the texts under discussion to speak to concerns far beyond their historical moment. This approach reaps its richest dividends in the analysis of Darwin’s The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals (1872). Ablow draws intriguing parallels with work by [End Page 149] Gilles Deleuze, Brian Massumi, and Bruno Latour, noting that in Darwin’s texts “it is nearly impossible to determine where culture ends and biology begins” (97). Darwin’s concept of pain becomes something akin to “affect” in Ablow’s analysis: an apparently autonomous agent, circulating aimlessly through objects, and hovering indeterminately between body and mind. As in Mill and Martineau, pain reconfigures the relation of subject and object; at its most extreme, this is manifested in Darwin’s uncanny “compound animals,” who experience suffering co-extensively with the natural world that envelops them. The affective mobility of pain is likewise everywhere evident in Thomas Hardy’s brutal fictional universe, floating beyond bodies to attach to material objects—from trees “rubbing each other into wounds” in The Woodlanders (1887) to abandoned boots that are “almost pitied” in Tess of the D’Urbervilles (1891). Routing suffering through such objects, Ablow suggests, becomes a strategy to impersonalize the experience of pain. The effect is to posit pain “less as something suffered by other[s] . . . who deserve our pity” and more “as a condition of possibility for experiencing ourselves as part of a universe that suffers” (134). The astute and perceptive readings in Victorian Pain are a timely reminder that bodily and affective experience in the nineteenth century was more phenomenologically complex than might otherwise be admitted by today’s dominant medical discourses. In its combination of...

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.900
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.331 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVictorian reviewSame topicPolitical Theory and InfluenceFrench-language works237,207