Celebrating difference / Censoring difference? Marie Chouinard's bODY rEMIX
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines performances that defy established representations of disease, deformity and bodily difference. Historically, the ‘deformed’ body has been cast – onstage and in sideshows – as flawed, an object of pity, or an example of the human capacity to overcome. Such representations define the boundaries of the ‘normal’ body by displaying its Other. They bracket the ‘abnormal’ body off as an example of deviance from the ‘norm’, thus, paradoxically, decreasing the social and symbolic visibility (and agency) of disabled people. Yet, in contemporary theory and culture, these representations are reappropriated – by disabled artists, certainly, but also as what Carrie Sandahl has called a ‘master trope’ for representing a range of bodily differences. In this paper, I investigate this phenomenon. I analyse French Canadian choreographer Marie Chouinard’s bODY rEMIX/gOLDBERG vARIATIONS, in which 10 able-bodied dancers are reborn as bizarre biotechnical mutants via the use of crutches, walkers, ballet shoes and barres as prosthetic pseudo-organs. These bodies defy boundaries, defy expectations, develop new modes of expression, and celebrate bodily difference. The self-inflicted pain dancers experience during training is cast as a ‘disablement’ that is ultimately ‘enabling’. I ask what effect encountering able bodies celebrating ‘dis’ or ‘diff’ ability has on audiences. Do we see the emergence of a once-repressed Other, no longer silenced, censored or negated? Or does using ‘disability’ to express the dancers’ difference and self-determination usurp a ‘trope’ by which disabled people themselves might speak back to the dominant culture, creating further censorship?
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".