Bibliographic record
Abstract
Among Foucault’s works on the “techniques of the self,” the importance of the Stoic doctrine of cura sui is testified by a number of essays such as The Care of the Self and The Hermeneutics of the Subject. In line with Foucault’s biopolitical thought throughout the 1970s, my core argument in this paper is that some authors of the Italian Theory develop their account of contemporary neoliberalism through the interpretation of cura sui as a form of self-enterprise. Thus, I compare certain passages of late imperial Stoicism with contemporary critical literature in order to demonstrate that (1) a certain semantic contiguity led to an interpretation of the technologies of the self that is quite different from Foucault’s original purpose, and (2) their ethical outcomes in the domain of self-entrepreneurship suffer from a substantial ambiguity.L’importance de la doctrine stoïque de la cura sui dans les études foucaldiennes sur les « techniques du soi » s’affirme par des ouvrages tels que Le souci de soi et l’Herméneutique du sujet. Dans le sillage de la pensée biopolitique de Foucault à la fin des années 1970, la thèse que je développe dans ce texte est que certains auteurs de l’Italian Theory, dans leur lecture du présent néolibéral, ont rapproché la question classique de la cura sui à celle de l’auto-entrepreneuriat. Dans cette perspective, je fais une comparaison de certains passages du stoïcisme impérial tardif à la littérature critique contemporaine, afin de démontrer que (1) une certaine contiguïté sémantique a conduit à une interprétation des technologies du soi assez différente des intentions originaires de Foucault et que (2) leur finalité éthique, à propos de l'auto-entrepreneuriat, confirme son ambiguïté de fond.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".