Liberal Imperialism: Emerson and the Fate of Reading in America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review article sets the revisionist readings of Daniel T. O'Hara in Visions of Global America and the Future of Critical Reading and Anthony Bogues in Empire of Liberty: Power, Desire, and Freedom alongside Neal Dolan's recuperative account of Emerson's Liberalism . The author argues that O'Hara and Bogues offer powerful criticisms of American hegemony and provide insightful analyses of the imperial rhetoric of liberty. Dolan's deeply informed study of the philosophical underpinnings of Emerson's Liberalism serves as an important corrective to the at times all-encompassing reach of New American scholarship, but his book benefits from being read in tandem with the political criticisms advanced by Bogues and O'Hara. All three critics are commendable for the courage and intelligence they bring to bear on the defining conflicts of our age, and for attempting to chart a way out of the current imperialist impasse. Le présent article place les lectures révisionnistes de Daniel T. O'Hara dans Visions of Global America and the Future of Critical Reading et d'Anthony Bogues dans Empire of Liberty: Power, Desire, and Freedom dans le même contexte que le compte rendu récupératif d' Emerson's Liberalism de Neal Dolan. L'auteur fait valoir que O'Hara et Bogues offrent des critiques puissantes de l'hégémonie américaine, et aussi des analyses théoriques approfondies de la rhétorique impériale de la liberté. L'étude très bien documentée de Dolan sur le fondement philosophique d' Emerson's Liberalism agit à titre d'agent correcteur de la portée parfois générale de la mission professorale nouvelle américaine, mais son ouvrage se lit mieux en tandem avec les critiques politiques mises de l'avant par Bogues et O'Hara. Les trois critiques méritent d'avoir eu le courage et l'intelligence de définir les conflits en lien avec notre âge et d'avoir tenté de définir un moyen de sortir de l'impasse impérialiste actuelle.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".