Resisting Imperial Jouissance : The Transideological Line in Recent American Antiwar Poetry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay critically examines various strategies taken in the most compelling contemporary American antiwar poetry written against the occupation of Iraq. It finds both limitations, as many poets have succumbed to a postmodern distance from events, and brilliance, in poets who have discerned ways of eliciting hope in the aims of such poetry. Linda Hutcheon's term transideological irony is used to show how many poets are complicit, in their irony, with rubrics of the dominant discourse such as "a nation at war." In light of Žižek's Lacanian-Marxist formulation of jouissance , the imperial jouissance manifest in much poetry presented as thematically "antiwar" is examined in terms of both successes and shortcomings. Le présent essai jette un coup d'oeil critique sur les diverses stratégies mises de l'avant dans la plus probante poésie américaine contemporaine contre la guerre écrite contre l'occupation de l'Iraq. Parce que nombre de poètes ont succombé à l'établissement d'une distance postmoderne des événements, on retrouve à la fois les limites et le génie des poètes qui ont trouvé des façons d'éliciter de l'espoir dans la vision de cette poésie. Linda Hutcheon utilise le terme « ironie transidéologique » pour démontrer la façon dont les poètes sont complices, de par leur ironie, avec des images du discours dominant comme « une nation en guerre ». À l'aide de la formulation de la jouissance Lacanienne-Marxiste de Žižek, la jouissance impériale manifestée dans une grande partie de la poésie et présentée comme thématiquement « opposée à la guerre » fait l'objet d'un examen tant pour ses forces que pour ses faiblesses.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".