Spectres of Anti-communism: Richard Rorty and Leftist Thought in Twentieth-Century America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article is a close reading of the late philosopher Richard Rorty's critique of the 1960s and of several prominent New Left intellectuals in his book Achieving Our Country . Rorty argues that the depth of animus generated by these American critiques of US foreign policy and society as well as by the turn toward identity-based politics was too severe and had the long-term effect of weakening and undermining progressive and left-wing political traditions within the United States. The article questions both Rorty's representation of the legacy of New Left intellectuals, as well as Rorty's own personal political positioning and identifications. Rather than providing a way forward, or reconciliation between differing progressive traditions in the United States, the article argues that Rorty continues in the tradition of sectarian debate and rejection of differing political positions. Thus, Rorty ends up reproducing the very sort of critique that he seeks to transcend and move beyond. Le présent article fait suite à une lecture approfondie d'une critique des années 1960 par le philosophe Richard Rorty et plusieurs intellectuels importants de la nouvelle gauche dans son livre Achieving Our Country . Rorty allègue que la profondeur de l'animus présentée par ces critiques américains en matière de société et de politique étrangère des États-unis, ainsi que le déplacement vers des politiques basées sur l'identité, ont été trop durs et qu'ils ont eu comme effet à long terme d'affaiblir et de miner les traditions politiques progressistes et gauchistes aux É tats-unis. L'auteur s'interroge sur la représentation de Rorty de l'héritage des intellectuels de la nouvelle gauche, ainsi que sur positionnement politique et les critères personnels d'identification de Rorty. Plutô t que de présenter une façon d'avancer, ou une réconciliation entre les traditions progressistes divergentes des É tats-unis, l'auteur fait valoir que Rorty poursuit son cheminement dans la tradition du débat sectaire, et le rejet de positions politiques divergentes. Ainsi, Rorty finit par reproduire le même type de critique qu'il cherchait à transcender et à dépasser.
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 | 0.010 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".