MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4317702823 · doi:10.1353/tae.2023.0010

Radical Habits

2023· article· en· W4317702823 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kathy E. Ferguson

Bibliographic record

VenueTheory & Event · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPosthumanist Ethics and Activism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMinor (academic)PoliticsHabitSociologyEpistemologyPhilosophyHumanitiesLawPsychologySocial psychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Radical Habits Kathy E. Ferguson (bio) Carolyn Pedwell. Revolutionary Routines: The Habits of Social Transformation. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2021. 223 pp. $34.95 (pb). ISBN: 9780228006220. This book focuses on habit as a site of “minor change” (p. xvii) that can become an alternative to larger processes of collective transformation. Drawing on a rich grounding in process philosophy, Pedwell defines habits as “moving assemblages that enable new affective, material, and political capacities and collectives to emerge.” (p. xvii) She focuses our attention on the political potential of interventions at the level of “the minor” without dispensing with “the major.” Rather, she seeks useful bridges between the two. She wants to “rethink the relationship between “the revolutionary” and “the routine” (p. xix) to see them as “fundamentally imbricated” so that “minor tendencies, gestures, and interactions may be just as important as major events.” (p. 11) Pedwell builds primarily on three “philosophers of habit” (p. 5): Felix Ravaisson, William James, and John Dewey, along with current process-oriented thinkers including Erin Manning, Gilles Deleuze, Félix Guattari, Catherine Malabou, Eve Sedgwick, and others to develop her idea of “the minor”: “If the major is identified according to predetermined principles of value and significance, the minor is the unpredictable force which runs through it, creating possibilities for established rhythms and tendencies to materialise differently.” (p. xii) So major here does not necessarily mean bigger, it means more orthodox; while minor does not necessarily mean small, it means minoritarian. Pedwell initially defines affect as “a form of sensorial relationality productive of different kinds of interaction and becoming.” (p. xix) As the argument advances, she uses “affect” very broadly: “a varied collection of sensorial processes, relations, and experiences which range from individual expressions of feeling, to collective affective atmospheres, to more-than-human forces and relations.” (p. 28) I am not sure that it best serves her argument to collapse such a substantial range of sensations and relations into one term. I suspect that she loses an important distinction between a subject-centered feeling, which I would call emotion, and the larger terrain, which I would call affect, that enables a certain grammar of feeling. Pedwell takes greater care to preserve useful distinctions in her discussion of habit. She initially defines habit as “embodied technologies that bring forward (the result of) past actions into the present and future.”(p. xxii) Habits are always more than micro-level arrangements; they always entail “ongoing transactions” between individuals and others. (p xxiii) They are always embedded in assemblages of “permeable bodily processes and heterogeneous and changing milieus which are entangled within emergent ecologies.” (p. 17) She recalibrates habit to forge fresh connections to solidarity (“a moving assemblage of affects, gestures, and habits”). (p. 24) [End Page 216] Chapter 1 investigates the “double nature” of habits (p. 4): they can certainly sustain the status quo, but they can also “become otherwise.”(p. 6) While habits can be “automated repetition,” they can also be emergent opportunities for progressive activism. (p. 38) “Acquired predispositions,” as Dewey wrote, compose us in relations of bodies to their contexts; they may catalyze us into transformations and just as easily they may disperse “into ineffectual spray.” (p. 43) We can intervene in habit’s realm, and redirect its ongoing chain of actions to activate other possibilities, but without any sort of guarantee that the newly realized directions will be either predictable or preferable. Chapter 2 reflects on the racism and xenophobia in the Brexit campaign and the Trump election, telling stories of the habits of domination fostered in neoliberalism and white power. “Understanding white privilege through the logics of habit” helps us understand racism’s periodic retreat and predictable return in the mundane, not just the extraordinary, registers of politics. (p. 67) Aware that merely pointing to racism may only reinforce it, rather than challenge it, she suggests that a better approach is to reorient our modes of affective attention: to pay attention differently, to engage in material and ethical processes that may take us elsewhere. Chapter 3 takes on some of the purveyors of habit governance who are dangerous to Pedwell’s project, the advocates of “nudging” people via “subtle tweaks...

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.148
Threshold uncertainty score0.496

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0090.007
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1480.064

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.318 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTheory & EventSame topicPosthumanist Ethics and ActivismFrench-language works237,207