At the Intersection of Gender, Race, and White Privilege: A Case of Three Desdemona Plays
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Desdemona as a character functions as the focus of Chapter 5’s comparative analysis of three Desdemona plays: Ann-Marie MacDonald’s Goodnight Desdemona (Good Morning Juliet) (1988, Canada); Paula Vogel’s Desdemona: A Play about a Handkerchief (1994); and, most centrally, Toni Morrison’s Desdemona (2011). MacDonald’s and Vogel’s respective plays provide an important site for comparison that exhibits the significance of an intersectional perspective for reinterpreting Othello by considering race alongside gender. These feminist reinterpretations of Othello powerfully reimagine the play’s gender dynamics, yet in ways that manifest white feminism’s marginalization of persons of color. Conversely, Morrison’s Desdemona launches a feminist critique of Othello’s toxic masculinity but avoids antiblackness by taking what Kimberlé Crenshaw terms an intersectional approach, a view examining multiple dimensions of oppression. Desdemona thus posits that recuperating Othello’s broken relationships entails honest reconciliation, one that only occurs when Desdemona confronts her white privilege and complicit subordination of both Barbary and Othello. Desdemona’s uneasy conclusion therefore reveals how feminist appropriations of Othello do not necessitate racial misrepresentation even as it raises questions about audience reach and access.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".