Political imaginaries of solidarity: the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) in Toronto
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article discusses the impact of political imaginaries in facilitating or hindering sustained solidarity with the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement in Toronto, Canada. It conceives of the BDS movement as a space traversed by differentiated forces, actors, practices, and subjective dispositions that coalesce around a goal and constitute solidarity relations across time. In so doing, this article highlights the interplay of the multiple political imaginaries shaping the movement’s trajectory and analyses the ways these imaginaries facilitate or hinder the movement’s efforts to sustain solidarity. Based on fieldwork conducted between 2014 and 2019, the article analyses activists’ political imaginaries as sites of contestation structured through what Mbembe terms ‘entangled temporalities.’ It argues that the plurality of political imaginaries animating solidarity practices among BDS activists in Toronto significantly contributed to the attenuation and scattering of the movement relative to its unity and synchronicity a decade earlier. Specifically, the article identifies the continuum between an anti-colonial Third World Internationalist imaginary and a pragmatic rights-based imaginary as central to the trajectory of the movement.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".