Posthumous resilience and active withdrawal: Byronic contemplation of violence and vulnerabilities in the Anthropocene embodied in the sculpture of the <i>Dying Gaul</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper focuses upon the famous sculpture of the Dying Gaul, situated in the Capitoline Museum in Rome, in order to read and to rethink discourses of resilience in the Anthropocene. The Anthropocene poses fundamental questions to understandings of ‘bouncing back’ or imaginaries of ‘sustainable futures’. There can be no affirmative futural imaginaries if saving the world requires the destruction and sacrifice of innumerable others. Thinking with Byron’s reflections upon the Dying Gaul enables us to approach resilience from a radically different perspective, one that (read in conjunction with the work of Claire Colebrook, Karen Barad, Christina Sharpe, Dionne Brand and Saidiya Hartman amongst other contemporary theorists) we call a ‘posthumous’ approach. ‘Posthumous resilience’ refuses the lure of affirmation, of imaginaries of salvage and salvation, and instead seeks to generate an ethic of ‘active withdrawal’ that points beyond the temporal and spatial constraints of the colonial, imperial, imagination. We conclude with a reflection on how posthumous discourses of ‘active withdrawal’ can be the basis of generative politics of refusal which hold open conceptions of justice and seek to break from cycles of violence.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.063 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".