On the Borders of European Pluriversalism. Thinking Europe With/Beyond the Limits of Balibar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article aims to initiate a dialogue with Étienne Balibar’s writings on borders, Europe, and universalism, in the context of the contemporary transformations of the borders of Europe and the current crisis of universalist politics. Its first motivation is to demonstrate how Balibar’s work could serve as a theoretical framework for border studies to understand the link between the vacillation of borders and the crisis of European universalism. The figure of boundary, limit, or horizon played a key role in the emancipatory narratives on the idea of Europe. Balibar recognized how the metamorphoses of borders revealed the fundamental aporia of European universalism of any kind: each universalism, no matter how inclusive and radical, has to adopt the particular carrier and designate its limits. Hence the politics of universality tends to be border politics: it rests on constant and infinite transgression of the limits to universalism, without the prospect of overcoming the aporia. The second motivation is to revisit Balibar’s philosophy of borders of Europe by drawing out lessons from contemporary research on border transformations. Answering Balibar’s call to the need to theorize pluriversalism, the article shows how European borders became recently the new sites of pluriversal politics.
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 | 0.008 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".