Hannah Forsyth. <i>Virtue Capitalists: The Rise and Fall of the Professional Class in the Anglophone World, 1870–2008</i>.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Global history often renders down the histories of modern British settler colonies into generic settler colonialism. In works with a global scope, it’s easy to lose the particularities of the interactions between the social, cultural, and environmental circumstances of a place, especially when settlers seem to be broadly British in their cultural and political aspirations. In contrast, each modern former British settler nation’s local history-writing traditions deal with the consequences of the specific encounter between what settlers and immigrants bring, and Indigenous institutions and environments. Here, the opposite is at stake: national historiographies seek what marks them out from neighbors, antecedents, and the rest of the world. This contrast between a totalizing global history of modern settler colonialism and the parochial historiographical traditions of modern settler colonies is often frustrating for those of us with an interest in both. Because of this, Hannah Forsyth’s book Virtue Capitalists is a refreshing, fun, and interesting book that integrates the local with the global without losing track of what is important about local detail or global scope. Forsyth argues that, far from being extensions or the margins of fundamental changes in modern work and class structures, Australia, Aotearoa New Zealand, Canada, and the United States were where the modern professional-managerial class (defined broadly and vaguely) was born. This was not an accident or coincidence; in fact, Forsyth argues, setter colonialism was central to the processes that created modern work and class, because of the settler need to marginalize Native claims to sovereignty, autonomy, and stewardship. The experiences of Anglo settlers, the experiences of the Native and non-Native groups whom they exploited and alienated, and the process of settler colonialism, therefore, made the professional-managerial class and modern bureaucratic institutions. To understand the dominant class dynamics of the twentieth century, Forsyth suggests, historians must invert the traditional perspective and provincialize Britain.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".