Unbelonging and the Citizen-Other in Canada and France
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Through a theorization of the production of the citizen-other, this dissertation investigates how "radicalization", "terrorism", and "laïcité" have been mobilized to erode citizenship rights of Muslims in two primary sites, Canada and France, and one secondary but related site, Quebec. Specifically, this research questions how the figure of the radicalized “homegrown terrorist” and the racialized surveillance that surrounds its epistemological construction is differently deployed by two different, but colonially connected nations to bolster normative (legal, governmental, media) articulations of citizenship. Reading across separate yet bounded colonial and contemporary archives, I point to specific moments when citizenship law was revisited, altered, and amended to account for the indigène, the immigrant, and the Muslim-other. Considering how gendered and racializing stereotypes construct the figure of the Muslim as dangerous foreign-other, I demonstrate how such cultural imaginaries are anchored in colonial and orientalist repertoires that continue to inform discourses of citizenship and belonging. Setting the disciplinary norms of citizenship and belonging for tomorrow’s political subjects, schools and other educational systems constitute a fertile ground for the analysis of disciplinary and regulatory mechanisms to exclude those deemed to unbelong to the nation. I therefore analyze three “anti-radicalization” action-plans as case-studies, one in France through the Grande Mobilisation de l’École pour les Valeurs de la République, and two in Canada through Alberta’s Extreme Dialogue, and Quebec’s La Radicalisation au Quebec: Agir, Prévenir, Détecter et le Vivre Ensemble. These case-studies uncover how such programs are used to discipline Muslim youth and reflect particularized image of liberal values, rendering them docile and obedient national subjects. Following these insights, this dissertation argues for the need to critically reexamine how and in what ways each nation—Canada and France—navigates the tensions between Islam, citizenship, and belonging as direct outcome of their different, yet connected, histories.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.039 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".