The Heteronomy of Flesh: A Minor Jurisprudence of the Use of the Human Dead and Tissues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The dissertation addresses historical and contemporary legal literatures—generally literatures that have not succeeded in becoming convention (Peter Goodrich)—that assert or rely on the human body’s “jurisgenerativity” (Robert Cover) to evaluate and determine what should be lawfully done with the human dead or tissues. These literatures demonstrate the limits of doctrinal legal methods and conventional jurisprudence which ordinarily deploy concepts of property or personhood. Instead of property or personhood, these literatures require the jurisprudent to attune to the heteronomy of flesh, a law engendered in the materiality of the body decomposing, cut into parts, or as fragments falling away from the individual. It requires the jurisprudent to reach past divisions of nomos and physis, playing with the normativity of corporeal forms. Drawing on concepts of critical legal theory including heteronomy (Stewart Motha, Jean-Luc Nancy); lawscape (Nicole Graham, Andreas Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos); jurisgenesis and biogenesis (Robert Cover, Margaret Davies); antirrhesis and the antinomian (Peter Goodrich, Marty Slaughter); and office and technics of jurisdiction (Olivia Barr, Shaunnagh Dorsett and Shaun McVeigh, Marc Trabsky), the author suggests how these literatures and their engagement with human corporeality can be re-read to foster alternate approaches to the laws of the dead and bodily matter. This leads the author to conclude the dissertation by gesturing to the possibility of a minor jurisprudence (Peter Goodrich, Shaun McVeigh, Panu Minkkinen) where the jurisprudent writes as flesh (Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari), inspired by re-readings of the failed literatures he covered, so to inhabit different modes of relating with corporeality.
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 | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.082 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| 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".