Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract An increasing number of philosophers have argued that social movements as a form of contentious politics are apt agents of change. Given their contentious mode of communication, social movements are said to be more inclusive of the oppressed and effective in disrupting pernicious ideologies. This paper challenges the current overly optimistic and simplistic assessment of aptness. The core argument is that social movements are not just a form of practical contention but also a form of practical narration. As such, whether a movement fosters progress or regression depends crucially on the quality and content of the narration in which it is embedded. My argument proceeds in three steps. Firstly, I turn to the recent empirical scholarship on social movements to show the inadequacy of the contentious political model in explaining movement agency and the need for collective identity. Next, drawing on the interdisciplinary scholarship on narrative agency, I claim that narration is key to constructing collective identity, and that a specific genre of narratives, namely melodrama, is particularly effective in transforming the experience of oppression into motivationally powerful collective identities. Finally, I argue that the narrative conventions of melodramas that effectively galvanize agency are often the same ones that mischaracterize the causes of injustice, misplace blame, misinform goals, and reinforce ideologies. I illustrate this point with reference to the white supremacy movement in the United States. The upshot of my analysis is not to discredit social movements as “inapt” agents of change, but rather to show that there are dangers and complexities lurking within the hero narratives of recent philosophical work on social movements.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".