Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper argues that James Baldwin’s critique of sentimentality offers a model for ethical reading and teaching grounded in the pedagogy of refusal. Through close readings of Everybody’s Protest Novel (1949) and Alas, Poor Richard(1961), I explore how Baldwin challenges protest literature’s reliance on emotional legibility, exposing the ways in which sympathy and identification flatten human complexity and present suffering as spectacle. While Baldwin’s early critique of Richard Wright’s Native Son is often read as polemical, this paper demonstrates how his later return to Wright further complicates rather than retracts that position, revealing an ethics of judgement attentive to grief and constraint. In conversation with Saidiya Hartman’s (1997) account of empathy as a “violence of identification” and a contemporary example from American Fiction (2023), the paper situates Baldwin’s concerns within ongoing debates about commodification, representation, as well as pedagogy. Ultimately, I suggest that Baldwin’s work articulates a pedagogy of refusal that resists sentimentality’s consolations and insists on an interpretation without guarantees.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.035 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".