Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation investigates how North American Holocaust remembrance projects have been appropriated and reformulated to foster what, after Wendy Brown (2015), I call neoliberal rationality: a way of reasoning that protects and helps reproduce the neoliberal order. Drawing on an extensive literature review, archival research, seventy-five interviews and participant-observation with trustees of and visitors to Holocaust memorial sites in the U.S., Canada, and Poland, I argue that a form of Holocaust remembrance centered on feeling has become hegemonic, especially through acculturated Jews’ effort to override “all ambiguities of [their] social existence” (Arendt 2017: 85) in North America. The result–which after Zachary Braiterman (2000) I call the “Holocaust sublime”–safeguards the neoliberal market by displacing political critique and morality towards the inner domain of feeling. As feeling the Holocaust–and, increasingly, other traumas–comes to stand in for politics and morality, the critical thought essential to living democratically is undermined, and neoliberal rationality is given space in which to intensify. I advance this critique in Holocaust Sublime to encourage a reexamination of the relationship between memorialization, democracy, and morality, as well as to honor my grandparents who survived the Holocaust, and their siblings and parents who perished.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.051 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".