MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7162035280 · doi:10.82308/21059

Prendre et trouver sa place : discours hétéronormatifs et pratiques hétérosexuelles dans un cruising bar de Montréal

2003· dissertation· fr· W7162035280 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Aurélie Lebrun

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeteronormativityHeterosexualityLesbianQueerQueer theoryHeterosexismHomosexualityPrivilege (computing)Normative

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the 1980s and 1990s, lesbian and gay politics and queer theory problematized the concept of heteronormativity in order to denounce and call into question the normative system that privileges and rewards heterosexual identities and lifestyle. However, conceptualisations of heteronormativity have failed to destabilize heterosexuality as a norm. In this thesis, I argue that the concept of heteronormativity is insufficient to subvert the heterosexual system because it fails to acknowledge the complexity of heterosexual identities. Far from being uniform and homogenous, heterosexuality is organized as a hierarchical system. The regulation of heterosexuality is ensured by heterosexual masculine and feminine gender identities within which the acquisition of privilege and power depend on many variables and criteria. I argue that the regulatory effects of these discourses are constantly challenged in practice and that to overcome the limits of the concept of heteronormativity we have to investigate the practices and arrangements of heterosexual masculine and feminine gender identities. Moreover, we have to observe heterosexuality in 'place', specifically in places other than the home or workplace that do not reproduce the hegemonic heteronormative division between the public and private spheres. Because, if heteronormative discourses police spaces according to specific norms, heterosexuality is practised everywhere. To do so, I went to a heterosexual cruising bar in Montreal, Le Minuit, where the clientele is typically single (divorced or never married) and 39 years old. The discourse of the 'cruising bar' label is significant in two ways. First, it gives a striking representation of what is perceived and constructed at the founding moment of heterosexuality: the meeting of women and men. Second, the discourse of the cruising bar, because of the specific characteristics of its clientele, illustrates non hegemonic heterosexuality. In Quebec, the discourse surrounding the label 'cruising bar' brings to mind images of 'losing' heterosexual identities that are seen as inadequate and lacking. In this sense, the label 'cruising bar' is heteronormative since it also defines, by default, its opposite---'winning' identities that are privileged. In the face of contemptuous discourses that devalorize their personal experiences, the patrons of Le Minuit engage in a process of reconstruction. During the interviews, informants would incessantly go back and forth between the norms and their own experiences in an attempt to both conform to and detach themselves from heteronormative discourses. At the Minuit, informants, night after night, in becoming regulars, distance themselves from their negative perceptions about 'women in bars' and men in bars, perceptions they acquire long before going out. In order to understand heterosexuality and end its privileges we have to know how heteronormativity organises, produces and reproduces itself. Therefore, it is necessary to observe how heteronormativity organizes gender identities in everyday life. It is equally important to reveal that there are multiple perceptions and experiences of the arrangements that define heterosexual practices, which can simultaneously conform to and confront heteronormative discourses. To know heterosexuality, we must observe and listen to those who, though marginalized, are in fact at the heart of heterosexuality; those who through incessant efforts to achieve norms take part in their maintenance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.554

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0320.026
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0050.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCanadian Identity and History→French-language works237,207→