ECPR Joint Session 2017: « The interrelated effects of social movements outcomes »

In the context of the ECPR JOINT SESSION, that will take place on April 25-30, 2017, at the University of Nottingham in the UK, a workshop titled “The interrelated effects of social movements outcomes” will be organized.

Abstract:

This workshop aims to explore innovative ways of thinking about the effects of social movements. In particular, it looks at how different types of effects relate to each other. In doing this we suggest to shift the focus from single outcomes to processes of social change generated by the interaction between different types of effects. The workshop will address the following questions: How do different types of effects of social movements relate to each other? What are the processes and mechanisms underlying the interrelations between different types of effects or between the same type of effect over time? Under what conditions does each process and mechanism work, fail to occur, or even reverse? Are some processes and mechanisms more frequently observed than others? How do such processes and mechanisms vary across different types of social movements? How should such processes and mechanisms be studied methodologically? Reflecting on how different types of outcomes interact promises to open up the path towards new ways of conceptualizing and analysing the consequences of social movements. We believe that the interrelated effects agenda can draw participants from different sub-disciplines and stimulate interdisciplinary exchange. In particular, we hope to bring together scholars working on public policies, public opinion and contentious politics, three fields that have long remained separate. The workshop welcomes papers addressing three main issues: (1) conceptual and theoretical thinking about how the effects of social movements influence each other; (2) methodological reflections about the study of the interrelated effects of social movements and how to avoid the obstacles that have hindered previous research, from both a quantitative and a qualitative perspective; (3) empirical analyses of different types of social movements, whether in-depth cases studies or comparative analyses encompassing different types of conflicts and/or countries. Submissions will be evaluated according to quality, specific fit with the overall theme of the workshop, and potential for reaching a wider audience.

(https://ecpr.eu/Events/PanelDetails.aspx?PanelID=4838&EventID=104)

The ECPR’s Joint Sessions of Workshops have a unique format that makes them a leading forum for substantive discussion and collaboration between scholars of political science. They are now recognised as one of the major highlights of the world’s political science calendar. In 2017, the Joint Sessions will take place at the University of Nottingham in the UK.

Workshops are closed gatherings of 15-20 participants, which last for about five days, bringing together scholars from across the world and all career stages. Topics of discussion are precisely defined, and only scholars currently working in the Workshop’s field, and with a Paper or research document for discussion, are invited to participate.  Participants may attend only one Workshop, and must stay for the duration of the event.  This format ensures intensive collaboration which often results not only in thorough critiques of the new research being presented, but in new research groups being formed to take that work forward.

You will be able to submit your Paper proposal (Paper abstract) via MyECPR between 1 August and 1 December 2016. Please ensure that your personal and institutional details are correct in your MyECPR account.  Should you have any queries please contact the Events Team at ECPR Central Services for assistance.

Paper proposals should be submitted by 1 December 2016 via MyECPR.  Workshop Directors will be able to access all submitted proposals and you will be notified of their decision by mid-January. Papers sent directly to the Workshop Directors will not be considered.

The deadline for all abstract submissions is December 1st, 2016.

Looking forward for your abstracts,

Lorenzo Bosi and Marco Giugni

Workshop directors

ECPR Joint Session 2017: « Transnationalisation of Problems and Agendas: Theoretical and Empirical Challenges »

We would like to make you aware of the Joint Session « Transnationalisation of Problems and Agendas: Theoretical and Empirical Challenges » supported by our standing group. It will be held in Nottingham (25th- 30th April 2017). The topic might be of interest for all members of our group and for other scholars studying the construction and circulation of social problems at national/international level or related issues such as transnational expertise and mobilizations.

Deadline : 1st December 2016.

The proposals should be uploaded on the ECPR website: https://ecpr.eu/Events/PanelList.aspx?EventID=104

Abstract

How and why some events and topics are transformed into issues focusing public debate, media-attention and policy initiatives? Two different scientific traditions have brought their contributions to these puzzles. Strongly established in political science, the “agenda/s” paradigm maps the changing rankings of political and social issues, questions their interactions. Rooted in sociology, the “social problems” approach pays particular attention to actors who frame their claims successfully. It examines why some stakes become faster “problems” and policy targets.

This workshop opens up a forum to question the legacies, blind spots and possible cross-fertilizations between those research perspectives. Such debate is scientifically wothwhile when processes of transnationalisation and Europeanisation are changing the dynamics of social problems. New opportunities (and threats) linked to environmental changes, migrations and de-territorialisation are redefining supra-national agendas. Claims are travelling across borders, fostered by coalitions of actors internationally organized.

As a growing flow of research questions the internationalisation of social problem framing and policy treatment, as the availability of big data opens up new opportunities for comparative research on agendas the need for bringing these two major paradigms into dialogue is stronger than ever. This aim implies theoretical and empirical contributions.

For both approaches, the recent trends, their relationships and mutual improvements might be highlighted. For example, social problem studies suggest combining quantitative approach of media agendas with more qualitative explorations of news production and sources’ strategies or adding specific agendas to the classical agenda’s trilogy.

Empirical studies should focus on growing internationalised issues, especially “public health” issues (including here struggle against epidemics, risk management, food safety, environmental threats). How do claims on the definition and urgency of diseases travel? Who are the local and transnational actors involved in agenda setting and mobilization processes? How do national cultures, institutional patterns and mediascapes impact the construction of health issues?

Call for Paper Proposals: Austerity and its social and political consequences

Editors:

Prof. Dr. Roland Sturm / Dr. Tim Griebel / Dr. Thorsten Winkelmann
Chair of Political Science I
Institute of Political Science
Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg

Dates:

Deadline abstract submissions: 15. September 2016
Length: max. 500 words
Please submit your abstract by e-mail to tim.griebel@fau.de
Decision on abstracts: 30. September 2016
Submission accepted final papers: 15. January 2017

A number of books and articles have been written about the retrenchment of the welfare state caused by austerity policies. There is also a well-informed literature on the role of the EU in the Euro crisis and Germany’s preferences for policies to balance budgets and to reduce public debt. Colleagues have investigated the rise of right-wing, left-wing and populist parties as a consequence of austerity policies. In a special issue of the Zeitschrift fu?r Politik, that will also be published as a peer-reviewed edited volume, we want to shed new light on the redefinition of politics and social relations caused by austerity policies with the help of a multidimensional and pluralistic approach.

The Publication(s) will map different dimensions and “varieties of austerity” within the European Union. It does so by looking at the discursive, social, institutional and material logics of austerity at the polity, politics and the policy level and the broader social relations within particular member states and on the EU level. Not only the phenomenon of austerity is multi-dimensional, but also its normative evaluation and the analytical foci and strategies to deal with it. We therefore follow a pluralistic understanding of science that does not privilege one form of knowledge over the other. Rather we want to sensitize the reader to the effect of different ontological, epistemological and methodological standpoints. Which aspect or kind of austerity we see, depends on the (meta-)theoretical lenses that we look through.

While some contributions might evaluate the phenomenon and the effects of austerity based on the logic of the current European or global political economy, some authors might be critical of this system as such. In addition, some papers might try to combine different dimensions of austerity, others might either focus on one dimension or transcend them altogether. And while some contributions might want to explain some aspect of the phenomenon of austerity in a scientific manner, we also welcome sceptical views of this endeavour that request to question knowledge claims themselves. We are looking for theoretical reflections as well as empirical studies that use quantitative or qualitative methodological tools to analyse austerity.

In particular, we are searching for

  • theoretical or philosophical reflections about the nature of austerity and ist consequences for democracy, society and the state;
  • empirical case studies or comparative analyses about the relationship between austerity and topics like discourses, party politics, party systems, populism and extremism;
  • empirical case studies or comparative analyses about austerity measures in different policies areas;
  • innovative methodological tools to grasp austerity.

This call is open for innovative contributions on the subject of austerity from multiple disciplines. We are very much looking forward to your abstracts!

Prof. Dr. Roland Sturm / Dr. Tim Griebel / Dr. Thorsten Winkelmann

 

Call for Papers: International Dissidence – Rule and Resistance in a Globalized World

International Conference, Frankfurt, 2-4 March 2017

From Occupy Wall Street and radical jihadism to protests against UN peacekeeping, right-wing mobilization in Europe and India’s exit from the Non-Proliferation Treaty – resistance remains a ubiquitous but ambiguous aspect of global social and political life. It takes many courses, purposes and guises. In parallel, rule has been re-fashioned for both academic and political purposes. It is present in the power of the international banking system, ‘Western’ imperialism, the legitimation of violence, in a homogenizing globalism and asymmetrical global rules. But how can we make sense of the dynamic relationship between resistance and rule in today’s globalized world? How has resistance changed across time and social spaces? And how is it affected by or does it affect transnationalization?

Resistance challenges and sometimes produces or reproduces systems of rule. This constitutive relationship between rule and resistance, however, seldom attracts scholarly attention. This negligence is partly due to the fragmentation of academic discourses. Some scholars focus on specific types of resistance (e.g. populist movements, cyber activism, terrorist groups or the extreme right) or specific processes (e.g. radicalization, deradicalization, or transnationalization). Still others study the variety of forms and practices of rule in reaction to various forms of resistance. While such specialization has yielded deeper insights into the significance and operation of rule and resistance in particular instances, it has also occluded the bigger picture. Scholarly understanding of the relationship between resistance and systems of rule has suffered as a result. The conference will attend to this bigger picture.

We invite scholars from various disciplines, including sociology, history, political science, political theory, international relations, anthropology, and area studies, whose work contributes to one of the conference sections. Section 1 focuses on resistance to specific systems of rule, ranging from international norms, regulations and bureaucracies to rule by elites. Section 2 zooms into the dynamic interactions between authorities and resistance movements, including how international organizations cope with protest, reactions to digital dissidence, and various forms of international disciplining of protest within the state. Section 3 finally traces how resistance movements change from “opposition”, referring to resistance according to established rules, to “dissidence”, referring to revolutionary resistance availing itself of unconventional means (for a more detailed description of the sections and panels, click here).

The conference is part of the collaborative research project “International Dissidence” based at the Cluster of Excellence “The Formation of Normative Orders” at Goethe University Frankfurt (for more information, click on dissidenz.net/en).

To encourage in-depth discussion, presentations will span 20 minutes and will be held in plenary sessions.

Please send your abstract of no more than 300 words to conference@dissidenz.net by 1 June 2016. Please indicate your panel of interest. Travel and lodging expenses will be covered for those accepted.

Call for papers, conference on : Activist Tribulations – Lille (France) , December 12-13, 2016

‘Ceraps’–’Crapul’–’Gresco’

An electoral setback after an intensive campaign; a series of issues, of defeats or divisions which alter the public image of a collective, and the pride associated with being involved in it; hopes for an ascension to power blocked by a context of shrinking political opportunities and a reconfiguration of multi-organizational fields; a profound ideological disagreement after the reworking of a partisan strategy; the obsessive fear of losing a fixed salaried position or some material advantage when an organization’s finances and institutional positions are reduced; the repression or death of comrades in arms; the dilemmas of union delegates anxious to speak in the name of the workers they represent without betraying their word; the failure of a radical commitment after years of complete dedication to and sacrifice for the cause; the dissolution of a group, hence of the roles and social relations associated with it which were structuring one’s existence; the ordeal of maladjustment within an association experiencing a process of professionalization; the erosion of a « feeling of being at home » in an institution which has been transformed… Cases of activist suffering abound, to the extent that participation, whether in a political party, a union, an association, an NGO, a religious institution or any other type of group, including clandestine ones, may be difficult to analyze without taking into account the price to be paid (both financial and physical) by committed individuals.

Now, it must be noted that, while the sociology of participation abounds in works which have become classics on the “triggers” of activism, whether in terms of incentives (Olson, 1965), gratification (Gaxie 1977; and Gaxie, 2005), faith (Berlivet, and Sawicki, 1994) or happiness (Mer, 1977; and Lagroye, and Siméant, 2003), research on activist tribulations remains piecemeal, reduced as it usually is to one aspect amongst others of research on modalities of collective action. Despite academic debates on Albert Hirschman’s propositions (Hirschman 1983; and Hirschman 1995) and, in recent years, the profusion of analyses of participation as a process subject to the variation of gratifications (Fillieule, 2001) and of exit phenomena (Fillieule, 2005, Fillieule, 2010, and Fillieule 2015), study of activist tribulations is still very much in development and deserves to be brought to light.

Through integrating a diversity of methods and situations (parties, associations, unions, NGOs, and religious groups, in democratic or authoritarian contexts), this symposium aims to grasp the logic behind the disappointment or frustration expressed in activist groups—whether or not it leads to defection. Following Bourdieu in La misère du monde, it is a question of proposing an alternative to psychologizing descriptions of these forms of malaise, to understand and objectify the mechanisms. What does this suffering owe to the properties of the political field in which the activism is taking place (the type of state, of regime, of competition; and the contexts of crisis or of revolution)? To the exhaustion and discrediting of a historically rooted repertoire of collective action? To the transformations of the institution under consideration? To the both ideological and morphological evolution of the organization? To the socio-local framework of the involvement? To the social trajectories of the individuals studied? How does this distress affect activist careers? Under what circumstances and conditions will activists adapt to experiences of doubt or despondency? What resources and techniques allow them to move beyond the loss of activist libido? What exit configurations become the sole response to unhappiness? What means do organizations possess to limit the expression of dissatisfaction and the disintegration of the activist body? What academic tools can researchers seize to examine them? So many questions which reopen the « black box »—and the gloomy side—of activism, in proposing to diversify the empirical data and the disciplinary approaches for the purpose of greater clarification. To address those questions, one is invited to explore four lines of inquiry:

Understanding detachment. The Social Conditions Behind Activist Malaise

The first line of inquiry concentrates on analysis of the reasons for this maladjustment of individuals to an institution: it is a question of understanding how a feeling of foreignness, a loss of an activist illusio (Bourdieu, 1980; and Bourdieu 1997), a malalignment of dominant cognitive frameworks within the organization and the frameworks adopted by individuals, develops within the « practical reason” of the group. How can we explain that a commitment is no longer or is less and less experienced as a vital necessity or a categorical imperative, as a source of meaning and satisfaction, of dignity and hope? This question leads to a consideration of the variation in the forms of gratifications of activism, or rather of their perception. Under what conditions are the benefits eroded or vanishing or changing into costs in the eyes of activists? Here, it is important to ask ourselves about how the modification of the cost/benefit balance is related to the three levels at which activism occurs, that is, the socio-political context (national and eventually international), the activist organization (subject to transformations which reconfigure the modalities of membership and loyalty), and individuals’ social trajectories (also affected by changes or bifurcations which may affect the relationship to the issue of mobilization and to the group mobilized). The linking of these three levels of analysis appears to be a heuristic manner of grasping the different relationships to the same institution, and the plurality of commitments it engenders. Coexistence within a collective of various cohorts of activists requires the researcher to objectify the social distribution of specific cultural traits and collective identities, as well as its possible multiple and complex effects, within each generational unit. More generally, it is a matter of questioning the ways in which the activist habitus can be more or less maladjusted under the pressure of changing organizational contexts – activist habitus here being understood as the product of secondary socialization within voluntary groups (Fillieule, 2013).

Remaining Without Pleasure? Resources and Modalities of Adaptation for the Discontented Activist

The second line of inquiry bears on the analysis of cognitive and practical forms of adaptation to frustration, anger or disenchantment. Existing research tends to show that not all activists are equally prepared and equipped to make themselves heard and bring their disagreements to the forefront, to reposition themselves within the organization, and to reconcile postures consistent with « working with » and « working against » other members of the group (Lefebvre, and Sawicki, 2007; and Lefebvre, 2013). Perhaps through reinvigorating an illusio which is becoming tarnished, rediscovering the reasons for action, and reviving the belief in the collective project or subject? Up to what point, with what types of capital and techniques—of rationalization, of open dissidence, of discrete disagreement, etc.—is it possible to continue to be involved? To what extent can organizational subcultures (for example, within cliques and factions in parties and unions) contribute to preserving activist commitment? Is it possible and, if so, in what configurations, to “adapt to the roles imposed by changing it from within” (Muel-Dreyfus, 1984) to rediscover a feeling of working together with the institution? Are we observing forms of redefinition of the activist role, of adaptation to the institution (Goffman, 1968), of subversion of ways of “performing it” (Lagroye, and Offerlé, 2010)? At what stage and according to what system of discrepancies or tensions does disengagement become the only outcome imaginable? What are the social conditions of possibility for the « unhappy activists, » of a departure which does not exact an exorbitant price (Leclercq, 2011; and Leclercq, 2012)? Here an avenue for research on « reactions to discontent » is offered which, in contrast to strictly utilitarian approaches, falls within the study of social rationales for activism and its fluctuations.

How to Remobilize. The Institutional Management of Disarray

The third line of inquiry questions institutional responses to activist tribulations. While we know that centrifugal tendencies are related to failings of efforts at homogenization and securing loyalty, we observe different types of institutional reorganization, designed under cover of « modernization, » « democratization, » « re-establishment » or other apparently legitimate official intentions, to replenish and remobilize the activist body in circumstances where it is more or less threatened by a process of « dissociation” (Offerlé, 1987). Beyond how individuals subjectively experience the organization’s social change, what can be said about measures taken by managers in terms of a strategic reversal, an overhaul of the collective capital, reallocation of positions, revitalization of the social fabric of the group and administration of a new meaning for activism? Research on institutions’ renewal (Pudal, 2009; and Mischi, 2014) shows how transformation of the doctrinal corpus, the rules of operation, practices and the activist figures held up as models, works with uncertain consequences. While these shifts are generally designed to swell the ranks and strengthen internal cohesion, they still remain sources of intense struggle, in as much as they contribute to the disqualification and relegation of those who, due to their very activist socialization, are little disposed to cooperate and, to some degree, are condemned to sink into a feeling of unease What social psychologists calls the niche edge effect). Therefore, we might wonder about the effects of such strategies, and their eventual counterproductive impact on the more vulnerable or marginalized sections of the activist group. We also need to consider the entire range of reforms, modifications of statutes, and procedural inventions, restructuration through separation or mergers, with or without a change of name, and termination of the group (Gottraux, 1997). The triangulation of data is here required as a means of developing the sociology of institutions, while taking into account both the way they evolve under various strategies and their nature as « cultural enterprises » (Sawicki, 2001) caught in social configurations and evolving power relationships.

Objectifying the Suffering. Scientific Tools and Disciplinary Transfers

The forth line of inquiry raises the question of the conceptual and methodological set of tools which researchers might employ in borrowing from different disciplinary domains: sociology, political science, history and social psychology, in particular. Indeed, the issue of academic work on activist discontent consists of avoiding both the unsolvable conundrums of utilitarian analysis and the impasses of psychologizing descriptions. Unlike these two tendencies, this is a matter of defending a genuine sociology of affects from impressionistic and tautological penchants which are often at work when studying the very experiences of individual distress. Here we have solid references, including foundational studies on the pathologies of the social world (Durkheim, 1897), on the sociogenesis of despair (Elias, 1991), and on the maintenance of self under extreme conditions (Pollak, 1990). This is a matter of extending this research, drawing upon varied materials and seeking to venture beyond metaphorical or analogic uses of psychoanalytical concepts such as repression, the work of grieving, drives, the libido, etc. (Pudal, 2009). Thus, the goal of this symposium is to exchange ideas and discuss interpretative frameworks and ways of studying commitments or, in this particular case, the actual experience of the unhappy relationship of individuals with institutions.

Means of Submitting Proposals

Proposals, of a maximum length of 5,000 characters, may be written in English or French, and must be based on empirical data. They will include the presentation of the field of inquiry and will specify the principal line of inquiry adopted. They should be sent to the three following addresses:

Olivier.Fillieule@unil.ch

catherine.leclercq@univ-poitiers.fr

remi.lefebvre@univ-lille2.fr

Calendar

  • Sending proposals for papers (5,000 characters maximum): by May 20th, 2016 at the latest
  • Selection of proposals and responses to the authors: July 11th, 2016
  • Sending of papers (30,000 to 40,000 characters): November 15th, 2016
  • Symposium in Lille: December 12th-13th, 2016

Organization comittee :

Olivier Fillieule (CRAPUL, Université de Lausanne), Catherine Leclercq (GRESCO, Université de Poitiers), Rémi Lefebvre (CERAPS, Université Lille 2).

Scientific comittee :

Philip Balsiger (Institut de sociologie, Université de Neuchâtel), Stéphane Beaud (ISP, Université Paris Ouest- Nanterre-La Défense), Olivier Fillieule (CRAPUL, Université de Lausanne), Catherine Leclercq (GRESCO, Université de Poitiers), Rémi Lefebvre (CERAPS, Université Lille 2), Nicolas Mariot (CESSP-CNRS), Julian Mischi (CESAER-INRA), Julie Pagis (CERAPS-CNRS), Bernard Pudal (CSU, Université Paris Ouest-Nanterre-La Défense), Frédéric Sawicki (CESSP, Université Paris 1).

References

Stéphane Beaud, Michel Pialoux, Retour sur la condition ouvrière, Paris, Fayard, 1999.

Luc Berlivet, Frédéric Sawicki, « La foi dans l’engagement. Les militants syndicalistes CFTC de Bretagne dans l’après-guerre », Politix, n°27, 1994, p. 111-142.

Pierre Bourdieu, Le sens pratique, Paris, Minuit, 1980.

Pierre Bourdieu (dir.), La misère du monde, Paris, Seuil, 1993.

Pierre Bourdieu, Méditations pascaliennes, Paris, Seuil, 1997.

Annie Collovald, « Pour une sociologie des carrières morales des dévouements militants », L’humanitaire ou le management des dévouements. Enquête sur un militantisme de “solidarité internationale”, Rennes, PUR, 2002.

Christian Corouge, Julian Mischi, Michel Pialoux, « Engagement et désengagement militant aux usines Peugeot de Sochaux dans les années 1980 et 1990 », Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, n°196-197, 2013, p. 20-33.

Marnix Dressen, De l’amphi à l’établi. Les étudiants maoïstes à l’usine (1967-1989), Paris, Belin, 1999.

Emile Durkheim, Le suicide, Paris, PUF, 2007 (1897).

Norbert Elias, Mozart. Sociologie d’un génie, Paris, Seuil, 1991.

Olivier Fillieule, Nonna Mayer (coord.), « Devenirs militants », Revue Française de Science Politique, vol. 51, n°1-2, février-avril 2001.

Olivier Fillieule, « Post scriptum : propositions pour une analyse processuelle de l’engagement individuel », in Olivier Fillieule, Nonna Mayer (coord.), « Devenirs militants », Revue française de science politique, vol. 51, n°1-2, février-avril 2001, p. 199-215.

Olivier Fillieule (dir.), Le désengagement militant, Paris, Belin, 2005.

Olivier Fillieule, “Demobilization and Disengagement in a Life Course Perspective”, in The Oxford Handbook of Social Movements, Edited by Donatella Della Porta and Mario Diani, 2015.

Olivier Fillieule, « Political socialization », in The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social and political Movements, 2013

Claude Fossé-Poliak, Gérard Mauger, Bernard Pudal, Histoires de lecteurs, Paris, Nathan, 1999.

Daniel Gaxie, “ Economie des partis et rétributions du militantisme ”, Revue française de science politique, vol.27, n°1, février, 1977, p. 123-154.

Daniel Gaxie, « Rétributions du militantisme et paradoxes de l’action collective », Revue suisse de science politique, 11 (1), p. 157-188.

Erving Goffman, Asiles. Etudes sur la condition sociale des malades mentaux, Paris, Minuit, 1968.

Philippe Gottraux, Socialisme ou barbarie. Un engagement politique et intellectuel dans la France de l’après-guerre, Lausanne, Payot, 1997.

Albert O. Hirschman, Bonheur privé, action publique, Paris, Fayard, 1983.

Albert O. Hirschman, Défection et prise de parole. Théorie et applications, Paris, Fayard, 1995.

Jacques Ion, La fin des militants ? Paris, Editions de l’Atelier, 1997.

Bernard Lacroix, L’utopie commuautaire. Mai 68, histoire sociale d’une révolte, Paris, PUF, 2006.

Jacques Lagroye, Johanna Siméant, « Gouvernement des humains et légitimation des institutions », in Pierre Favre, Jack Hayward, Yves Schemeil (dir.), Être gouverné. Études en l’honneur de Jean Leca, Paris, Presses de sciences po, 2003, p. 53-71.

Jacques Lagroye, Michel Offerlé (dir.), Sociologie de l’institution, Paris, Belin, 2010.

Catherine Leclercq, Julie Pagis (dir.), « Les incidences biographiques de l’engagement », Sociétés contemporaines, n°84, 2011.

Catherine Leclercq, « Engagement et construction de soi. La carrière d’émancipation d’un permanent communiste », Sociétés contemporaines, n°84, décembre 2011.

Catherine Leclercq, « Les ouvriers partis du « parti des ouvriers ». Retour sur un désengagement silencieux », Savoir/Agir, n°22, 2012, p. 43-50.

Rémi Lefebvre, « Le militantisme socialiste n’est plus ce qu’il n’a jamais été. Modèle de “l’engagement distancié“ et transformations du militantisme au Parti socialiste », Politix, n°102, 2013, p. 7-33.

Rémi Lefebvre, « ‘Petits arrangements avec son militantisme’. Le désarroi identitaire des militants du parti socialiste » in Surdez (M.), Voegtli (M.), Voutat (B.), dir., Identifier –s’ identifier, Genève, Antipode, 2010.

Rémi Lefebvre, Les primaires socialistes. La fin du parti militant, Paris, Raisons d’agir, 2011.

Frédérique Matonti (dir.), La démobilisation politique, Paris, La Dispute, 2005, p. 23-35.

Doug McAdam, Freedom summer. Lutte pour les droits civiques, Mississipi 1964, Marseille, Agone, 2012.

Jacqueline Mer, Le parti de Maurice Thorez ou le bonheur communiste français : étude anthropologique, Paris, Payot, 1977.

Julian Mischi, Le communisme désarmé. Le PCF et les classes populaires depuis les années 1970, Marseille, Agone, 2014.

Francine Muel-Dreyfus, Le métier d’éducateur, Paris, Minuit, 1983.

Sandrine Nicourd (dir.), Le travail militant, Rennes, Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2009.

Michel Offerlé, Les partis politiques, Paris, PUF, 1987.

Mancur Olson, Logique de l’action collective, Paris, PUF, 1987 (1965).

Claude Pennetier, Bernard Pudal (dir.), Le sujet communiste. Identités militantes et laboratoires du « moi », Rennes, PUR, 2014.

Michel Pialoux, Christian Corouge, Résister à la chaîne. Dialogue entre un ouvrier de Peugeot et un sociologue, Paris, Agone, 2011.

Politix, « Militantisme et hiérarchies de genre », vol. 20, n°78, 2007.

Michael Pollak, L’expérience concentrationnaire. Essai sur le maintien de l’identité sociale, Paris, Métailié, 1990.

Bernard Pudal, Un monde défait. Les communistes français de 1956 à nos jours, Paris, Editions du Croquant, 2009.

Bernard Pudal, « Psychanalyse », in Olivier Fillieule, Lilian Mathieu, Cécile Péchu (dir.), Dictionnaire des mouvements sociaux, Paris, Presses de Sciences Po, 2009.

Yann Raison du Cleuziou, « Des fidélités paradoxales. Recomposition des appartenances et militantisme institutionnel dans une institution en crise », in Jacques Lagroye et Michel Offerlé (dir.), Sociologie de l’institution, Paris, Belin, 2010, p. 267-290.

Frédéric Sawicki, « Les partis politiques comme entreprises culturelles », in Daniel Cefaï, Cultures politiques, Paris, PUF, 2001, p. 191-211.

Isabelle Sommier, La violence politique et son deuil. L’après 68 en France et en Italie, PUR, 1992.

Isabelle Sommier, « Engagement radical, désengagement et déradicalisation. Continuum et lignes de fractures », Lien social et politiques, n°68, 2012, p. 15-35.

Christophe Traïni (dir.), Emotions, mobilisation !, Paris, Presses de Sciences Po, 2009.

Michaël Voegtli, « Du jeu dans le je : ruptures biographiques et travail de mise en cohérence », Lien social et politiques, n° 51, 2004, p. 145-158.

Laurent Willemez, « Perseverare diabolicum. L’engagement militant à l’épreuve du vieillissement social », Lien social et Politiques, n°1, 2004, p. 71-82.

Call for Papers: 11th Jyväskylä Symposium on Political Thought and Conceptual Change

2-3 June 2016, Department of Social Sciences and Philosophy, University of Jyväskylä

Organised by the FiDiPro project Transformations of Concepts and Institutions in the European Polity (TRACE)

https://www.jyu.fi/ytk/laitokset/yfi/en/research/testi/research/projects/moral-and-political-agency-projects/trace

 

Politicization, parliamentarization and democratization in the EU

By exploring the multifaceted relationships between key political processes, politicization, parliamentarization and democratization, the aim of the 11th Jyväskylä Symposium on Political Thought and Conceptual Change is to draw a richer analysis of the EU as a polity. In contrast to approaches that focus on institutions, public policies, or an increasingly party-political turn in debates and decisions on EU policies, the symposium encourages submissions that conceptualize the EU as an arena of political struggle that provides new opportunities in terms of political stakes, controversies and power resources. Politicization creates spaces and issues for political action, turning practical issues into political problems, challenging the meanings of the EU, and thereby redefining power spaces.

Parliaments have a crucial role to play: they are arenas for controversies, sites of political representation, and actors of politicization and democratization. Parliamentarization is not only understood as referring to specific institutions or relationships between these. It also refers to an ideal or regulative idea of political action that involves public debates, controversies and pro and contra argumentation, their procedures and practices.

Democracy is not a static, ‘eternal’ state of affairs. It is a constant process that involves a variety of patterned actions and contradictions. While in a historical perspective democratization refers to politicization through an increase of participation in political life, in the EU it relates to the EU´s institutional dynamic and notably the parliamentarization of the issues dealt by the EU. Besides these institutional aspects, democratization is also a politicizing practice.

This perspective on politicization, parliamentarization and democratization invites contributors to draw a more complex picture of the development of the EU polity: it is not one of linearly increasing parliamentarization and democratization, but one marked by complex processes and controversies between institutional and individual actors at different political levels and arenas, their respective political stakes, and the related debates and arguments.

The symposium invites theoretical and empirical papers from scholars working on European studies, political theory, political sociology, history of political thought, political rhetoric and related disciplines.

 

Contact person: Send abstracts (one page) before April 15th to Tuula Vaarakallio (tuula.vaarakallio@jyu.fi).

Decisions will be communicated during the first week of May.

Limited funds are available to provide graduate students with travel stipends.

Call for Papers: Workshop – Moral Struggles in and around Markets

November 11-12, 2016 | University of Neucha?tel

Organizers

Philip Balsiger (University of Neucha?tel)
Simone Schiller-Merkens (Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies)

Keynote Speakers

Patrik Aspers (Uppsala University) Klaus Weber (Northwestern University)

Economic activity is always “morally embedded”. Adopting a sociological view of morality as historically and socially located norms and beliefs about what is right and wrong, good and bad, worthy and unworthy, a number of studies have investigated how ethics and economic activity intermingle (Fourcade/Healy 2007). That markets are “the theater of a morality play” (Fourcade 2013: 620) becomes especially visible in moments of moral struggles, where different moral views on market exchanges clash. Moral struggles often relate to market boundaries, when the exchange of certain goods on markets provokes moral opposition – for instance, organs, life insurance, arms, cannabis or sex (e.g., Zelizer 2011; Sandel 2012; Healy 2006; Vergne 2012). But moral struggles also arise in relation to specific practices in markets that are deemed unjust or immoral, including practices relating to conditions of production, salaries, price setting, or greed. One expression of this critique is the rise of alternative markets with explicit moral goals, such as fair trade, local agriculture networks, or social investment.

In this workshop, we want to bring together a range of researchers who have been studying “morals and markets” with divergent theoretical perspectives. Indeed, contributions to the role of morality in markets have come from different disciplines and research fields who rarely engage with each other. Aspects of market morality have been addressed, among others, by economic sociologists studying market boundaries or processes of valuation; by organization and (critical) management scholars studying corporate social responsibility and social entrepreneurship; by social movement scholars studying the contentiousness of markets; or by anthropologists studying the meanings of economic exchanges and moral economies. We believe that in order to advance research on the moral embeddedness of markets, it is crucial to bring together this variety of disciplinary perspectives. Thus with this conference, our aim is to bring researchers together who already study moral struggles and processes of market moralization but without necessarily referring to the research category of morality. In particular, we seek to deepen our understanding of morality in markets in three directions.

1. Moral struggles

First, we suggest studying the moral embeddedness of markets through a focus on “moral struggles”. We look for contributions studying how moral contention in and around markets works – its discourse, action repertoires, strategies and material expressions. For example, this includes (but is not limited to) asking questions such as:

  • How do moral entrepreneurs contest market practices? What action repertoires do they use?
  • Who are those moral entrepreneurs? Social movements, politicians, non-governmental organizations, consumers? Which market actors yield to moral issues and which ones don’t? Are there instances where market competitors act as moral entrepreneurs? Does this change the functioning of moral struggles on markets, and if so, how?
  • How do market actors react to moral challenges? Do they develop alternative moralities, e.g., do they start justifying their practices in explicit moral terms?
  • Which conditions of the social context enable and constrain moral entrepreneurship? In the process of market moralization, (how) does moral entrepreneurship change these conditions?
  • What role does the law and politics play in this process?
  • Are there struggles around the legitimate definition of moral market categories? What counts as moral and what doesn’t, and who is “authorized” to make the call? On what does the credibility of actors to impose their criteria rest?

2. Historical and comparative perspectives

Second, we particularly encourage contributions adopting a historical and/or comparative perspective. By analyzing the transformations of moral market values over time, historical perspectives are important because they help us better understand what distinguishes current moral struggles and processes of market moralization from previous ones taking place in different times and contexts.

  • Is there really a growing moralization of markets today?
  • To what extent are current forms of moral struggles on markets part of a long-term process of capitalist dynamics?

Comparative perspectives can further shed light on the moral embeddedness of markets. On the one hand, through cross-market comparisons of moral struggles and processes of market moralization:

  •  Are there certain markets that are more likely to become “moralized”, and if so, why?
  • What moral issues are addressed on what kind of markets and in which countries?
  • Do moral struggles “travel” from one market to another, from one country to another, and if so, how?

A global perspective on processes of market moralization, on the other hand, could address broader consequences of market moralization by asking questions such as

  • How do moral struggles play out along transnational supply chains? For instance, how do social business initiatives handle moral critiques in developing countries?
  • When do social ventures internationalize and which moral struggles do they face?
  • How do processes of market moralization affect global inequalities between the West and the global South, between consumers and workers?
  • When do these processes reinforce inequalities?

3. Morality as a category of analysis

Third, we also aim to encourage contributions that take a self-reflexive perspective on the category of morality as such. As this workshop and a number of other recent events show, more and more scholars study the question of morality in business and markets. In parallel, a renewal of the sociology of morality is now well under way (e.g., Abend 2014; Hitlin/Vaisey 2010; Farrell 2015). Studying “morals and markets” contributes to this broader knowledge on morality, by analyzing morality “in the wild” (Hitlin/Vaisey 2010). But studying the relation between morality and the economy should also lead us to raise the underlying questions about morality as a category of practice and as a category of scientific inquiry.

  • How do different authors use the term morality and morals, what different theoretical perspectives are there?
  • How do actors use morality as a category of practice?
  • What actions and discourses count as moral, and which ones don’t?
  • What is the specificity of moral embeddedness of markets?
  • What are the frontiers between morals and politics?
  • How does a moral critique work and what distinguishes it from a social or political critique?

Practical details

The workshop will take place at the University of Neucha?tel, Switzerland, Institute of Sociology, on November 11–12, 2016.

The deadline for all abstract submissions (max 500 words) is April 30, 2016. Submissions should be sent to philip.balsiger@unine.ch and ssm@mpifg.de. Applicants will be informed on the outcome by e-mail no later than May 30, 2016. Final papers should be sent by October 15, 2016.

 

References

Abend, Gabriel, 2014: The Moral Background: An Inquiry into the History of Business Ethics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Farrell, Justin, 2015: The Battle for Yellowstone: Morality and the Sacred Roots of Environmental Conflict. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Fourcade, Marion, 2013: The Economy as a Morality Play, and Implications for the Eurozone Crisis. In: Socio-Economic Review 11(3), 620–627.

Fourcade, Martion/Kieran Healy, 2007: Moral Views of Market Society. In: Annual Review of Sociology 33, 285–311.

Healy, Kieran, 2006: Last Best Gift: Altruism and the Market for Human Blood and Organs. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Hitlin, Steven/Stephen Vaisey (eds.), 2010: Handbook of the Sociology of Morality. New York: Springer.

Sandel, Michael J., 2012: What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Vergne, Jean-Philippe, 2012: Stigmatized Categories and Public Disapproval of Organizations: A Mixed-Methods Study of the Global Arms Industry, 1996–2007. In: Academy of Management Journal 55(5), 1027–1052.

Zelizer, Viviana A., 2011: Economic Lives: How Culture Shapes the Economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Call for Papers: SMP Issue no. 15 (1/2017) ‘Toward a Political Sociology of our Time’

SocietàMutamentoPolitica, Rivista Italiana di Sociologia (ISSN 2038-3150)

CALL FOR PAPERS – SMP ISSUE NO. 15 (1/2017) ‘TOWARD A POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY OF OUR TIME’

Edited by Lorenzo Viviani – University of Pisa

Sociology has been interested in political phenomena, from the earliest sociologists onward, as an integral and fundamental part of its own scientific progression, in a comparison that has developed over the course of time with other disciplines, from political philosophy to political sciences, from political psychology to anthropology, from history to law. It is a continuous exchange in which sociology has maintained its own theoretical and methodological specificity, one which this issue of Smp proposes to reexamine, opening itself to the contribution of Italian and foreign authors and turning to new generations of scholars able to enrich the debate on a “political sociology of our time”. Looking at political phenomena through a sociological lens means assuming that there exists a constant interaction between society and politics, that in contemporary society it plays out on a global scale, including economic recessions, power conflicts, religious phenomena, migration flows, and more generally all those processes that change the social bases of democracy and the attribution of power within different societies.

The objective of the call for papers is therefore to collect theoretical and empirical contributions that develop themes and research methods capable of encompassing the complexity of current political changes in a comparative key. As for the topics of this issue, the focus is principally on representative democracy as a result of the force of identity of traditional ideologies, and more generally with the redefining of society, corresponding to processes of advanced modernisation. A change that involves the individual and the very structure of social and political ties, and which underpins the crisis of the expressive and organisational methods of politics developed during the century of party democracy. In this sense, the radicalisation of the process of individualisation and pluralisation of identity construction processes is accompanied by the disintermediation of politics and by the changing of actors and contents of representation, with the the stability crisis between identity and procedural activity present in traditional political organization. Further, such a radical transformation of the forms of politics in advanced democracies makes the study of the processes of the personalisation of politics and leadership particularly relevant nowadays. In particular, the sociological perspective allows the theme of leadership to be confronted in its nature of social relationship between leaders, citizens/voters and the contexts inside which it develops, and at the same time explore more deeply the relation between leadership and democracy in the political era of post-mass integration.

The crisis of confidence and delegitimization (with regard to traditional parties and to the political class), the emergence of movements and parties opposed to the traditional, political and institutional system, and the rise of populism are phenomena that political sociology has to face by analysing in how and to what extent representative democracy may be experiencing a period of fragility. They also affect the forms that continuing phase of surpassing party democracy has taken on, in the different perspectives of output democracy, of post-democracy, of populist democracy, of participative and deliberative democracy, and of leader democracy.

Lastly, a political sociology of – and for – our time cannot ignore the supranational dimension of political conflict, just as it cannot be uninterested in the phenomena that characterise societies outside of Europe, no less the relationship between religion and politics in Middle Eastern countries. This issue thus intends to throw itself into the middle of the debate on new challenges of research at the national and international level, that once again give the political sociologist a central role in unravelling the intricate narrative of contemporary, social and political change. Topics of interest include, but are not limited to: crisis of representative democracy in advanced societies; personalization of politics, personalization of power, and leader democracy; populism and political parties; new cleavages politics; new perspectives on political sociology research in European and non-European countries.

 

Peer Review Policy

Every article submitted to Smp will be evaluated by the Director and the Curator to verify that the contents are relevant to this issue. In the event the article is accepted, it will be subjected to a double- blind peer review.

Submission procedure

This issue of Smp will accept articles primarily written in English and Italian. The articles should be no longer than 10,000 words, notes and bibliography included, and should be drafted according to the editorial guidelines of Smp, which may be consulted on the journal’s website. Every article should be accompanied by a brief note on the author (max. 150 words) and an abstract (max. 200 words).

Deadline

Article submission: 15 September 2016?

Peer review feedback: 15 November 2016?

Article submission with edits: 31 December 2016

Issue publication: 15 April 2017

 

Articles and abstract should be submitted to the following email address: lorenzo.viviani@unipi.it

The editorial guidelines are available at: http://www.fupress.net/public/journals/33/smp_norme_eng.pdf

Previous volumes are available at: http://www.fupress.net/index.php/smp

Panel Proposal. Migration and mobility in contemporary Europe: the users and uses of power

Panel Proposal: ECPR General Conference 2016, Prague 7-10 September 2016

The prevalence, scope and dimensions of migration have intensified in contemporary Europe. The panel will discuss how this has created multiple and complex mobility statuses, rights, actions, regimes and structures, amounting to a gradual continuum between full exclusion and full inclusion of migrants, instead of a simple dichotomy between the two.

Contemporary migration is elaborately researched in different disciplines, such as political science, sociology, economics, anthropology, law, history, etc. They study the European or national mobility regimes and structures and the linkage with migration patterns, (supra)national law and the effects on the characteristics, experiences and trajectories of migrant individuals/groups. However, there is also increasing interest in how these individuals and groups act within and/or surpass their different mobility categories. Some of this research rightfully shows that there is not just a simple dichotomy between inclusion and exclusion of migrants, but that more complex and continuous processes are taking place creating a gradation between full exclusion and full inclusion.

This panel wants to engage with research from every discipline, focusing on these complex processes, while asking the critical question of where and how power operates within them. The explicit identification of power is a crucial but difficult exercise, as power can be hidden, complex, perverse, or fragmented, both in terms of the uses of power and their effects as in terms of the users of power and their contexts. Different uses of power can be identified in resistance by individuals or groups, mass mobilization, governmentality practices, governance, structural (economic, political, natural) forces, media discourses, etc. The users of power can be located beyond the state (supranational political and judicial institutions), within the state (civil servants, police, organizations authorized by the state, municipalities, national courts), in the state (national government) or separate from the state (individuals, ngo’s, communities, companies, media).

As power relations are at the heart of the dynamics of contemporary migration in Europe, it is crucial to both analytically and theoretically grasp the users and uses of power in all their contemporary complexity. Therefore, we invite papers that explicitly address power in their analyses, theoretically and/or empirically, noting that we are very open towards the used conceptualization of power. We welcome papers from all disciplines and using different methods, as long as the analysis is about migration and its relation to the users and uses of power.

This panel will be part of the Political Sociology section (‘Power and Authority in Political Actions in Europe’) of the ECPR General Conference 2016 in Prague, 7-10 September 2016.

Researchers interested in taking part in the panel should send the title (20 words max) and abstract (500 words max) of their paper proposals to Rachel Waerniers (rachel.waerniers@ugent.be) and Chloë Delcour (chloe.delcour@ugent.be) by February 11 the latest. Please indicate the email address (of both the presenter and possible co-authors) registered in your MyECPR account (http://ecpr.eu/LoginCreateNewAccount.aspx), as we need it for the final registration.

 

Panel Proposal: ECPR General Conference 2016, Prague 7-10 September 2016

A system of locks or a tool for social change? Nationalism and inequality in comparative perspective

In Thought and Change Ernest Gellner defined nationalism ‘as a system of locks’ maintaining differences of economic and cultural status among areas of the world. At the same time, he described it as a tool for social change ‘born of the discontent of proletarians’ and capable of ‘generating enthusiasm, providing incentives and opportunities, and organising development in terms of local rather than extraneous needs and consideration’. Other authors have struggled to make sense of the Janus-faced nature of nationalism: on the one hand, erecting barriers between human populations; on the other, fostering solidarity among the members of the national community and promoting equality among national groups.

This panel intends to focus precisely on such ambivalence of modern nationalism by examining how political actors and social movements use, or can make use of, nationalism as a frame/strategy to either preserve or fight inequality—meant in a broad sense encompassing social, economic, political, and cultural/symbolic dimensions. We are especially interested in studies concerning the context of the recent economic crisis in Europe, but also open to wider historical and geographical experiences. These can include studies on minority nationalism and separatism, as well as debates relating to immigration—especially with reference to nativism and welfare chauvinism— and following a broad range of theoretical and empirical approaches. Relevant research questions may include, but need not be limited to, the following:

  • Does nationalism naturally entail inequality?
  • Does inequality foster nationalist contestation?
  • Under what conditions, and in relation to whom, is nationalism a force ?contributing to increasing inequality? And, vice-versa, when does ?nationalism foster equality and for whom?
  • Is there any correlation between inequality and nationalism in the ?context of the recent economic crisis?
  • Can we think of national identities more conducive to both in-group and ?inter-group equality?

Scholars interested in taking part in the panel should send the title (20 words max) and abstract (500 words max) of their paper proposals to Emmanuel Dalle Mulle (emmanuel.dallemulle@graduateinstitute.ch) and Eleanor Knott (E.K.Knott@lse.ac.uk) by February 7. Please indicate the email address registered in your MyECPR account, as we need it for the final registration.

This panel will be part of the Political Sociology section of ECPR General Conference 2016 in Prague, 7-10 September 2016. ?