Call for proposals

Lille, January 17th 2019

 

Dates

§  Final date to send the abstracts: July 6th 2018

§  Answer from the scientific comittee : July 20th 2018

§  Paper should be sent : November 30th 2018

§  Conference : January 17th 2019

 

Scientific comittee 

Marion Carrel (Université de Lille), Anne Clerval (Université Paris Est), Vanessa Codaccioni (Université Paris 8), Jean-Gabriel Contamin (Université de Lille), Antonio Delfini (Université de Lille), Abdellali Hajjat (Université Paris Nanterre), Fabien Jobard (Centre Marc Bloch), Sumbul Kaya (Université d'Istanbul), Michel Kokoreff (Université Paris 8), Olivier Masclet (Université Paris 3), Julien O’Miel (Université de Lille), Guillaume Roux (Université de Grenoble), Julie Sedel (Université de Strasbourg), Julien Talpin (Université de Lille), Sylvie Tissot (Université Paris 8), Karel Yon (Université de Lille).

 

 

Ghettos are not political deserts. They know intense but sporadic mobilizations, as well as forms of long-standing community organizing[1]. Collective action remains however weak, constrained and fragmented in urban spaces[2]. Different factors can explain this situation: limited resources, divisions among activists, unfitted repertoires of actions, etc. Strategies of repression, disqualification and cooptation used by the State and public authorities also play a central role however. It is at least the hypothesis we would like to test and discuss during this conference, by confronting research dealing with the role of public agents, institutions and especially the State in the domestication of the mobilizations coming from poor and urban territories.

Sociologist Erik Olin Wright distinguishes between two types of repression of collective action: despotic and hegemonic forms of repression[3]. The later refers to the fabric of consent, the formation of the interests, ideas and aspirations of the governed by the dominant media and cultural productions. The former refers more directly to the use of violence by state actors or to juridical strategies. Both forms of repression often operate in a discrete or hidden manner through tactics of “low-intensity repression”, when institutional actors hinder mobilization by disqualifying actors or limiting the accumulation of material resources (grants, office spaces, etc.) [4], or by co-opting them through clientelist or patronizing strategies[5]. Such practices construct a form of infra-politics of the ruling class, a set of tactics and strategies, often discrete or hidden, aimed at constraining protest. The observation of such governmental practices remains a difficult task for the social sciences however, as evidence is not easy to access on such matters. One of the goals of this conference is therefore to discuss the conditions of access – in particular from a methodological point of view – to the “hidden transcripts”[6] of the State. While participant observation appears ideal from this perspective, the difficulties to get access to such fields of inquiry may lead to use alternative methodological routes, through archive work, interviews, etc.

This conference will also investigate the role of “inside allies”, public servants, members of central or local government administrations, staff from philanthropic foundations, etc. who can embody support for both activists and social scientists. While some research has stressed the role of such actors in urban social movements, and has investigated the role of “institutional activism”, the sociology of dissident public action remains to be accomplished, in particular for policy sectors dealing directly with poor people (urban policies, equality and anti-discrimination policies, etc.). Against a homogenizing perspective seeing the State as a monolithic bloc, we will focus our attention on the breaches, the divisions and internal contradictions that may embody opportunities for oppositional actors, as the “political opportunity structure” approach as emphasized[7]. More broadly, the conference will investigate the relationship of elected officials, public servants and officials to contestation, critic and countervailing powers[8]. What do these governmentality strategies reveal of the relationship of political and administrative elites to the democratic system[9]? 

One of the goals of this conference is, finally, to question a potential specificity of the treatment of collective action of poor and minority actors. Are the tactics used by the State and local governments to domesticate such mobilizations the same as those used in other contexts? To what extent the over-representation of racialized populations in these neighborhoods shapes government strategies? While historical works have emphasized the continuity between colonial and post-colonial administrative practices[10], can similar continuities be observed in the management and representation of mobilizations of ethnic and racial minorities, often descending from post-colonial migration? From this perspective, a specific attention will be given to the forms of disqualification of ethno-racial minorities mobilizations.

While the analysis of the dynamics of contention requires a relational approach, we will favor proposals centered on the role and practices of public actors in the demobilization of poor neighborhoods residents. This is in part due to practical considerations, as this one day conference will take place in a broader scientific event where other times will more specifically be devoted to the analysis of mobilization practices per se.

 

Six areas of reflection are envisioned:

 

1.      Police, judicial system and mass incarceration in the repression of poor people mobilizations

Police and the judicial system are on the first line when it comes to the repression of collective action[11]. Beyond violent forms of repression, can specific practices be observed when it comes to the policing of poor neighborhoods’ residents mobilizations? Beyond the domestication of urban uprisings – like in 2005 in the French banlieue or in 1992 in Los Angeles – do more routine forms of policing impact organizing capacities? [12]  What is the role of trials – and in general acquittals – of policemen judged for violence or murder, in the demobilization of poor people or racial minorities? Can arrests for “rebellion” be seen as a way to domesticate activists? [13] To what extent does incarceration – affecting in particular ethnic and racial minorities – contribute to the political demobilization of minority groups?[14] How the judicial strategies of the State increase the (symbolic and material) costs of mobilization?

 

2.      Categorizations and disqualifications

Mobilizations also depend on the way they are presented and qualified by both activists and external actors, symbolic struggles taking place for the meaning of the fight. From this perspective, mobilizations coming from poor neighborhoods seem to fit the broader stigmatization residents of such territories face. We will therefore study the type of discourses produced to (dis)qualify such movements – “identity politics”; “separatism”; “victimization”; “radicalization”; “terrorism”[15]. Are these categories produced by actors on the field or by scientific works used to qualify such practices? How such categories circulate from one social space to another? What is the role of the press and local media in the attribution of such labels? [16] How are these labels perceived, used and maybe diverted by urban neighborhoods residents? To what extent do they contribute to the division of residents of these territories? As the costs of engagement are high – all the more in a context of social and economic precariousness – can forms of militant fatigue, exhaustion or even depression be observed among activists? What are the consequences of such disqualification strategies on the professional and personal trajectories of mobilized actors? Finally, to what extent local and alternative media – radios, social media, neighborhood journals – can embody subaltern counter-public spaces allowing answering such symbolic attacks? [17]

 

3.      Constraining the material conditions of organizing

The sociology of collective action has long emphasized how resource mobilization was crucial to the success of social movements.[18]  One of the consequences of low-intensity repression strategies is precisely to increase the symbolic and material costs of mobilization. What forms do such material constraints take in poor neighborhoods? A particular attention will be given to the funding strategies and the allocation of resources to NGOs from local governments and the State. What are the criteria guiding these choices? To what extent the previously mentioned categories inform these decisions? How can such decisions be studied from a methodological point of view? While reflections have been carried out recently on the conditions of financial autonomy of poor people mobilizations[19], social sciences can contribute to investigate the effects of community organizations economic models on the dynamic of collective action. Another important issue is the spatial conditions of mobilization[20]. How are office spaces and gathering places distributed in poor neighborhoods, and how does this impacts mobilizations?

 

4.      Clientelism and cooption of poor neighborhood activists

 

An often used strategy consists in the co-option of contentious actors or in granting them special favors, services or personal advantages to foster demobilization. While “machine politics” has largely declined in large metropolises, does it mean clientelism has disappeared[21]? To what extent has been re-invested or re-configured through the role played by community actors?[22] How do clientelist strategies contribute to the division of the residents of poor neighborhoods, between “poverty pimps” and “real activists” to use indigenous categories? How does the local history shape the autonomy of civil society from this perspective?

 

5.      Inside allies and breaches within the State

The State is not a homogeneous bloc. It is characterized by contradictions and inside political mobilizations. From this perspective, beyond forms of repression and domestication, tactics of support – often discrete – to contention can also be observed. Which actors are sometimes perceived as ‘inside allies” by poor neighborhood activists? What professional and political socialization processes may explain these types of internal resistance? What are the costs of such practices for actors ? How concretely do alliances and support operate? Through funding decisions? Through struggles over the qualification of actors? By providing networking opportunities? Through the formation and training of activists and organizers? We will look in particular at the role of State and local government actors. From this perspective, does being physically or personally close to activists make such alliances easier? We will investigate in particular policy sectors most relevant to poor neighborhoods: namely urban policies, anti-discrimination policies, security and gang-injunction policies, etc.

 

6.      Responding to repression

Organizations and activists are not passive recipients of government strategies of repression. We will therefore investigate the answers experimented in poor neighborhoods to respond to repression, disqualification and co-option. Are forms of self-defense emerging, as those experimented by the Black Power movement in the US or by feminist movements in order to respond to growing defiance towards police and justice forces?[23] Is the answer to disqualification to make mobilizations invisible – to avoid domestication – or on the contrary to express a form of identify affirmation and struggles for recognition – like “black is beautiful” or the “gay pride” – that have marked the history of minority movements? What alternative funding practices can be envisioned to avoid co-option and remain autonomous? What is the state of activists’ reflections concerning the professionalization of activism and the claim that “the revolution will not be funded”?[24] 

 

The conference welcomes empirically grounded sociological and historical research, investigating different historical situations, national or local contexts, ordinary or critical times. Proposals can tackle one or several themes of reflections listed above. All methodological and theoretical approaches are welcome.

Proposals of a maximum of 500 words are expected before July 6th 2018.

 

Conference date: January 17^th 2019.

 

Key dates

§  Final date to send the abstracts: July 6th 2018

§  Answer from the scientific comittee : July 20th 2018

§  Paper should be sent : November 30th 2018

§  Conference : January 17th 2019

 

Organization

Equipe du projet ANR EODIPAR (Expériences des discriminations, participation et représentation)

Julien Talpin

 

Scientific comittee

Marion Carrel (Université de Lille), Anne Clerval (Université Paris Est), Vanessa Codaccioni (Université Paris 8), Jean-Gabriel Contamin (Université de Lille), Antonio Delfini (Université de Lille), Abdellali Hajjat (Université Paris Nanterre), Fabien Jobard (Centre Marc Bloch), Sumbul Kaya (Université d'Istanbul), Michel Kokoreff (Université Paris 8), Olivier Masclet (Université Paris 3), Julien O’Miel (Université de Lille), Guillaume Roux (Université de Grenoble), Julie Sedel (Université de Strasbourg), Julien Talpin (Université de Lille), Sylvie Tissot (Université Paris 8), Karel Yon (Université de Lille).

 

 

Bibliography

Amiot, M. (1986), Contre l'Etat, les sociologues: éléments pour une histoire de la sociologie urbaine en France, 1900-1980, Paris, Editions de l'EHESS.

 

Bacqué, M.-H., Mechmache, M., (2013), « Pour une réforme radicale de la politique de la ville. Ça ne se fera plus sans nous. Citoyenneté et pouvoir d’agir dans les quartiers populaires », Rapport au ministre délégué chargé de la ville, juillet 2013.

 

Berthaut, J. (2013), La banlieue du « 20 heures ». Ethnographie d’un lieu commun journalistique, Marseille, Agone, 2013.

 

Blanchard, E. (2011) La police parisienne et les Algériens (1944-1962), Paris, Nouveau monde éditions, 2011.

 

Blanchard, P., Bancel N., Lemaire S. (dir.), La Fracture coloniale. La société française au prisme de l’héritage colonial, Paris, La Découverte, 2005.

 

Briquet J.-L., F. Sawicki (dir.) (1998), Le clientélisme politique dans les sociétés contemporaines, Paris, PUF.

 

Codaccioni, V. (2015) Justice d’exception. L’État face aux crimes politiques et terroristes, CNRS éditions.

 

Collectif angles morts (2011), Vengeance d'Etat. Villiers-le-bel, des révoltes aux procès, Paris, Syllepse.

 

Combes, H., Fillieule, O. (2011), « De la répression considérée dans ses rapports à l’activité protestataire », Revue française de science politique, vol. 61, n° 6, p. 1047-1072.

 

Combes, H., Garibay, D., Goirand C., (dir.), Les lieux de la colère. Occuper pour contester de Madrid à Sanaa, Paris, Karthala, 2015.

 

Combes, H., Vommaro, G. (2016), Sociologie du clientélisme, Paris, La Découverte.

 

Cossart, P., Talpin, J. (2015), Lutte urbaine. Participation et démocratie d'interpellation à l’Alma-Gare, Le Croquant, 2015.

 

De Barros, F. (2005) « Des « Français musulmans d'Algérie » aux « immigrés ». L'importation de classifications coloniales dans les politiques du logement en France (1950 – 1970) », Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, 2005/4 (n^o 159), p. 26-53 

 

Della Porta, D., Fillieule, O. (2006),  Police et manifestants. Maintien de l’ordre et gestion des conflits, Paris, Presses de Sciences Po.

 

Diamond, A. (2013) « Incarcération de masse et démobilisation politique chez les Afro- Américains », Informations sociales, 177 (3), p. 86-94.

 

Dorlin, E. (2017) Se défendre. Une philosophie de la violence. Paris, La Découverte.

 

Fassin, D. (2006), "Du déni à la dénégation. Psychologie politique de la représentation des discriminations", in Fassin, D., Fassin, E. (eds.) (2006) De la question sociale à la question raciale, Paris, La Découverte.

 

Fassin, E. (2018) "L'irruption des contre-publics", AOC, 14 février 2018.

 

Fraser, N., (2005), « Repenser l’espace public : une contribution à la critique de la démocratie réellement existante », in Qu’est-ce que la justice sociale ? Reconnaissance et redistribution, Paris, La Découverte.

 

Guillaume, G. Rui, S., Topçu, S. (2013) « Gouvernementalité et participation », Participations, 2013/2 (N° 6), p. 5-33.

 

Hadj Belgacem, S. (2016) « Reconquérir la jeunesse des cités ? Enjeux et contradictions d’un Conseil Local des Jeunes dans une municipalité communiste », Mouvements, 2016/1 (n° 85), p. 95-103.

 

Hajjat, A. (2008), « Révolte des quartiers populaires, crise du militantisme et postcolonialisme », in Boubeker, A. et Hajjat, A. (dir.), Histoire politique des immigrations (post)coloniales. France, 1920-2008, Paris : Éditions Amsterdam, p. 249-264.

 

Hmed, C. (2008) « Des mouvements sociaux ‘sur une tête d'épingle’? Le rôle de l'espace physique dans le processus contestataire à partir de l'exemple des mobilisations dans les foyers de travailleurs migrants », Politix, 2008/4 (n° 84), p. 145-165.

 

INCITE (dir.) (2007), The Revolution Will Not be Funded. Beyond the Non-profit Industrial Complex, Cambridge, South End Press.

 

Jobard, J., S. Névanen (2007), « La couleur du jugement. Discriminations dans les décisions judiciaires en matière d'infractions à agents de la force publique (1965-2005) », Revue française de sociologie, 2007/2 (Vol. 48), p. 243-272.

 

Laurens, S. (2009), Une politisation feutrée. Les hauts fonctionnaires et l'immigration en France, Paris, Belin.

 

McCarthy, J., Zald, M. (1977), "Resource mobilization and Social Movements. A partial theory", American Journal of Sociology, 82, p. 1212-1241.

 

Marwell, N. (2007), Bargaining for Brooklyn: Community Organizations in the Entrepreneurial City, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.

 

Masclet, O. (2003), La Gauche et les cités. Enquête sur un rendez-vous manqué, Paris, La Dispute.

 

Mattina, C. (2017), Clientélisme urbain, Paris, Presses de Sciences-Po, 2017.

 

Moreau de Bellaing, C. (2012), « L'État, une affaire de police ? Ce que le travail des dispositifs policiers de discipline interne nous apprend de l'État », Quaderni, 2012/2 (n° 78), p. 85-104.

Mouvements (2017) "Se protéger de la police, se protéger sans la police", 92/4. 

 

Politix (2005) « Militantismes institutionnels », Politix, vol. 70, no. 2, 2005.

 

Sedel, J. (2009) Les médias et la banlieue, Bordeaux, INA /Bord de l'eau.  

 

Scott, J. (2008) [1990]. La Domination et les arts de la résistance : fragments du discours subalterne, Paris, Éditions Amsterdam.

 

Talpin, J. (2016a) "Une répression à bas-bruit. Comment les élus étouffent les mobilisations dans les quartiers populaires, Métropolitiques. http://www.metropolitiques.eu/Une-repression-a-bas-bruit-Comment.html

 

Talpin, J. (2016b) Community organizing. De l'émeute à l'alliance des classes populaires aux Etats-Unis, Paris, Raisons d'agir. , 2016.

 

Tarrow, S. (1994) Power in Movement. Social Movements and Contentious Politics, Cambridge, Camridge University Press.

 

Wright, E. O. (2017 [2010], Utopies Réelles, Paris, La Découverte.