Archives par mot-clé : Histoire sociale

Avis de soutenance: Charles Bosvieux-Onyekwelu, « D’une sociodicée à un savoir d’État : le service public, une tentative de mise en forme du monde social par le droit (1873-1940) », Paris, ENS Ulm, 7 décembre 2016

HiSoPo vous informe que Charles Bosvieux-Onyekwelu soutiendra sa thèse pour le doctorat en sociologie, intitulée : « D’une sociodicée à un savoir d’État : le service public, une tentative de mise en forme du monde social par le droit (1873-1940) ». La soutenance aura lieu le mercredi 7 décembre 2016 à 14h à l’École normale supérieure (29 rue d’Ulm, salle 236) devant un jury composé de :

Monsieur Laurent WILLEMEZ, Professeur de sociologie, Université de Versailles-Saint-Quentin (directeur de thèse)
Monsieur Jean-Louis HALPÉRIN, Professeur d’histoire du droit, ENS Ulm (codirecteur)
Madame Martine KALUSZYNSKI, Directrice de recherche CNRS, Sciences-po Grenoble (rapporteure)
Madame Claire LEMERCIER, Directrice de recherche CNRS, Sciences-po Paris (rapporteure)
Monsieur Matthieu HÉLY, Professeur de sociologie, Université de Versailles-Saint-Quentin (examinateur)
Monsieur Duncan KELLY, Reader in Political Thought, University of Cambridge (examinateur)

La soutenance est publique, et sera suivie d’un apéritif ouvert à tou-te-s.


Résumé de la thèse

Au carrefour de la socio-histoire, de la sociologie du droit et de la sociologie des élites, la thèse revient sur la genèse d’un concept-clef de l’État républicain en France : le service public. Entre 1870 et 1940, cette idée, qui préexistait à la naissance du nouveau régime, est retravaillée par différents types d’acteurs dans un sens plus démocratique, tel un aggiornamento de la pensée d’État. Dans cette opération de mise à jour figurent en première place les milieux juridiques (hauts fonctionnaires du Conseil d’État et professeurs de droit), qui vont notamment se servir de la montée en puissance du contentieux administratif pour légitimer leur position par rapport aux civilistes et imposer une vision « d’en haut » du service public, compris comme un véritable savoir de gouvernement. En retraçant les différentes étapes par lesquelles s’est constitué un récit mythique des origines autour de l’arrêt Blanco du 8 février 1873, la thèse vise donc à faire l’histoire de la construction d’une profession, celle de publiciste ou d’administrativiste, en même temps que la genèse d’un champ, le champ du « public ». Au sein de ce champ gravitent des acteurs plus éloignés du champ juridique (ingénieurs de l’État, philanthropes, théoriciens du social de tous ordres, syndicalistes de la fonction publique), qui luttent soit pour ne pas se laisser imposer une conception entièrement étatisée de la générosité publique, soit pour faire entendre le point de vue des dominé-e-s de ce champ (petits et moyens fonctionnaires, instituteurs/trices). L’enquête met donc en valeur une distribution inégale et différenciée de l’intérêt pour le « public », visible dans la compréhension des revendications démocratiques de l’époque (droit de grève et syndicalisation dans la fonction publique, municipalisme, vote de l’impôt sur le revenu), que certains des acteurs essaient constamment de retraduire dans les catégories d’un droit qu’ils aiment à voir comme seul savoir légitime sur le monde social. In fine, ce travail de socio-histoire permet, par un effort pour penser avec la mentalité des contemporains de l’époque (i.e. sans raconter l’histoire par la fin et en faisant droit aux possibles non advenus), de comprendre la métamorphose du « souci de soi » de l’État à un âge démocratique, en décrivant le point de rencontre entre une main droite traditionnellement régalienne et masculine (symbolisée par les membres du Conseil d’État) et la main gauche de l’État social et protecteur.

En termes de méthodologie et de cadrage théorique, la thèse repose sur une enquête prosopographique dont le corpus est constitué par les différents sous-groupes de porteurs de l’idée de service public entre 1870 et 1940 (n = 77, des hommes à une majorité plus qu’écrasante). Elle alterne récit et analyse des données quantitatives issues de l’enquête prosopographique, et combine ethnographie sur archives (pour le Conseil d’État), analyse de correspondances et analyse de contenu (arrêts de la justice administrative, commentaires doctrinaux et ouvrages « théoriques » sur le service public). Elle s’essaie à une association raisonnée de la théorie des champs et de la sociologie des professions. Enfin, les archives dépouillées sont, outre les dossiers de carrière de chaque prosopographié-e, celles du Conseil d’État, du Tribunal des conflits, des facultés de droit (principalement Paris, Bordeaux et Toulouse), de l’agrégation de droit et des syndicats (fédérations de fonctionnaires + CGT dans ses rapports avec l’État).

MOTS-CLEFS : SERVICE PUBLIC, CONSEIL D’ÉTAT, SOCIO-HISTOIRE DE L’ACTION PUBLIQUE, SOCIOLOGIE DES SAVOIRS D’ÉTAT ET DE GOUVERNEMENT, SOCIODICÉE DES ÉLITES, DÉSINTÉRESSEMENT, SOCIOLOGIE DU DROIT, THÉORIE DES CHAMPS, SOCIOLOGIE DES PROFESSIONS, PROSOPOGRAPHIE


Abstract

At the intersection of social history, the sociology of law and the sociology of elites, the thesis goes back to the origin of a key concept of the French Republican State: public service. Between 1870 and 1940, this idea, which preceded the new regime, is reshaped by different types of actors in a more democratic sense, as an aggiornamento of state-thought. The legal circles (senior officials of the Conseil d’État and law professors) took a prime position during this update. They notably made advantage of the rise in importance of administrative litigation to legitimate their position as opposed to civil law specialists and impose a vision « from above » of public service, understood as true science of administration. By retracing the sequence of events that made a myth from the Blanco case of 8 February 1873, the thesis aims to give an account of the construction of a profession, that of a lawyer specialising in public law or in administrative law, at the same time as the creation of a “public” field. Actors distant from the legal field (state engineers, philanthropists, social theorists of all kinds, civil service trade unionists) gravitate to this field, struggling either not to let the State’s conception of generosity to the public be imposed on them, or to get the point of view of those dominated in this field (lower and middle bureaucrats, primary school teachers) across. The enquiry therefore highlights the unequal and differentiated distribution of interest for the « public », visible in the understanding of the democratic claims of the time (the right to strike and unionise in the civil service, municipalism, the Act of Parliament on income tax), that certain actors consistently tried to translate into categories of law regarded favourably as the only right approach to the social world. Finally, in an effort to think within the contemporaries of the time’s mindset (i.e. without reading history backwards and by taking virtual history into consideration), this socio-historical work enables the understanding of the transformation of the « self-concern » of the State in a democratic age, by describing the encounter between a traditional, sovereign and masculine right hand (epitomised by the members of the Conseil d’État) and the left hand of the protective and social State.

In terms of methodology and theoretical framework, the thesis is based on a prosopographical enquiry, the corpus of which is made from the different subgroups of exponents of the idea of public service between 1870 and 1940 (n = 77, the overwhelming majority are men). It alternates between an account and an analysis of the quantitative data drawn from the prosopographical enquiry, and combines archival ethnography (for the Conseil d’État), multiple correspondence analysis and discourse analysis (administrative justice cases, jurisprudence and « theoretical » works on public service). It attempts a reasoned association between field theory and the sociology of professions. Also, as well as the career records of each individual in the prosopography, the archives that have been examined are those of the Conseil d’État, the Tribunal des conflits, law faculties (mainly Paris, Bordeaux and Toulouse), the “agrégation” examination in law and unions (federations of civil servants + CGT in its relation with the State).

KEYWORDS: PUBLIC SERVICE, CONSEIL D’ÉTAT, SOCIAL HISTORY OF PUBLIC POLICY, SCIENCE OF STATE SOCIOLOGY, SOCIODICY AND SOCIOLOGY OF ELITES, SELFLESSNESS, SOCIOLOGY OF LAW, FIELD THEORY, SOCIOLOGY OF PROFESSIONS, PROSOPOGRAPHY

CfP: 53rd ITH Conference « Worlds of Labour Turned Upside Down – Revolutions and Labour Relations in Global Historical Perspective », Linz/Upper Austria, 21-23 September 2017

HiSoPo vous informe de la publication de l’appel à communications pour la 53ème International Conference of Labour and Social History (ITH) qui porte sur le thème  » Worlds of Labour Turned Upside Down – Revolutions and Labour Relations in Global Historical Perspective ». La conférence aura lieu du 21 au 23 septembre 2017 à Linz (Autriche).


Call for Papers for the 53rd ITH Conference

« Worlds of Labour Turned Upside Down –

Revolutions and Labour Relations

in Global Historical Perspective« 

21-23 September 2017,
Linz/Upper Austria

 


CALL FOR PAPERS

After a long quarantine, “revolution” is back as a topic of historiographical debate. The upcoming anniversary of 1917 – arguably one of, if not the most momentous event of the 20 th century – has further fuelled this renewed interest. The reasons for the trend might be sought, on the one hand, in broader contemporary social experiences of crisis – including economic crises, recent upheavals in the Arab world, or movements and governments in Latin America aiming at transformation or even explicitly revolution. On the other hand, internal shifts within the domains of historical studies have made revolutions an attractive object of study again: Under the influence of dynamic debates around “global history” and “transnational perspectives” revolutions have emerged as an obvious object of study for those interested in the circulation of ideas, persons, commodities, practices, etc., as well as the connection between locations.

Taking this fresh attention given to revolutions as a starting point, the ITH Conference 2017 proposes to realign the focus and to discuss the specific interrelation between revolutions and labour relations. This interrelation is, of course, most conspicuous in all those movements and political projects, especially after 1917, in which a shift in ownership and labour relations was explicitly seen as a prime mover of revolutions. Labour relations were, however, not only on the mind of actors who were following Marxist ideas about what constitutes the social. Furthermore, also without an elaborated ideology and programme on labour-related issues, revolutionary processes have always been greatly shaped by the crises and conflicts emerging from the worlds of labour and by the aspirations and agency of labourers. For instance, the revolution of the slaves of Saint-Domingue in 1804 has to be seen as such directly labour-related upheaval (figuring as the iconic example of so many revolts and attempted revolutions by those bound by modern Atlantic chattel slavery). Yet, the importance of all matters of labour can also be seen in more recent events: for example, in a number of labour conflicts during the 2000s that preceded the movements of the Arab spring.

Approaching change within the “worlds of labour”, the conference aims at bringing the renewed interest in revolutions together with the vibrant debates in the field of Global Labour History. The latter has evolved over the last two decades focusing on the analysis of labour relations – emphasizing their diversity and the interrelated co-existence of various forms in the development of modern capitalism. Broadening both the geographical scope of labour history and the notion of “worker” it has set out to include the history of slaves and other unfree labourers, as well as of self-employed, informal,precarious, or unpaid (subsistence) workers. How were revolutions grounded and shaped by this diversity of labour relations? How did different groups of labourers act in and influence revolutionary processes? And, how did these revolutionary transformations determine shifts in the composition of the labour force as well as the shape of labour relations?

Starting from these basic questions about the interrelations of revolutions and labour, the following themes, topics, and lines of enquiry are possible:

Before-&-After-analysis: One line of enquiry can be a systematic analysis of labour relations before, during, and after revolutions. Contributions might analyse both the transformation of labour relations “on the ground” and the changes in the institutional and legal frameworks of labour (such as the introduction of novel labour laws, or, as in some countries after 1918, comprehensive “labour constitutions”). Such papers might focus both on the groups of labourers directly involved in revolutionary struggles or on those not, on groups faring better during or after revolutionary transformations or on those faring worse, on intended changes and unintended consequences.

Labour, Revolution and War: A further dimension which merits attention is the frequent interrelation between war and revolutionary events. As epitomized in the experience of WWI, wars often brought about sharp and enforced changes for labourers, turning workers into soldiers or dictating the militarization of labour. This had multiple repercussions for the whole of society, with the intensified recruitment of women for industrial non-household work being among the most important. As wars and home front policies caused multiple and contradictory shifts along the spectrum of “free” und “unfree” labour, the composition of the industrial workforce as well as the worlds of everyday reproduction, these upheavals both fuelled revolutionary unrest in the wake of wars and, in many cases, cast long shadows on the way labour was organised during revolutionary periods and post- revolutionary societies. It is this interlinkage between “labour under war” and “labour under revolution” which will be at the heart of this line of enquiry.

Microanalysis: A sizeable literature has built up over the last decades allowing unique glimpses at the “big” processes of revolutions by focusing on rather small units either of production (factories, workshops, plantations, households) or community (villages, neighbourhoods). In that, one of the topical issues for researchers about revolutions in the 20 th century is the self-organisation of workers, peasants, and other groups in councils, soviets, or committees. Which insights do these approaches allow on the ways labour relations have been transformed and re-arranged during revolutionary periods? How did local issues and labour grievances connect to more overarching revolutionary themes? Which interrelations between female reproductive and subsistence labour on the one hand, and out-of-household labour on the other hand, can be observed during revolutionary periods? In which ways did the gendered division of labour interact with revolutionary processes?

Tele-connections: Papers in this line of enquiry might, for one, analyse translocal connections between actors in different localities, e.g. the (seasonal) migration of labourers during revolutionary periods and its repercussions, or the active solidarities between actors considering themselves to be revolutionaries. At the same time, they might also focus on transhistorical connections between revolutions by analysing how actors in revolutions referred to previous examples, e.g. how actors during 1917 referred to 1789 in its vision of social transformation of labour.

Revolution as labour: Revolutions have generated a specific type of social actor – those living for and from revolutionary activity. From intellectual instigator to political orator, soldier to activist, or emissary to spy, this line of enquiry will analyse the conditions, forms, and changing characteristics of those making a living while or through being dedicated or enlisted to revolutionary activity.

Thinking revolution and labour relations: The interrelation of revolutions and labour relations is also shaped by the ways actors (both of the time and subsequently) have reflected upon and intervened regarding this relation. What were the aspirations revolutionary actors had about labour relations? How did after-the-event interpretations – by activists, intellectuals, or, more specifically, historians – conceive this interrelation? Did they highlight specific factors, such as technological change or the role of ideology?

While this list is not exhaustive and the organizers are open to all proposals connecting to the general topic of the conference, this conference particularly seeks to encourage papers which use comparative approaches (both synchronic and diachronic) or point to
connections between places and actors apart. The conference encourages papers covering all world-regions and going beyond the well-known array of “classical” revolutions. The organizers also encourage a long global-historical perspective and the conference is open to papers on different periods. This includes the more remote
processes and events in early modern period or the transformations around 1989 and beyond, as long as they stick to the focus on the interrelation of revolutions and labour relations in an original way. The conference will also explicitly use the notion of larger transnational “cycles of revolution” presupposing the existence of interconnected clusters of revolutions affecting different regions at the same time.

This conference will be organized in a spirit that expressly acknowledges the fundamentally contested nature of all revolutions (both among actors of the time and subsequent historians). It adheres to a rather broad notion of “revolution” – including failed or attempted revolutions, revolutionary situations, as well as those imposed from above or through war. It nevertheless insists that the debate is on condensed (and relatively short) processes of crises, conflict, and change. The conference’s focus thus remains on cases where there was both an element of (political) transition and one of (social) transformation. While this encourages papers on, for instance, the interrelations between decolonization and labour relations, other instances in which the notion of “revolution” is common to denote processes of deep transformation (such as “industrial revolution”, “Fordist revolution”, “neoliberal revolution”, etc.) will not be at the centre of interest.


SUBMISSION

Proposed papers should include:

  • abstract (max. 300 words)
  • biographical note (max. 200 words)
  • full address und e-mail address

Proposals to be sent to Lukas Neissl: lukas.neissl@doew.at


TIME SCHEDULE

Submission of proposals: by 29 January 2017
Notification of acceptance: 1 March 2017
Full papers or presentation versions: by 20 August 2017


PREPARATORY GROUP

Tamás Krausz, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest
Ragnheiður Kristjánsdóttir, University of Iceland, Reykjavík
Marcel van der Linden, International Institute of Social History, Amsterdam
David Mayer, ITH, Vienna
Stefan Müller, Friedrich Ebert Foundation, Bonn
Goran Musić, Centre for Southeast European Studies, University of Graz
Lukas Neissl, ITH, Vienna
Felix Wemheuer, University of Cologne


Vous pouvez également télécharger l’appel à communications en format PDF en langue anglaise (ith_cfp_2017_en-1) ou allemande (ith_cfp_2017_de-1).