Co-auteur
  • GUILD Elspeth (22)
  • GUITTET Emmanuel-Pierre (10)
  • BONELLI Laurent (9)
  • WALKER Robert (7)
  • Voir plus
Type de Document
  • Article (69)
  • Partie ou chapitre de livre (23)
  • Contribution à un site web (13)
  • Livre (10)
  • Voir plus
in Global Discourse: An interdisciplinary journal of current affairs Publié en 2021-04-26
GUILD Elspeth
MENDOS KUSKONMAZ Elif
108
vues

0
téléchargements
This article transects and articulates different disciplines and lines of thought in order to understand the redefinitions of the boundaries of political power in times of COVID-19, and the practices which may outlive the potential normalization of the crisis when an efficient vaccine is discovered. We claim that the COVID-19 pandemic is an original form of governmentality by unease articulating three dimensions. First, the basic reaction of modern states when faced with uncertainty to apply national-territorial logics of controls. Second, bureaucracies consider the virus along the frame of a danger to security and organize public health emergencies according to the rules of the game of national security, creating tensions between internal security, public health and the economy because policy makers may be unsure about the priorities and may have privilege border controls. Third, resistance against the chosen national policies show that people are not led by a politics of fear and-or protection, but rather their own concerns about themselves with a peer-to-peer surveillance based on the denunciation of potentially contaminated persons as one key element of their compliance. Contact tracing technologies and strategies of border controls are key elements to analyze. We do so in different contexts: UK, European Union and Turkey.

in Cultures et conflits Publié en 2021-03-18
DAHO Grégory
VAUCHEZ Antoine
GARCIA Afrânio
JEANPIERRE Laurent
LEVI Ron
SIMÉANT-GERMANOS Johanna
18
vues

0
téléchargements
En clôture du colloque qui est à l’origine de ce dossier, nous avions demandé à des chercheurs d’horizons disciplinaires et de générations différentes de revenir sur leur rencontre avec les travaux d’Yves Dezalay et d’évoquer dans le cadre d’un échange retranscrit ci-dessous, la manière dont chacun d’entre eux avait pu mobiliser, prolonger, nuancer, parfois réfuter les pistes et façons de faire d’Yves Dezalay. On trouve là une occasion de partager des réflexions plus personnelles sur les pratiques de l’enquête globale mais aussi sur les positions occupées et les rapports au métier de chercheurs construits au fil du temps ; et une opportunité aussi de revenir sur tous ces concepts de « moyenne portée », si nombreux au fil de son travail (« compradors », « courtiers de l’international », « agents doubles », « import-export d’État », « luttes de palais », etc.), de discuter du système d’hypothèses formulées par Yves Dezalay, et de resituer celles-ci dans un ensemble d’écarts et de proximités avec d’autres courants (Relations internationales, histoire connectée ou sociologie critique).

in Site du CERI Publié en 2021-01-06
BASARAN Tugba
BEERLI Monique Jo
MC CLUSKEY Emma
14
vues

0
téléchargements
Une nouvelle revue de sciences sociales a vu le jour au printemps 2020. Publiée deux fois par an par Brill, Political Anthropological Research on International Social Sciences (PARISS) vise à promouvoir une pluralité de manières de penser, de chercher et d’écrire, afin d’offrir un espace de publication aux auteurs contemporains des sciences sociales venus d’au-delà du monde anglo-saxon. La revue s’intéresse aux sciences sociales, aux relations internationales, aux études globales, à la sociologie et à l’anthropologie, aux approches transdisciplinaires, aux arts et aux humanités. Ses quatre co-éditeurs Tugba Basaran, Monique J. Beerli, Didier Bigo et Emma Mc Cluskey ont répondu à nos questions. Entretien et traduction de l’anglais par Miriam Périer.

Sous la direction de BIGO Didier, DIEZ Thomas, FANOULIS Evangelos, ROSAMOND Ben , STIVACHTIS Yannis A Publié en 2020-12-22
73
vues

0
téléchargements
This handbook comprehensively defines and shapes the field of Critical European Union Studies, sets the research agenda and highlights emerging areas of study. Bringing together critical analyses of European Union politics, policies and processes with an expert range of contributors, it overcomes disciplinary borders and paradigms and addresses four main thematic areas pertaining to the study of the European Union and its policies: • Critical approaches to European integration; • Critical approaches to European political economy; • Critical approaches to the EU’s internal security; • Critical approaches to the EU’s external relations and foreign affairs. In their contributions to this volume, the authors take a sympathetic yet critical approach to the European integration process and the present structures of the European Union. Furthermore, the book provides graduate students and faculty with ideas for future research activity and introduces critical analyses rooted in a broad spectrum of theoretical perspectives. The Routledge Handbook of Critical European Union Studies will be an essential reference for scholars, students, researchers and practitioners interested and working in the fields of EU politics/studies, European integration, European political economy and public policy, EU foreign policy, EU freedom of movement and security practices, and more broadly in international relations, the wider social sciences and humanities.

in The Routledge Handbook of Critical European Studies Sous la direction de BIGO Didier, DIEZ Thomas, FANOULIS Evangelos, ROSAMOND Ben , STIVACHTIS Yannis A. Publié en 2020-12-22
43
vues

0
téléchargements
This paper is concerned with the changes occurring into what has been called the field of European Union (EU) internal security (Anderson, den Boer 1994; Bigo 1996; Sheptycki 1998). The notion of field is used to avoid that a vision of the multiple different practices of the actors who gather and compete to define security and insecurity, being reduced to a discussion on the progress or not of the institutions of the EU and an analysis of the success or failure of a spill over in matters of sovereignty. The existence of an EU internal security domain called Justice and Home affairs is not an autonomous domain that security studies can isolate as an object as such (Kees Gronendijk in this volume). The question of EU internal security is derivative from the practices of freedom of movement in the EU, of who is entitled to cross borders, to stay, to work to live with his family. This area, or better this social space is constructed as a field because many social actors who do policing, border controls, migration management, reception of refugees have been interested and pushed into strong disputes around the idea of an European internal security and have fought to privilege their reasoning and tools over the others, in order also to guarantee their funds and missions. The socio-genesis of the field of EU internal security is correlated with the transformations of practices of freedom for people to move and the ways this management of their travel has been correlated with the traditional tasks of coercion in case of crime and violence that police do, as well as the way they treat their citizen and the foreigners in these cases. The field is therefore a field of power, where different professionals engage transnationally on the best and worst practices that the other national traditions consider as legitimate options for coercing individuals in a specific state. Far from opposing homogeneous cultural entities of nations represented by their governments and their representative (commissioners, and permanent representation), a study of the last forty years shows that the alliance and the fights follow often about the way actors do their job, the similarity or not of their routines, their habitus and trajectories (Adler-Nissen 2012; Kauppi and Madsen 2013). To be a policeman, a gendarme, a border guard, whatever the country, is more important than the nationality, and frames how people act, beyond the diplomatic negotiation done in Brussels. This is what I have called transnational guilds (Bigo 2016). They are structured by the specific skills necessary to do a job, and the form of recognition about who is an expert on this domain, sometimes not in accordance with the formal hierarchies at work into institutions. As it has been explained many times such a research imposes combining different disciplines, which have all their own 401narratives about the history of EU internal security (Bossong and Rhinard 2016). Many books have described what they call the emergence of the third pillar of the EU and the development of an area of freedom, security, and justice, where the key word is security and policing. These authors provide a detailed understanding of the juridification of sectors of national policing under the construction of the institutions of the EU and the tensions it has created. They are Europeanists political scientists and sometimes lawyers. They begin their books with the Maastricht Treaty and they look at the legal effects of the Europeanisation of policing in terms of criminal justice and border controls. This first line of thought is important by its detailed knowledge on policy making and its description of the personnel of the EU institutions as well as the impact of the norms of policing (Den Boer and Walker 1993, 2011, 2013; Mitsilegas, Monar and Rees 2003; Monar 2002, 2013; Wallace Hélène &Wallace William 2000) but this Europeanist narrative does not give the same picture than the one produced by the sociologist of policing and the criminologists. The latter insist more on the dynamics of the national polices, their models of policing, the dynamics that have constituted national polices from the eighteenth century and the Europeanisation from the nineteenth century giving to the field of policing a different historical scale (Anderson Malcolm, den Boer Monica 1994; Deflem, 2000; Liang, 1992). They insist on the longue durée of informal clubs of policemen, on the transatlantic links which have framed the field and which continue to be central nowadays to understand how policing in its management of violence (counter subversion, counter terrorism) is more and more connected with border controls and surveillance (Bigo 2014; Carrera and Mitsilegas 2017; Collantes and Celaldor 2012; Guild and Carrera 2013). The third approach which is necessary to have in mind to understand EU internal security is the social use of technologies by different actors, the correlations between technologies, surveillance, tracing of mobilities, identification of people, anticipation of behaviours. Based on sociology of technology, digital and surveillance studies as well as critical legal studies, this third line of thought connects researches on surveillance and human rights affected by transnational dynamics of control of mobility (and not only at borders). It includes a reflection on the objects by which security is produced and by an interest on the targets or unexpected victims, these competitions between actors produce (Brouwer 2008; Guild 2006; Mitsilegas 2008). The last image is more complex and diffracted than the other ones. Its advantage is sometimes to ask new questions about what seems pure technicalities: the passports, the visas, the databases, and the people who construct them and ‘support’ the non-specialists on technologies. This is also a way to understand some key transformations at stake in the general economy of the field of internal security today in its relation with the EU institutions and in the incremental use of digital technologies to regulate the circulation of people and the reframing of what is security in terms of preventive policing.

in Site du CERI Publié en 2020-11-09
BASARAN Tugba
BEERLI Monique Jo
MC CLUSKEY Emma
20
vues

0
téléchargements
"Political Anthropological Research on International Social Sciences (PARISS)" is a bi-annual journal published by Brill publishers that seeks to promote a plurality of ways of thinking, researching and writing and to give access to contemporary authors in the social sciences coming also from non-English-speaking countries. The journal covers Social Sciences, International Relations, Global Studies, Sociology & Anthropology, Transdisciplinary approaches, Art and Humanities. The four coeditors, Tugba Basaran, Monique J. Beerli, Didier Bigo, and Emma Mc Cluskey answer our questions about the journal and its aims.

in Political Anthropological Research on International Social Sciences (PARISS) Publié en 2020-07-21
BEERLI Monique Jo
MC CLUSKEY Emma
BASARAN Tugba
26
vues

0
téléchargements
Through a critical engagement with substantive and stylistic guidelines dictated by dominant journals in the social sciences, this article enquires on what it means to write like a social scientist in the twenty-first century. Academic production and diffusion now regularly take place beyond and across national borders, with English often standing in as the lingua franca of these global exchanges. Though just one effect of this restructuration, academic journals have become more transnational in scope with regards to the authors whose work they publish and the audiences whose readership they seek to attract. However, while one could expect the “globalization” of the social sciences to lead to the transnational circulation of national disciplinary traditions and perhaps multiple manifestations of cultural hybridization, we are instead witnessing the imposition of a strangely singular and harmonized mode of doing the social sciences. Paradoxically, standards of how long a scientific article should be or how one should fashion an argument are so familiar and intimately known, yet curiously opaque and of unknown origins. In interrogating the historical-contextual origins of conventions that so strongly shape the world of academic publishing and, dare we say, reasoning, we raise questions about the conditions of the present and the naturalization of standards on how to write a scientific article. As a consequence of this exploration, we propose alternatives guidelines that a new journal such as ours has to present to its anticipated authors and readers.

in Political Anthropological Research on International Social Sciences (PARISS) Publié en 2020-07-21
BEERLI Monique Jo
MC CLUSKEY Emma
BASARAN Tugba
15
vues

0
téléchargements
[...] "Political Anthropological Research on International Social Sciences (PARISS)" seeks to encourage transversal social inquires so as to support flows rather than academic enclosures and to cut across conventional planes of scholarship. Here, as has previously been noted, “[t]he notion of transversal lines is intended to articulate the distinctive contributions of various forms of knowledge, depending on the specific phenomena, trajectories and problems that are in question.” By doing so, "PARISS" seeks to reinvigorate scholarly engagements untroubled by canonic approaches and to provide a space for outstanding scholarship, marginalized elsewhere due to academic conventions. Drawing transversal lines requires not only a different way of thinking, but different intellectual practices – it requires intellectual collaborations between fragmented fields of knowledge. This includes collaborations between and among disciplines, but also linguistic collaborations that go beyond the anglophone canon, allowing the creation of novel, innovative and critical intellectual spaces. As such, we would like pariss to become a comitium, an open meeting space for scholars of various backgrounds seeking to draw transversal lines.

in Political Anthropological Research on International Social Sciences (PARISS) Publié en 2020-07-21
DEZALAY Yves
COHEN Antonin
19
vues

0
téléchargements
This interview with Yves Dezalay focuses on his research strategy and the link between a Bourdieusian approach and a multi-sited ethnography. Yves Dezalay explains his strategy of doing interviews with the lawyers who are part of their “state nobilities”, in what order to interview them, with whom to begin and for what reasons. He warned about the dangers of trying to reproduce the ways of questioning elite actors as if they were important individuals without taking into account more socio genetic perspectives and especially the prosopography of the group and their respective positions. Collective biographies analysing the relations between the actors are the most important part of the research.

50
vues

0
téléchargements
Faced with a rapid, partially invisible pandemic, a majority of countries have so far chosen emergency measures based on territorial zoning, which does not discriminate between the sick and the healthy. Now, digital contact tracing is being presented to us as the ideal way to differentiate between these two groups of people. In reality, it instead adds another political problem, that of an enlarged surveillance apparatus, without solving the underlying one: the lack of an effective public health strategy.

Suivant