Category Archives: work in progress

Call For Paper – A forgotten October? Russia in 1993


A forgotten October? Russia in 1993

Paris, 18-19 November 2013

Version française / Русская версия


“I order the suspension of the parliamentary, administrative and supervisory functions of the Congress of People’s Deputies and the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation… The Constitution… and legislation… will remain in force to the extent that they do not conflict with this Decree”

Moscow, Kremlin, 21 September 1993, 8pm, Presidential Decree (Ukaz) n° 1400.

            Presented by some as a way out of the intractable conflict which had opposed the President and Parliament for months, denounced by others as a coup, Boris Yeltsin’s decree provoked a crisis which would last fourteen days, during which political conflict turned into violent confrontation. From 21 September to 4 October 1993, Russia experienced a major political crisis. In response to Yeltsin’s Ukaz, Members of Parliament supported by General Rutskoi, Russian Vice-President, met in extraordinary session, refused to comply with the presidential decision, occupied Parliament (the White House) and held out against the security forces. Protests were organised in the city: Yeltsin’s supporters gathered near the Moscow Soviet (Mossovet), those supporting the deputies assembled near the White House. The political confrontation ended with the storming of Parliament by the army on 4 October, under the orders of the President, and the arrests of the rebel deputies and their supporters. The toll: more than 150 dead and 400 injured.

Twenty years after October 1993, this Conference aims to propose a sociological analysis of this crucial but neglected political crisis. To this end, it seeks to question the official version of the event, which was principally the work of the victors, who imposed their vision of the confrontation and its consequences, in particular concerning the institutional outcomes. The Conference will also restore the place of alternative accounts and memories. It will analyse the diverse individual and collective trajectories of actors of the period. Focussing on the period prior to the conflict, its development and its consequences, the Conference will explore both the winners and the losers of the conflict, its active participants and its observers. Particular attention will be paid to the issue of the explosion of violence, its effects on the crisis and its outcome.

             Before the crisis, political actors of the period operated in an uncertain and complex context. The ascent towards conflict cannot be analysed as a conspiracy or as a linear rise to violent crisis. This outcome was in large part unexpected and in no way inevitable. The October 1993 crisis was that of a Russian power which had built itself in opposition to the power of the Soviet Union, with the election in 1990 of the Congress of People’s Deputies of the RSFSR. Boris Yeltsin, elected President of the Supreme Soviet (upper house) in May 1990, then of Russia in June 1991, had obtained the support of a composite majority of parliamentarians in his struggle to gain powers from the Union. Until mid-1991, the President and those deputies who did not support him (representing two thirds of seats) had fairly convergent interests. With the fall of the USSR in December 1991, these points of convergence diminished. Questions began to be asked about the type of regime to be established: presidential, parliamentary or mixed? Doubts grew over the implementation of the economic programme of “shock therapy”, with its heavy social and economic consequences. Divisions between opposition groups within the Congress of People’s Deputies became more marked (emergence of a “red-brown” opposition, divisions among “democrats”…). In the course of 1993, there were several attempts at conciliation conducted by various intermediaries. Multiple agreements were concluded between the two powers, varying in degrees of transparency and in the extent to which they were implemented, yet the situation remained unstable.

            In Autumn 1993, after the publication of Yeltsin’s decree (ukaz), actors involved in the conflict, both within the Supreme Soviet and the Presidency, were improvising. From this perspective, the Conference will attempt to shed light on what was happening in the crisis, focusing on the following aspects:

1. The context of widespread uncertainty which reigned between 21 September and 4 October. This will be evaluated and the way in which it affected the actors’ perceptions, expectations and calculations will be explored. Information circulating at the time was incomplete and partisan, favouring misunderstandings, bluffs and the propagation of rumours. Some actors decided to take an active part, while others played the waiting game.

2. How did mobilizations affect the various social worlds and institutional sites in which they took place (the political sphere and Parliament, army and police, Presidency, state sectors, press, TV, radio, etc.)? What splits occurred within these worlds and how did they develop during the course of the crisis? What coalitions emerged? What was the role of the trade unions, parties and social organisations (in particular those who refused to take sides but provided assistance to the injured)? Did these mobilizations reach other actors (federal ministries, regional powers, judiciary…) and to what effect?

3. Succession of moves between the protagonists: How was it decided to dissolve Parliament? How did the response of the opposing parliamentarians emerge? What was the role of street protests in the development of events? How did events turn violent and what made that possible? How did the army and the police intervene? How was order maintained during those days in October? Did the police have the required “know-how”? How can relations between the Presidency and the higher echelons of the Army be explained and described during this period? How and when was it decided to strike Parliament?

4. Finally, what negotiation and mediation attempts took place during these fourteen days? The efforts of the Orthodox Church are well-known. Were there other, less publicised, mediation attempts (Western States, Post-Soviet States or other actors)?

 At the end of the conflict, new power relations emerged in the political contest. The history of the bodies that grew out of the crisis has been widely documented. The parliamentary elections of December 1993 and the referendum which led to the adoption of the Constitution have been fully analysed. Yet, the institutional choices made during this period raise questions. They resulted in a reduced range of possibilities, in terms of the forms that could be taken by Russian democracy, and froze contingent institutional solutions, which prior to 1993 were intended to be temporary. After the crisis, the future of the defeated opposition was neglected. Yet, it is important to see how the opposition reorganised, what were its forms of action and the means of control) by the Federal government and what were the fates of former opponents to Boris Yeltsin after October 1993. As for Yeltsin’s supporters, 1993 also marked a break in the political careers of many of them, for example the “democrat” deputies who were not re-elected in 1993 and the many citizens involved in the “democratic movement” in support of perestroika: some completely abandoned political activity, others reconverted to careers in associations or economics.

While attention was focussed on events in Moscow, the only place where they degenerated into violent confrontation, the dissolution across Russia of local and regional soviets marked the beginning of long-lasting disillusion with politics, while accelerating the rebuilding of regional power, in particular around the division of property.

 In the longer term, the new practices and representation that developed in the Russian political arena should be explored. October 1993 has been considered as a stage in the regime’s derailment from democracy and as forming the matrix of political developments in the country leading to Vladmir Putin. The conflict has also been considered as a precursor to the use of violence to internal ends (in particular for re-establishing order in Chechnya). October 1993 also raised questions for the relationship between Russia and the West. What were the effects of this confrontation on Russia’s role on the international scene?


In order to explore these issues, the Conference aims to give a central role to the various actors of the conflict. To this end, the call for contributions is divided into six main themes:

 – Questioning actors from the period to provide new sources of knowledge about the events. Without access to archives and in the absence of the establishment of an investigation commission at the end of the conflict, current research is based on the testimonies of actors from one side or the other, accounts of journalists and compilations of documents. The Conference could enable discussion of the establishment and use of these sources and contribute to supplementing them.

 – Understanding the stakes of the conflict as identified by the actors: What political models were competing in their eyes? What were they fighting for? What was the importance of institutional questions, of questions of legitimacy, but also of modes of exercising power? What were the debates about economic reforms and their significance?

Highlighting the diversity of the trajectories of political actors, the resources available to them and utilised at different times. The analysis will pay attention to the positioning of different types of actor: institutional, political, trade unions, economic, religious… as well as to those who acted as mediators. The ways in which the crisis changed their trajectories and careers will also be explored.

– Understanding the dynamics of the crisis. The motives, objectives and stakes that gave birth to the crisis were shaken and transformed by events, through mobilizations and strategic moves by the various actors, and the conflict gained an independent dynamic. In a situation of widespread uncertainty, within several days competition for power turned into a struggle for the political survival of the protagonists and for those bodies they claimed to represent. The conflict took place on sites considered to be strategic or symbolic (the White House, the Kremlin, the Ostankino television tower, the Mossovet…). The conflict thus had its own social topography, i.e., social spaces and institutional arenas – political sphere, Parliament, Presidency, state sectors (including the army and the police), regional powers, the media world, etc. where mobilizations, counter-mobilizations and succession of moves took place. While everything seemed calm elsewhere in and around Moscow, what was happening in other regions? How was the conflict perceived in the former Soviet republics?

Analysing the time-frame of the conflict and its consequences. During the crisis, actors participated according to varying time-frames. Time was not linear, there were moments of acceleration and tipping points (in particular the recourse to violence). The time-frame of institutional reforms differed from that of economic reforms. How can parallels be drawn between 1991 and 1993? Between 1993 and the Soviet past? In this history of the 1990s? And since 2000 has there been a policy of forgetting?

Making sense of 1993: What memory of the conflict is perpetuated and within which groups? Which sites commemorate these events? Beyond political interpretations of the conflict, which literary, cinematographic or other artistic works contribute to the commemoration of this event? How does the Russian State recognise responsibilities and respective roles (military decorations, amnesty)? What forms of justice and reparations were envisaged? Did the development of the crisis and its outcomes constitute the beginning of the disintegration of the Central power over the regions and asymmetric federalism. How have researchers in Russia and elsewhere analysed this event and how have their analyses contributed to an understanding of the “sense” of the crisis of 1993?


Practical Information:

This interdisciplinary Conference is open to contributions from historians, sociologists, lawyers, economists, researchers in political science, international relations and any other area of social science. Contributions from witnesses and actors from this period, located in different (physical or political) areas within the “theatre of operations”, are also welcome.

Those wishing to participate should submit a summary (300 – 500 words) in one of the symposium’s working languages, together with a brief biography (CVs not accepted) by 15 March 2013 to Submission of summaries in English as well as in French or Russian will be appreciated.

Those selected will be informed by mid-April 2013.

Participants will be asked to provide a “long summary” of approximately 5 – 7 pages (3000-5000 words) by 1st October 2013.

The Conference will take place at CERI, 56 rue Jacob, on 18-19 November 2013.

Working languages: French, English, Russian (oral presentations may be delivered in these three languages. Only translation from French to Russian and from Russian to French will be provided).






Organising bodies: Centre d’études franco-russe de Moscou (CEFR), in collaboration with Centre d’études et de recherches internationales (CERI, Sciences Po, Paris), Centre d’étude des mondes russe, caucasien et centre-européen (CERCEC, EHESS, Paris), Institute of Russian History of the Russian Academy of Sciences (IRI RAN, Moscow), Russian Academy of Economy and Public Service (RANHiGS, Moscow), Centre de recherches pluridisciplinaires multilingues (CRPM, Université Paris Ouest Nanterre), Institut des sciences sociales du politique (ISP, Université Paris Ouest Nanterre) and Fondation Maison des sciences de l’homme (FMSH, Paris).

 The Scientific Committee: Carine Clément (Smolny Institute, St-Pet.), Françoise Daucé (Université Blaise Pascal Clermont-Ferrand/CERCEC), Myriam Désert (University of Paris IV/CERCEC), Michel Dobry (University of Paris I/CESSP), Boris Dubin (Levada-Centre, Moscow), Gilles Favarel-Garrigues (CERI, Paris), Graeme Gill (University of Sydney), Anne Le Huérou (University Paris Nanterre/CRPM/CERCEC), Marie-Hélène Mandrillon (CERCEC, Paris), Rudolf Pikhoia (RANHiGS, Moscow), Jean-Robert Raviot (University of Paris Nanterre/CRPM), Amandine Regamey (University of Paris I/CERCEC), Kathy Rousselet (CERI, Paris), Carole Sigman (CEFR Moscow/ISP), Serguey Zhuravlev (IRI RAN, Moscow).

The organizing committee : Françoise Daucé, Gilles Favarel-Garrigues, Anne Le Huérou, Amandine Regamey, Kathy Rousselet, Carole Sigman.

Debate on Violence in Western Europe – Book & Review

Pinker S. The Better Angels of our Nature. New York: Viking; 2011.

Editor’s presentation: Faced with the ceaseless stream of news about war, crime, and terrorism, one could easily think we live in the most violent age ever seen. Yet as New York Times bestselling author Steven Pinker shows in this startling and engaging new work, just the opposite is true: violence has been diminishing for millennia and we may be living in the most peaceful time in our species’s existence. For most of history, war, slavery, infanticide, child abuse, assassinations, pogroms, gruesome punishments, deadly quarrels, and genocide were ordinary features of life. But today, Pinker shows (with the help of more than a hundred graphs and maps) all these forms of violence have dwindled and are widely condemned. How has this happened?

Elizabeth Kolbert’s book review in the New Yorker

Abstract: BOOKS review of Steven Pinker’s “The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined” (Viking; $40). In the weeks following Anders Behring Breivik’s shooting spree in Norway, commentators on both sides of the Atlantic struggled to make sense of what had happened. Many used the occasion to warn of the dangers of homegrown terrorism. Others argued that the shootings revealed the growing menace of nativist rhetoric. Still others maintained that the problem was peculiarly Norwegian, a combination of inept policing and misguided pacifism. “How long would the Norway gunman have lasted in Texas, or any state where concealed-carry laws are on the books?” Michael Reagan, Ronald Reagan’s oldest son, asked in a widely reprinted opinion piece. He continued, “There’s a lot of truth in the old adage that, if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will carry guns.” Another possible take on Utøya—admittedly not a popular one—is that the whole incident was blown way out of proportion. In “The Better Angels of Our Nature,” Steven Pinker didn’t get a chance to comment on the Utøya shootings, since the volume went to press before the attack took place. Yet the book can be read as a long argument—a seven-hundred-page-long argument—for this last proposition. Pinker, a Harvard psychology professor and best-selling science writer, wants to correct what he sees as a basic misperception. Fed on a steady diet of gruesome news—terrorist bombings, schoolyard shootings, deadly riots—people have come to think of life in modern, industrialized societies as dangerous, when just the opposite is true. Western Europe is not only the safest place to live in the world today; it is probably the safest, most peaceful place in the history of humankind. During the past couple of decades, there has been a surge of research on prehistoric mayhem, and Pinker’s claims grow out of a great deal of this recent work in what might be called atrociology. As is frequently the case with the so-called human sciences, the latest thinking recalls some of the very oldest. The savages, it turns out, really were savage! The medievals did, in fact, go medieval! But there’s more to “The Better Angels of Our Nature” than reviving such politically incorrect notions. Pinker doesn’t just want to prove that rates of violence have fallen; he wants to explain why. The scope of Pinker’s attentions is almost entirely confined to Western Europe. There is little discussion in “The Better Angels of Our Nature” about trends in violence in Asia or Africa or South America. Indeed, even the United States poses difficulties for him. There is much in “The Better Angels of Our Nature” that is confounding. Those developments which might seem to fit into his schema are treated in detail. Yet other episodes that one would think are more relevant to a history of violence are simply glossed over.

Read more:


Journal Issue – – Police Brutality & Police Reform in Russia & the CIS – Nov. 2012

The Journal of Power Institutions in Post-Soviet Societies, – Issue 13 – Police Brutality & Police Reform in Russia & the CIS –

Introduction, by Anne Le Huérou


Police Brutality & Police Reform in Russia and the CIS – Articles (5)

· Mark Galeotti, 
” Purges, Power and Purpose: Medvedev’s 2011 police reforms ”

· Boris Gladarev, 
” Russian Police before the 2010-2011 Reform: A Police Officer’s Perspective ”

· Yulia Chistyakova et Annette Robertson , 
”Youtube Cops and Power Without Limits : Understanding Police Violence in 21st Century Russia”

· Perrine Poupin, 
” « Démocratie dirigée » et manifestations protestataires de rue à Moscou : quelle partition joue la police ? [« Planned Democracy » and Street Protest Marches in Moscow : What Musical Score is Playing the Police?] ”

· Kornely Kakachia et Liam O’Shea, 
” Why does police reform appear to have been more successful in Georgia than in Kyrgyzstan or Russia? ”

Police Brutality & Police Reform in Russia and the CIS – Conversations (2)

· « […] Local police officers are accused of violence […] but case officers have an opportunity to commit acts of violence with impunity » – Interview with Ekaterina Khozhdaeva, Associate Professor in Sociology, Kazan ” – Interview conducted by Anne Le Huérou et Elisabeth Sieca-Kozlowski

· « Nowadays, the [Kyrgyz] Police force exhibits all signs of crisis of the system » – E-mail interview with Alexander Zelichenko, former colonel of the Kyrgyz Police, Director of the Central-Asian Drug Policy Center – Interview conducted by Anne Le Huérou et Elisabeth Sieca-Kozlowski

Police Brutality & Police Reform in Russia and the CIS – Document (1)

· Natalia Taubina, 
” Russie : la société civile et le système répressif avant le début officiel de la réforme [Russia : Civil Society and the Law Enforcement System Prior to the Official Initiation of the Reform] ”

 Police Brutality & Police Reform in Russia and the CIS – Bibliography

· ” E. Sieca-Kozlowski , A Suggested Bibliography

Police Brutality & Police Reform in Russia and the CIS – Book Reviews (5)

P. Hagenloh, Stalin’s Police. Public order and mass repression in the USSR, 1926-1941 “, reviewed by F.-X. Nérard

· M. Galeotti (Ed.), The Politics of Security in Modern Russia “, reviewed by E. Bertrand

· B. Taylor, State Building in Putin’s Russia. Policing and Coercion after Communism, reviewed by G.Favarel-Garrigues

· Fond “Obshchestvennii verdict”, Reforma militsiia: otsenki i ozhidaniia grazhdan: resultaty sotsiologicheskikh issledovanii i kommentarii ekspertov , reviewed by A. Robertson

· V. Voronkov, B. Gladarev, L. Sagitova, Militsiia i etnicheskie migranty: praktiki vzaimodeistviia, reviewed by A. Regamey


Elisabeth Kozlowski
The Journal of Power Institutions in Post-Soviet Societies

New Book – Бытовое насилие в истории российской повседневности (XI-XXI вв.) / под ред. М. Муравьева, Н. Пушкарева. СПб, 2012. 200 с.

Бытовое насилие в истории российской повседневности

Бытовое насилие в истории российской повседневности (XI-XXI вв.) / под ред. М. Муравьева, Н. Пушкарева. СПб.: Европейский университет в Санкт-Петербурге, 2012. 200 с.

Книга знакомит читателя с историей насилия в российском обществе XI–XXI вв. В сборник вошли очерки ведущих российских и зарубежных специалистов по истории супружеского насилия, насилия против женщин и детей, основанные на разнообразном источниковом материале, большая часть которого впервые вводится в научный оборот.

Издание предназначено для специалистов в области социальных и гуманитарных наук и людей, изучающих эту проблему.

Описание на сайте издательства.





Введение. Повседневность и обыденность насилия в социальной

жизни: гендерный аспект . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Очерк первый

Наталья Пушкарева. Позорящие наказания для женщин: исто-

ки и последствия гендерной асимметрии в русском традиционном

и писаном праве . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Средневековье: «если не найдется девства у отроковицы…» . . . 13

Конец XV–XVII в.: отношение к стыду и «почестности» . . . . . . 17

XVIII столетие: «прохудившиеся» и «блудодейницы» . . . . . . . . . 23

XIX — начало XX в.: «о наказаниях дев за обиды против добрых

нравов» . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

XIX — начало XX в.: «если жена в отсутствие мужа изменит ему…» 39

Последнее столетие: 1910–2010 гг. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Очерк второй

Марианна Муравьева. Повседневные практики насилия: супружеское

насилие в русских семьях XVIII в. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

К историографии вопроса . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Дидактика и закон: злые жены против добрых . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Виды и типы супружеского насилия . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Побои и увечья: физическое насилие в семье . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Некоторые выводы . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

Очерк третий

Дмитрий Михель, Ирина Михель. Инфантицид глазами образованного

российского общества второй половины XIX — начала ХХ в. . . . . . 105

Инфантицид в поле зрения историков и других специалистов 106

Инфантицид как преступление: позиция юристов . . . . . . . . . . 117

Инфантицид как результат отсутствия помощи: взгляд медиков 123

Инфантицид как социальное зло: голос журналистов . . . . . . . 133

Очерк четвертый

Вероника Шаповалова. Сестренки, мамки, дамки: тема насилия

в женских лагерных мемуарах . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

Очерк пятый

Игорь Кон. Телесные наказания девочек и мальчиков в России XX —

начала XXI в.: повседневные практики и общественное мнение . . . 164

Исторические истоки . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168

Советская Россия . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174

Воспоминания мальчиков . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

Воспоминания девочек . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

Современная Россия . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184

Степень распространенности телесных наказаний . . . . . . . . . . . 185

Отношение к телесным наказаниям . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188

Abstracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197

Сведения об авторах . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

New Book – “Faire des Sciences sociales”. – Critiquer – Généraliser – Comparer – November 2012


Parution : 2 novembre 2012.


Faire des sciences sociales – Coffret 3 volumes : Critiquer ; Comparer ; Généraliser

Pascale Haag, Olivier Remaud, Emmanuel Désveaux, Michel de Fornel


DATE DE PARUTION : 02/11/12 EDITEUR : EHESS COLLECTION : Cas de figure ISBN : 978-2-7132-2364-8 EAN : 9782713223648 PRÉSENTATION : Pack NB. DE PAGES : 900 p.



Comment définir exactement l’exigence critique à laquelle les chercheurs sont tenus ? Les auteurs livrent un aperçu des multiples façons de produire le décalage nécessaire vis-à-vis des conceptions usuelles ou dominantes du monde social.

Les sciences sociales, lorsqu’elles oublient leur vocation critique, ne produisent que de simples discours idéologiques, ou d’expertise, prompts à conforter la pensée

commune. Dès le seuil de l’enquête, les chercheurs se doivent d’essayer de penser autrement qu’on ne le fait communément les objets qu’ils se sont donné pour tâche d’étudier. Mais comment définir exactement l’exigence critique à laquelle ils sont tenus ? Et comment la réaffirmer dans le contexte actuel de la recherche ?



Pascale Haag et Cyril Lemieux (eds.) – Critiquer : une nécessité


Première partie. Penser autrement

Sabine Chalvon-Demersay – La part vivante des héros de séries

Giorgio Blundo – Le roi n’est pas un parent. Les multiples redevabilités

au sein de l’État postcolonial en Afrique

Olivier Remaud – Les antinomies de la raison cosmopolitique


Deuxième partie. Montrer l’erreur

Jean-Pierre Cavaillé – Pour un usage critique des catégories en


Marion Carel – Le discours honnête est-il encore tromperie

? Pour une critique radicale du logicisme

Georges Didi-Huberman – Au pas léger de la servante. Savoir des images, savoir excentrique


Troisième partie. Provoquer le débat public

David Martimort – La société des experts. Une perspective critique

Alice Ingold – Qu’est-ce qu’un fleuve ? Critique et enquêtes à

l’épreuve de situations indéterminées

Didier Fassin – Sur le seuil de la caverne. L’anthropologie comme pratique critique

Esteban Buch – Musique, mémoire et critique du 11 Septembre. À propos

de On The Transmigration of Souls, de John Adams


Quatrième partie. Clarifier ses pratiques

Nicolas Dodier – Ordre, force, pluralité. Articuler description et

critique autour des questions médicales


* * *


Aucune science sociale ne peut se borner à l’étude d’un seul cas. Les approches différenciées ici exposées démontrent l’efficacité des sciences sociales, à l’opposé d’un certain scepticisme sur leur caractère scientifique.

Que signifie l’acte de comparer pour les sciences sociales ?

Dans ce volume, la démarche comparative est vue comme un éloge de la pluralité : elle appuie une dynamique de singularisation ou, au contraire, de généralisation. Elle confronte des objets, des sociétés, des processus éloignés dans le temps ou dans l’espace. Elle permet au chercheur de progresser grâce à un travail incessant de rapprochements et de distinctions.



Olivier Remaud, Jean-Frédéric Schaub et Isabelle Thireau (eds.) – Pas de réflexivité sans comparaison


Première partie. L’esprit comparatiste

Jérôme Baschet – Un Moyen Âge mondialisé ? Remarques sur les ressorts précoces de la dynamique occidentale

Bruno Karsenti –Structuralisme et religion


Deuxième partie. L’outillage comparatiste

Frédéric Joulian – Comparer l’incomparable : des vertus et des limites de la comparaison hommes/primates

Paolo Napoli – Le droit, l’histoire, la comparaison

Liliane Hilaire-Pérez – Une histoire comparée des patrimoines techniques. Collections et dépôts d’inventions en France et en Angleterre aux xviiie et xixe siècles

Gisèle Sapiro – Comparaison et échanges culturels. Le cas des traductions


Troisième partie. L’acte comparatiste

Stéphane Breton – Le regard

Valérie Gelézeau – La Corée dans les sciences sociales. Les géométries de la comparaison à l’épreuve d’un objet dédoublé

Caterina Guenzi – Manières de comparer. Regards indiens sur la compatibilité entre les savoirs


* * *


Dans quelle mesure le chercheur en sciences sociales peut-il généraliser à partir d’un ou de plusieurs faits, et en quoi cette généralisation équivaut-elle à une règle universelle? Et s’il cède à la tentation de l’universalisation, ne risque-t-il pas d’oublier le stade du spécifique ?

Les textes rassemblés ici reflètent des positionnements radicalement différents, allant du pessimisme à l’optimisme, quant à la possibilité même de généraliser. Or, dans un monde dont le mouvement vers l’entropie semble s’accélérer toujours davantage et dont les archives sont chaque jour plus ouvertes, généraliser demeure plus nécessaire que jamais, fût-ce au risque de l’erreur ou, plutôt, au prix du dépassement perpétuel.



Emmanuel Désveaux et Michel de Fornel (eds.) – Généraliser,

ou le perpétuel dépassement


Première partie. Du singulier comme général

Daniel Cefaï – Comment généralise-t-on ? Chronique d’une ethnographie de l’urgence sociale

Stéphane Audoin-Rouzeau – La guerre, mais de très près


Deuxième partie. Horizons d’universalité

Jérôme Dokic – Le « tournant social » de la philosophie de l’esprit. L’apport des sciences cognitives

Laurent Barry – La parenté au singulier

Michel de Fornel – Généraliser l’indéfini

Philippe Urfalino – La décision des collectifs

Sébastien Lechevalier – Ni pure abstraction ni simple généralisation. Leçons japonaises pour une refondation de l’économie politique


Troisième partie. Généralisation et historicités

Pierre-Cyrille Hautcoeur – Origines légales et histoire. Quelques remarques à partir de l’histoire des procédures de faillite

Jocelyne Dakhlia – Extensions méditerranéennes. Europe et Islam au contact durant les siècles modernes (xvie-xviiie siècles)

Catarina Madeira Santos et Jean-Frédéric Schaub – Histoires impériales et coloniales d’Ancien Régime. Un regard sur l’État moderne


Url de référence :