The Morning After: Nuit Debout - Debates, Practice and Theory

This paper analyses the French protest movement Nuit Debout that started on March 31, 2016 at the Place de la Republique in Paris. The protest is approached from the perspective of the debate that took place in French media on how to define of the enemy, goals, preferred strategy and organizational model, then, from the angle of the protest practice itself, and finally, that of the sociology of Luc Boltanski. The article focuses on two issues that got the most attention from the protesters and the public - convergence of struggles and prefigurative politics. Both are discussed from the vantage point of Boltanski's study of contemporary capitalism in order to provide propositions for further development of the ideas that Nuit Debout tried to put into practice. The aim is to highlight the importance of everyday practices and experiences of injustice for today's critique of capitalism and the convergence of struggles, as well as to assess the role that experimenting with participatory democracy and horizontality, present in the latest social movements as well as in Nuit De bout, plays in processes of confluence of those experiences and 'ordinary' critiques and their transformation into program, strategy and action

The politics of Habitus as a Sociologically Founded Utopia

The politics of habitus is usually associated with Bourdieu’s “sociologically political” studies, mainly developed in the 1970s as a framework through which this French sociologist analyzed political opinions of French citizens, by underlining social conditions that generate certain political dispositions, and consequently attitudes towards politics, political preferences, and political practices. These studies made us aware that political action should be mindful not only of institutions, but of dispositions as well. This paper aims to portray ifferent aspects of the politics of habitus, by linking it to research which originally generated the concept, but also by tracing its further development exemplified by some of the following oncepts: the necessity of niversalizing economic and social conditions of the access to the niversal, the idea about the sociologically founded utopia, the demand for the establishment of a “real state” – all to be found in later Bourdieu’s work. This paper analyzes politics of habitus from the social emancipatory perspective and raises questions about the role science can and should have in realising such a project. First part of the paper examines Bourdieu’s class analysis and its potentials in providing realistic knowledge about the social world, and the second part explores concrete steps that politics based on such knowledge could take

Sociology of domination of Pierre Bourdieu

Pjer Burdije je savremeni klasik i jedan od najuticajnijih sociologa današnjice. O njemu i njegovim delima se mnogo i naširoko pisalo i raspravljalo u struĉnoj literaturi. Cilj ove studije je da ponudi drugaĉiji pristup u prouĉavanju rada francuskog sociologa od onih postojećih. Originalnost pristupa proizlazi iz metodologije rada, koja samo po sebi nije nova ali je retko kad bila dosledno primenjena u izuĉavanju Burdijea, i osobenom interpretativnom kljuĉu kroz koji se teorijski opus ovog autora sagledava. Kad je reĉ o metodologiji, teţište je na preispitivanju teorijskih stanovišta (analiza teksta i intertekstualna uporedna analiza), ali se njihov nastanak i njihov razvoj razmatraju tako što se uzimaju u obzir svi oni društveni ĉinioci pod ĉijim uticajem se Burdije, kao društvena jedinka i kao sociolog, formirao (analiza konteksta – društvenog, intelektualnog, nauĉnog i akademskog). Na teorijskom nivou, Burdijeovom radu se pristupa kroz sveobuhvatno, temeljno, kritiĉko, preispitivanje njegovih shvatanja i kljuĉnih ideja, uz komentarisanje relevantnih osvrta na ta ista, kako bi se izneli argumenti u prilog teze da je Burdijeovu sociologiju najprimerenije okvalifikovati kao sociologiju dominacije. U uvodnom delu rada, najpre se daje kratak, sistematiĉan pregled relevantnih studija o Burdijeu i njegovoj sociologiji. Potom se identifikuju glavne odlike Burdijeove sociologije, one po kojima se ona svrstava u red kritiĉkih sociologija dominacije, ali i one koje je ĉine specifiĉnom u odnosu na srodne pristupe društvu i odnosima dominacije. Autorka tvrdi da posebnost Burdijeove sociologije dominacije dobrim delom proizlazi iz teorije polja, koja u njoj zauzima centralno mesto i predstavlja glavni analitiĉki okvir za primenu i razradu ostalih teorijskih pojmova. Da bi to pokazala, autorka, na samom poĉetku, prouĉava genezu Burdijeove teorijske konstrukcije i preispituje mesto teorije polja u njoj (prvo poglavlje „Burdijeova sociologija dominacije i njeni poĉeci―). Teorija polja je u ovom radu upotrebljena kao analitiĉko uporište iz kojeg se procenjuje da li i na koji naĉin Burdijeova sociologija funkcioniše kao sociologija dominacije. Upravo zbog toga, rad je najvećim svojim delom koncipiran oko analize Burdijeovog shvatanja nekoliko društvenih polja – politiĉkog polja (drugo poglavlje „Politiĉko polje i simboliĉko nasilje – kad reĉ postaje moć―), polja obrazovanja (treće poglavlje „Polje obrazovanja – kulturni sauĉesnik―), nauĉnog polja (ĉetvrto poglavlje „Nauĉno polje – dominacija na testu―), polja umetnosti (peto poglavlje „Polje umetnosti – dominacija kreativnosti i kreativnost dominacije―) i polja moći (šesto poglavlje „Polje moći – borba svih [polja] protiv svih [polja]―). Jedno posebno poglavlje je posvećeno Burdijeovom shvatanju muške dominacije koju je francuski sociolog smatrao nekom vrstom transverzale svih polja (Sedmo poglavlje, „Rodna dominacija – dva pola simboliĉkog kapitala―). U poslednjoj celini raspravlja se o Burdijeovoj društvenoj teoriji iz ugla odabranih poznavalaca, sledbenika i kritiĉara njegove misli (osmo poglavlje „NasleĊe i naslednici―). Njihov glas je upotrebljen kao komentar Burdijeovog viĊenja i Burdijeove vizije društvenog sveta i istovremeno kao uvod u preispitivanje heuristiĉke plodnosti i primenjivosti njegove teorijske aparature u istraţivanju dominacije u društvu XXI veka, kojim završava ovaj rad. U zakljuĉku autorka takoĊe ukazuje na neke Burdijeove ideje, koje izdvaja na osnovu prethodno izloţene analize njegovih tekstova o politici, obrazovanju, nauci, kulturi i umetnosti (ideje poput politike habitusa, racionalne pedagogije i dr.), za koje smatra da imaju znaĉajne politiĉke implikacije u smislu ukidanja odnosa dominacije u društvu i za ĉiju se praktiĉnu primenu zalaţe.Pierre Bourdieu is a contemporary classic and one of the most influential sociologists of today. Both his writings and his academic personality have been subjects of many studies and discussions in the academic literature. The aim of this study is to offer an approach to the body of work of this French sociologist, different from a majority of the existing ones. The originality of the present approach stems from research methodology – which is not new in itself, but so far rarely consistently applied in studying Bourdieu – and also from adopting a unique interpretative perspective on Bourdieuʼs theoretical opus. The methodological focus is on examining the theoretical stances (text analysis and comparative intertextual analysis), their origins and their development, by taking into account all the social factors that had influenced Bourdieuʼs formation, as a social agent and sociologist (social, intellectual, scientific and academic contexts are analyzed). On the theoretical level, Bourdieuʼs work is approached by a comprehensive, thorough and critical examination of his views and key ideas. The existing relevant analyses written by other people are examined as well, with a view to building up the central argument of the dissertation: that Bourdieuʼs sociology is best described as sociology of domination. Introductory chapter begins with a brief, systematic survey of relevant studies of Bourdieu and his sociology. Then, the main features of Bourdieuʼs sociology are identified: the ones which help classify it as a critical sociology of domination and the others which point to differences between Bourdieuʼs sociology and other similar approaches to society and relations of domination. The author argues that the particularity of Bourdieuʼs sociology mainly stems from field theory, which has a central role in it and represents the principal analytical framework for the application and deployment of other theoretical concepts. In order to support that claim, the author explores, in the opening chapter, the genesis of Bourdieuʼs theoretical construction and discusses the role field theory plays in it (Chapter 1, „Bourdieuʼs Sociology of Domination and Its Beginnings―). This work uses field theory as an analytical anchor which helps to establish whether Bourdieuʼs sociology functions as a sociology of domination, and if so, in which way. For this reason, major attention is paid to Bourdieuʼs understanding of several social fields – political field (Chapter 2, „Political Field and Symbolic Violence – When Word Becomes Power―), field of education (Chapter 3, „Field of Education – The Cultural Accomplice―), scientific field (Chapter 4, „Scientific Field – Domination Put to Test―), field of art (Chapter 5, „Field of Art – Domination of Creativity and Creativity of Domination―) and field of power (Chapter 6, „Field of Power – The Battle of All/Fields Against All/Fields―). One chapter is dedicated to Bourdieuʼs view of masculine domination which the French sociologist considered to be in a certain way transversal to all fields (Chapter 7, „Masculine Domination – Two Genders of Symbolic Capital―). The final chapter discusses Bourdieuʼs social theory from the perspective of several of his major commentators, followers and critics (Chapter 8, „Legacy and Inheritors―). Their voice is used as a commentary on Bourdieuʼs view and vision of the social world, and at the same time as an overture for the final examination of this work – the question of heuristic potentials and applicability of his theoretical apparatus for the study of domination in the 21st century. In the conclusion, the author highlights and advocates the practical application of some of Bourdieuʼs ideas, identified in preceding analysis of Bourdieuʼs writings on politics, education, science, culture and art (ideas like politics of habitus, rational pedagogy, and others). These are considered to have important political implications, in terms of suspending the relations of domination in society

Political disaffection and disengagement in Serbia

The aim of this paper is to examine the extent of political disaffection and disengagement of Serbian citizens from a comparative European perspective, as well as to explore the relationships between two phenomena and determine the effects of several potential predictors (structural inequalities, gender, generational differences, urban environment, political awareness and competences, national and European identification, and political discontent) on different aspects of political disaffection and disengagement. In order to do so, we have used European Social Survey data (9th round, 2018), and singled out four different subdimensions of political disaffection and disengagement: assessment of responsiveness of the political system (external political efficacy), institutional trust, assessment of individual interest in politics and capabilities to engage in political processes (internal political efficacy), and the level of actual political engagement (political participation). The aim of the paper is to shed light on different systemic, structural and conjunctural factors that may contribute to shaping political attitudes and patterns of actions in contemporary Serbia and pose several theoretical and research questions that need further investigation

Politička kompetencija i konsolidacija kapitalizma u Srbiji: analiza (ne)davanja odgovora na stavove o poželjnom politčkom i ekonomskom poretku

The main aim of this paper is to analyse non-responses (“do not know“ and „no answer“ categories) on a wider set of empirical state- ments measuring different attitudes of Serbia’s citizens (towards mar- ket economy, neoliberal economic policies, democracy, ethnic relations, gender roles, morality issues and respecting the law). Following the post-politics (and/or post-democracy) thesis, we assumed that the share of those who have given any answer to the analysed questions will be higher in the case of attitudes related to the issues embedded in the res- pondents’ immediate experiences or to those issues defined as legitimate within the public sphere (such as perceptions of gender roles or ethnic relations) than in the case of attitudes related to abstract concepts of the functioning of political and/or economic systems. The results of the analysis confirmed the hypothesis: the highest share of non-responses was recorded for questions measuring attitudes on democracy and pre- ferred type of economic regulation. The second hypothesis has been formulated following Pierre Bourdieu’s research on the social conditions of political dispositions and class distribution of competences. His research focused on the structurally determined possibility of articulating political opinion by using legitimate political language, based on the self-recognized ability and the feeling of being competent to express this opinion publicly. Taking these insights as starting points, we assumed that probability of giving non-responses would be higher for people with lower social background, those who have lesser degrees of education, and/or who have been systematically excluded from political processes based on their place of residence (residents of vil- lages or small towns) or gender (women). Although a descriptive analy- sis confirmed the second hypothesis, more precise, regression models showed that education (the possession of cultural capital) – and not the class position – is by far the strongest and the most consistent predictor of non-responses when controlling all other factors

Éric Fassin : La pensée de/et la politiqueau-delà des alternatives insatisfaisantes

Éric Fassin est sociologue, professeur à l’Université Paris 8 Vincennes- Saint-Denis (Département de science politique et Centre d’études féminineset d’études de genre) et chercheur à l’Institut de recherche interdisciplinaire sur les enjeux sociaux (IRIS, CNRS / EHESS) et au Laboratoire Théories duPolitique (LabToP / CRESPPA). Il travaille sur la politisation des questions sexuelles et raciales. Il est l’auteur de nombreux ouvrages: Liberté, égalité,sexualités: actualité politique des questions sexuelles, avec Clarisse Fabre (Belfond / Le Monde , 2003), L’inversion de la question homosexuelle ( Ams- terdam, 2005), Question sociale, question raciale ?, avec Didier Fassin (La Découverte, 2006), Les Chrétiens et la sexualité au temps du sida, avec Lytta Basset et Timothy Radcliffe (Cerf, 2007), Droit conjugal et unions de même sexe. Mariage, partenariat et concubinage dans neuf pays européens , avec Kees Waaldijk (PUF, 2008), Le sexe politique. Genre et sexualité au miroir transatlantique ( EHESS, 2009), Hommes, femmes: quelle différence ? , avec Véronique Margron (Salvator, 2011), Démocratie précaire. Chroniquesde la déraison d’État (La Découverte, 2012), Roms & riverains. Une politiquemunicipale de la race , avec Carine Fouteau, Serge Guichard, Aurélie Windels (La Fabrique, 2014), Gauche : l’avenir d’une désillusion (Textuel, 2014)

Za jednu nauku o naučnom polju

Ovoj članak se bavi Bourdieuovom analizom naučnog polja. U prvom delu ovog teksta autorka ispituje burdijeovsko viđenje strukture i dinamike polja nauke. Drugi deo teksta je posvećen razmatranju osnovnih epistemoloških i metodoloških pretpostavki jedne nauke o naučnom polju, koje Bourdieu razvija kroz dijalog sa četiri, po njemu, relevantne tradicije u sociologiji i filozofiji nauke: strukturalno-funkcionalističkom ili mertonovskom tradicijom sociologije nauke, teorijom normalne nauke i naučnih revolucija Thomasa Kuhna, jakim programom Davida Bloora i studijama laboratorijskog života. Treći deo je nacrt za sociološku, vidi burdijeovsku, kritiku sholastičkog uma, naročito njegovih ispoljavanja u domenu saznanja, u domenu etike i u domenu estetike

Protest Against Dictatorship and the Construction of Collective Identity

Protest against Dictatorship that started on April 3, 2017 in towns and cities across Serbia was too short-lived to establish organized production and instruments of distribution of meaning. This however doesn't imply that certain processes were not set in motion and that collective identity wasn't 'under construction'. The main aim of this paper is to reconstruct the identification patterns at work in Protest against Dictatorship. The study is based on data collected between 13 April and 4 May 2017 among participants of the protest in three cities in Serbia - Belgrade, Nis and Subotica (n=175). Two presuppositions - that collective identity is the field of struggle, and that identity building processes in contemporary social movements are influenced by a constitution and principles of the capitalist mode of production of social life - provided a basis for our analysis. We opt for an approach that conceives the collective identity as a product ("content") and process "contestation"). To conceptualize and operationalize collective identity we rely on the existing studies that outline four elements of collective identity that can be measured: worldviews, shared goals, relational aspects, and behaviors and norms. The contenstation is captured considering the extent of agreement and disagreement among protesters around each of these four elements