9 research outputs found
De politisering van straatintimidatie : de opkomst van een publiek probleem in Nederland en Frankrijk
Cette thĂšse propose une analyse de la constitution du harcĂšlement de rue comme objet de dĂ©bat et de politique publique aux Pays-Bas et en France. Si cette comparaison montre des diffĂ©rences nationales rĂ©currentes dans lâappropriation de la notion de « harcĂšlement de rue », elle montre Ă©galement un point commun important entre la France et les Pays-Bas dâaujourdâhui. Si le fait de blĂąmer les victimes et de minimiser des actes politisĂ©s comme « harcĂšlement de rue » est encore courant dans des contextes non-publics, une fois exprimĂ©es dans des dĂ©bats politiques ou dans les mĂ©dias, de telles positions sont en gĂ©nĂ©ral sĂ©vĂšrement critiquĂ©es, dĂ©clenchant alors des attentes dâexcuses ou une reformulation du propos de la part de leurs premier·e·s Ă©nonciat·eur·rice·s. Alors que, depuis dix ans, le harcĂšlement de rue est devenu lâobjet de condamnations publiques aux Pays-Bas et en France, quâest-ce qui explique que sa politisation ait produit un tel malaise et une telle polarisation dans ces sociĂ©tĂ©s, et que les rĂ©ponses locales afin dây rĂ©pondre aient Ă©tĂ© si variables ?Notre recherche est constituĂ©e de 104 interviews avec les acteurs et actrices principa.ux.les investi.e.s dans ce problĂšme public â des politicien.ne.s, des fonctionnaires, des militant.e.s, des chercheu.r.se.s et des journalistes â, environ 250 heures dâobservations de rĂ©unions organisĂ©es par ces personnes, et lâanalyse de 380 articles de presse, ainsi que dâenviron 230 documents dâaction publique et militants, et des rapports de recherche.Cette thĂšse sâinscrit dans la continuitĂ© des travaux sur les problĂšmes publics et sur la « production des victimes ». Si la plupart des travaux dans ces domaines focalisent principalement leur attention sur les objectifs positifs que les personnes tentent dâaccomplir â changer une loi, sensibiliser le grand public â et sur ce qui permet ou empĂȘche ces personnes de les atteindre, de nombreuses personnes que nous avons rencontrĂ©es sur le terrain cherchent Ă Ă©viter certaines façons dâaborder cette question. Certain.e.s militant.e.s français.e.s, par exemple, Ă©vitent de mentionner aux mĂ©dias le profil ethnoculturel des personnes qui harcĂšlent par apprĂ©hension que cette information puisse ĂȘtre « instrumentalisĂ©e » par des partis de droite afin de justifier des politiques migratoires plus restrictives. Comme alternative Ă la notion de « blame avoidance », qui rĂ©duit lâaction sociale Ă la logique de stratĂ©gie instrumentale, nous proposons dâanalyser ces conduites dâĂ©vitement par lâusage du terme « apprĂ©hension ».MalgrĂ© des diffĂ©rences entre les arĂšnes considĂ©rĂ©es â le journalisme, le militantisme, lâaction publique â on observe des similitudes importantes entre les façons dont les personnes ont abordĂ© la question du harcĂšlement de rue dans chaque pays. En France, les militantes fĂ©ministes sont les premiĂšres entrepreneuses morales sur ce sujet, et lâont encadrĂ© comme une question de domination masculine et une violence faite aux femmes. Aux Pays-Bas, au contraire, la question a Ă©tĂ© mise sur lâagenda politique par des politicien.ne.s de droite. Ces dernier.e.s ont encadrĂ© le harcĂšlement de rue comme une perturbation de lâordre public crĂ©Ă©e par des jeunes hommes racisĂ©s. Cette thĂšse propose une explication configurationnelle de la « culture nationale » qui met lâaccent sur lâinteraction : un haut degrĂ© dâhomogĂ©nĂ©itĂ© nationale ou lâabsence de celle-ci peut ĂȘtre expliquĂ© par le degrĂ© dâinterdĂ©pendance entre les arĂšnes.Tandis que la crainte de blĂąmer la victime sâest gĂ©nĂ©ralisĂ©e, ce que nous appelons des apprĂ©hensions de « second degrĂ© » â notamment des inquiĂ©tudes concernant la stigmatisation des hommes racisĂ©s â ont crĂ©Ă© des hĂ©sitations chez des personnes Ă sâapproprier la catĂ©gorie de « harcĂšlement de rue » et des dĂ©saccords sur la meilleure façon de combattre ces actes. Cela a menĂ© Ă une polarisation Ă propos de quelque chose dont presque tout le monde, au moins publiquement, Ă©tait dâaccord de dĂ©finir comme un problĂšme.This dissertation traces how street harassment became an object of debate and policy in the Netherlands and France. While there were recurring national differences in how actors appropriated and addressed this issue, the comparison brings to bear a key commonality between contemporary France and the Netherlands. While victim-blaming and minimization of acts politicized as âstreet harassmentâ still occur regularly in less public contexts, when expressed in political debates or the media, such positions are by and large harshly criticized and often elicit an apology by their initial articulators. If in the last ten years street harassment has become the object of public condemnation in the Netherlands and France, what explains how its politicization produced so much uneasiness and polarization and that local responses to address it have varied so greatly?Endeavoring to answer this question and explain divergences in how street harassment is defined and addressed, this dissertation is, first, a contribution to the sociology of public problems. It also engages with scholarship on the âproduction of victims.â The research is based on 104 interviews I held with the main actors involved in this public problemâpoliticians, policymakers, activists, scholars, and journalistsâaround 250 hours of observation of meetings they organized, and analysis of 380 newspaper articles, and around 230 policy, activist, and research documents.While scholars studying public problems and processes of victimization focus mostly on the positive objective actors try to accomplishâchanging laws, awareness-raising on issuesâand what allows or prevents them from reaching them, actors working on street harassment often expressed wanting to avoid specific ways of dealing with the issue. Many French activists, for example, avoided mentioning ethno-cultural profiles of harassers to the media because they were apprehensive that the information might be picked up by right-wing parties to plead for stricter migration policies. As an alternative to the notion of âblame avoidance,â which reduces policymakers avoidance behavior to the logic of instrumental strategy, I propose to analyze such avoidance behavior using the term âapprehension.âDespite differences between arenasâjournalism, activism, policymakingâthere are strong similarities in how actors in various arenas within each country addressed street harassment and strong differences between how actors did so in the Netherlands and France. In France, feminist activists were the first moral entrepreneurs on the problem, framing it as a question of male domination and violence against women. In the Netherlands, to the contrary, right-wing politicians put the issue on the political agenda. They framed street harassment as a threat to public order created mostly by loitering youth with specific migration backgrounds. Although an essentialist notion of ânational modelsâ should be avoided, these similarities in how actors within each country dealt with street harassments show that national belonging and embeddedness in the institutions of a nation do shape behavior. The dissertation proposes a configurational account of ânational cultureâ that puts emphasis on interaction: a high degree of national homogeneity or the lack thereof can be explained by the degree of interdependency between arenas.While apprehension of victim-blaming became a given in public debates, what I call âsecond-degreeâ apprehensionsânotably worries about stigmatization of men of color and about reducing people to the roles of passive victim or aggressive predatorâcaused many actors to hesitate to embrace the category âstreet harassmentâ and disagree on how to address the acts entailed. They created polarization about something nearly everyone, at least publicly, agreed was a proble
LE PROBLĂME PUBLIC DU HARCĂLEMENT DE RUE : DYNAMIQUES DE PUBLICISATION ET DE PĂNALISATION D'UNE CAUSE FĂMINISTE
International audienc
Learning as salon: honors international collaboration
In May 2011, Dutch students from the honors program in geosciences of Utrecht University, led by Professor Marca Wolfensberger, engaged in an experimental-learning project in Paris, France, with a group of American students from the honors program of Columbia College, South Carolina, led by Professors Christine Hait, Corinne Mann, and John Zubizarreta. Literally and figuratively, the city of Paris served as a salon for the project: a place where rational discussion, cross-cultural dialog, collaborative learning, and culminating critical reflection about the uniqueness and value of the learning process itself were stimulated by the informal setting of a vibrant international city that provided the context for the two groups of students to explore the topics of expatriate artist culture and film history in Paris, especially during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries
Sociologie politique de Norbert Elias
Pourquoi revenir Ă Norbert Elias, alors que son Ćuvre est dĂ©sormais canonisĂ©e et que le sociologue allemand est inscrit au panthĂ©on des sciences sociales, aux cĂŽtĂ©s dâĂmile Durkheim, de Max Weber, de Talcott Parsons ou de Pierre Bourdieu ? Parce que cette reprise sâimpose aujourdâhui comme une nĂ©cessitĂ©. Celle-ci tient, simultanĂ©ment, Ă lâĂ©tat de la discussion acadĂ©mique actuelle au sein des sciences sociales et Ă lâĂ©tat des sociĂ©tĂ©s politiques dans lesquelles nous vivons. Les deux sont, pour Norbert Elias, inextricablement liĂ©s. Ce volume est consacrĂ© Ă lâexplicitation de ce nouage auquel sa sociologie apporte une contribution inĂ©galĂ©e. Celle-ci ne sâĂ©claire que si lâon consent Ă admettre que Norbert Elias effectue le geste sociologique, dans son intĂ©gralitĂ©, tel quâil a Ă©tĂ© conçu et forgĂ© par les fondateurs de la discipline. Et ce geste suppose de replonger les outils conceptuels de la sociologie dans le cadre ample de ce quâElias nomme le problĂšme gĂ©nĂ©ral de lâĂ©volution historique. Trop souvent parcellisĂ©e, parfois malmenĂ©e, son Ćuvre nous offre pourtant des ressources indispensables pour fonder le travail sociologique dans lâobjectivitĂ© des mĂ©canismes qui travaillent nos sociĂ©tĂ©s modernes et dans la normativitĂ© sociale sous-jacente Ă lâactivitĂ© quâelle gĂ©nĂšre en sâimposant tel un espace de contraintes et dâopportunitĂ©s. Câest alors que la sociologie de Norbert Elias se fait politique, science des dynamiques socio-politiques et levier dâĂ©mancipation, indissociablement
Impact of Advanced Radiotherapy on Second Primary Cancer Risk in Prostate Cancer Survivors: A Nationwide Cohort Study
Purpose: External Beam Radiotherapy (EBRT) techniques dramatically changed over the years. This may have affected the risk of radiation-induced second primary cancers (SPC), due to increased irradiated low dose volumes and scatter radiation. We investigated whether patterns of SPC after EBRT have changed over the years in prostate cancer (PCa) survivors. Materials and Methods: PCa survivors diagnosed between 1990-2014 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patients treated with EBRT were divided in three time periods, representing 2-dimensional Radiotherapy (RT), 3-dimensional conformal RT (3D-CRT), and the advanced RT (AdvRT) era. Standardized incidence ratios (SIR) and absolute excess risks (AER) were calculated to estimate relative and excess absolute SPC risks. Sub-hazard ratios (sHRs) were calculated to compare SPC rates between the EBRT and prostatectomy cohort. SPCs were categorized by subsite and anatomic region. Results: PCa survivors who received EBRT had an increased risk of developing a solid SPC (SIR=1.08; 1.05-1.11), especially in patients aged <70 years (SIR=1.13; 1.09-1.16). Pelvic SPC risks were increased (SIR=1.28; 1.23-1.34), with no obvious differences between the three EBRT eras. Non-pelvic SPC were only significantly increased in the AdvRT era (SIR=1.08; 1.02-1.14), in particular for the 1-5 year follow-up period. Comparing the EBRT cohort to the prostatectomy cohort, again an increased pelvic SPC risk was found for all EBRT periods (sHRs= 1.61, 1.47-1.76). Increased non-pelvic SPC risks were present for all RT eras and highest for the AdvRT period (sHRs=1.17, 1.06-1.29). Conclusion: SPC risk in patients with EBRT is increased and remained throughout the different EBRT eras. The risk of developing a SPC outside the pelvic area changed unfavorably in the AdvRT era. Prolonged follow-up is needed to confirm this observation. Whether this is associated with increased irradiated low-dose volumes and scatter, or other changes in clinical EBRT practice, is the subject of further research
Impact of Advanced Radiotherapy on Second Primary Cancer Risk in Prostate Cancer Survivors:A Nationwide Cohort Study
Purpose: External Beam Radiotherapy (EBRT) techniques dramatically changed over the years. This may have affected the risk of radiation-induced second primary cancers (SPC), due to increased irradiated low dose volumes and scatter radiation. We investigated whether patterns of SPC after EBRT have changed over the years in prostate cancer (PCa) survivors. Materials and Methods: PCa survivors diagnosed between 1990-2014 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patients treated with EBRT were divided in three time periods, representing 2-dimensional Radiotherapy (RT), 3-dimensional conformal RT (3D-CRT), and the advanced RT (AdvRT) era. Standardized incidence ratios (SIR) and absolute excess risks (AER) were calculated to estimate relative and excess absolute SPC risks. Sub-hazard ratios (sHRs) were calculated to compare SPC rates between the EBRT and prostatectomy cohort. SPCs were categorized by subsite and anatomic region. Results: PCa survivors who received EBRT had an increased risk of developing a solid SPC (SIR=1.08; 1.05-1.11), especially in patients aged <70 years (SIR=1.13; 1.09-1.16). Pelvic SPC risks were increased (SIR=1.28; 1.23-1.34), with no obvious differences between the three EBRT eras. Non-pelvic SPC were only significantly increased in the AdvRT era (SIR=1.08; 1.02-1.14), in particular for the 1-5 year follow-up period. Comparing the EBRT cohort to the prostatectomy cohort, again an increased pelvic SPC risk was found for all EBRT periods (sHRs= 1.61, 1.47-1.76). Increased non-pelvic SPC risks were present for all RT eras and highest for the AdvRT period (sHRs=1.17, 1.06-1.29). Conclusion: SPC risk in patients with EBRT is increased and remained throughout the different EBRT eras. The risk of developing a SPC outside the pelvic area changed unfavorably in the AdvRT era. Prolonged follow-up is needed to confirm this observation. Whether this is associated with increased irradiated low-dose volumes and scatter, or other changes in clinical EBRT practice, is the subject of further research