De politisering van straatintimidatie : de opkomst van een publiek probleem in Nederland en Frankrijk

Cette thèse propose une analyse de la constitution du harcèlement de rue comme objet de débat et de politique publique aux Pays-Bas et en France. Si cette comparaison montre des différences nationales récurrentes dans l’appropriation de la notion de « harcèlement de rue », elle montre également un point commun important entre la France et les Pays-Bas d’aujourd’hui. Si le fait de blâmer les victimes et de minimiser des actes politisés comme « harcèlement de rue » est encore courant dans des contextes non-publics, une fois exprimées dans des débats politiques ou dans les médias, de telles positions sont en général sévèrement critiquées, déclenchant alors des attentes d’excuses ou une reformulation du propos de la part de leurs premier·e·s énonciat·eur·rice·s. Alors que, depuis dix ans, le harcèlement de rue est devenu l’objet de condamnations publiques aux Pays-Bas et en France, qu’est-ce qui explique que sa politisation ait produit un tel malaise et une telle polarisation dans ces sociétés, et que les réponses locales afin d’y répondre aient été si variables ?Notre recherche est constituée de 104 interviews avec les acteurs et actrices principa.ux.les investi.e.s dans ce problème public – des politicien.ne.s, des fonctionnaires, des militant.e.s, des chercheu.r.se.s et des journalistes –, environ 250 heures d’observations de réunions organisées par ces personnes, et l’analyse de 380 articles de presse, ainsi que d’environ 230 documents d’action publique et militants, et des rapports de recherche.Cette thèse s’inscrit dans la continuité des travaux sur les problèmes 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 d’accomplir – changer une loi, sensibiliser le grand public – et sur ce qui permet ou empêche ces personnes de les atteindre, de nombreuses personnes que nous avons rencontrées sur le terrain cherchent à éviter certaines façons d’aborder cette question. Certain.e.s militant.e.s français.e.s, par exemple, évitent de mentionner aux médias le profil ethnoculturel des personnes qui harcèlent par appréhension que cette information puisse être « instrumentalisée » par des partis de droite afin de justifier des politiques migratoires plus restrictives. Comme alternative à la notion de « blame avoidance », qui réduit l’action sociale à la logique de stratégie instrumentale, nous proposons d’analyser ces conduites d’évitement par l’usage du terme « appréhension ».Malgré des différences entre les arènes considérées – le journalisme, le militantisme, l’action publique – on observe des similitudes importantes entre les façons dont les personnes ont abordé la question du harcèlement de rue dans chaque pays. En France, les militantes féministes sont les premières entrepreneuses morales sur ce sujet, et l’ont encadré comme une question de domination masculine et une violence faite aux femmes. Aux Pays-Bas, au contraire, la question a été mise sur l’agenda politique par des politicien.ne.s de droite. Ces dernier.e.s ont encadré le harcèlement de rue comme une perturbation de l’ordre public créée par des jeunes hommes racisés. Cette thèse propose une explication configurationnelle de la « culture nationale » qui met l’accent sur l’interaction : un haut degré d’homogénéité nationale ou l’absence de celle-ci peut être expliqué par le degré d’interdépendance entre les arènes.Tandis que la crainte de blâmer la victime s’est généralisée, ce que nous appelons des appréhensions de « second degré » – notamment des inquiétudes concernant la stigmatisation des hommes racisés – ont créé des hésitations chez des personnes à s’approprier la catégorie de « harcèlement de rue » et des désaccords sur la meilleure façon de combattre ces actes. Cela a mené à une polarisation à propos de quelque chose dont presque tout le monde, au moins publiquement, était d’accord de définir comme un problème.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 “street harassment” 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 “production of victims.” The research is based on 104 interviews I held with the main actors involved in this public problem—politicians, policymakers, activists, scholars, and journalists—around 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 accomplish—changing laws, awareness-raising on issues—and 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 “blame avoidance,” which reduces policymakers avoidance behavior to the logic of instrumental strategy, I propose to analyze such avoidance behavior using the term “apprehension.”Despite differences between arenas—journalism, activism, policymaking—there 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 “national models” 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 “national culture” 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 “second-degree” apprehensions—notably worries about stigmatization of men of color and about reducing people to the roles of passive victim or aggressive predator—caused many actors to hesitate to embrace the category “street harassment” and disagree on how to address the acts entailed. They created polarization about something nearly everyone, at least publicly, agreed was a proble

LE PROBLÈME PUBLIC DU HARCÈLEMENT DE RUE : DYNAMIQUES DE PUBLICISATION ET DE PÉNALISATION D'UNE CAUSE FÉMINISTE

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 à Norbert Elias, alors que son œuvre est désormais canonisée et que le sociologue allemand est inscrit au panthéon des sciences sociales, aux côtés d’Émile Durkheim, de Max Weber, de Talcott Parsons ou de Pierre Bourdieu ? Parce que cette reprise s’impose aujourd’hui comme une nécessité. Celle-ci tient, simultanément, à l’état de la discussion académique actuelle au sein des sciences sociales et à l’état des sociétés politiques dans lesquelles nous vivons. Les deux sont, pour Norbert Elias, inextricablement liés. Ce volume est consacré à l’explicitation de ce nouage auquel sa sociologie apporte une contribution inégalée. Celle-ci ne s’éclaire que si l’on consent à admettre que Norbert Elias effectue le geste sociologique, dans son intégralité, tel qu’il a été conçu et forgé par les fondateurs de la discipline. Et ce geste suppose de replonger les outils conceptuels de la sociologie dans le cadre ample de ce qu’Elias nomme le problème général de l’évolution historique. Trop souvent parcellisée, parfois malmenée, son œuvre nous offre pourtant des ressources indispensables pour fonder le travail sociologique dans l’objectivité des mécanismes qui travaillent nos sociétés modernes et dans la normativité sociale sous-jacente à l’activité qu’elle génère en s’imposant tel un espace de contraintes et d’opportunités. C’est alors que la sociologie de Norbert Elias se fait politique, science des dynamiques socio-politiques et levier d’émancipation, 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