Appel à articles – Productive Bodies. Towards a Body and Material History of the Modern Economic (17th-20th centuries)

Call for Articles – Productive Bodies. Towards a Body and Material History of the Modern Economic (17th-20th centuries)

Ed. Peter-Paul Bänziger and Marcel Streng
on behalf of the Arbeitskreis für Körpergeschichte

The projected peer reviewed edited volume addresses a variety of
questions at the intersection of economic, material, and body
history. Drawing on new research in these fields, it aims at
highlighting the material dimension of economic processes (1) and
reassessing the emergence of productive bodies since the 18th century
(2).

(1) The renaissance of heterodox approaches in economic history over
the course of the last two decades has significantly enlarged the
scope of this field. This trend mainly benefits from the cultural and
social sciences and has fostered research on phenomena that cut
across the classic schemes of both labor division (production,
distribution, consumption) and the economic spheres (services,
industry, and agriculture). For instance, several studies have
focused on the history of raw materials and industrial products such
as chocolate, dyes, coffee, paper, shoes, cotton, and soy beans, to
name only a few. In so doing they have highlighted the analytic
potential of these new approaches in economic history. Drawing on new
institutional economics, scholars have also analyzed the role that
nomenclatures and expectancies of actors have played in the
establishment and stabilization of large networks of production,
commercialization and consumption. Heuristic concepts such as
?quality convention?, developed in French economic history, and
innovative approaches emerging from the fields of Science and
Technology Studies and history of knowledge stimulate an interest in
the material dimension of economic processes that was traditionally
banned from economic history. However, the perspectives of body
history on productions of all kinds, and especially on the genealogy
of the very social and objective relation commonly dubbed ?the
economic?, are still largely missing in this debate.

(2) Likewise, historians of the body are still reluctant to engage
with economic history. Pioneering studies in the 1990s were scarcely
followed. This situation is about to change as economic aspects are
increasingly integrated into histories of the body. In particular,
some scholars have begun to analyze historical regimes of
subjectivity. In search of the conditions of possibility of ?the
economic? these scholars have, amongst other things, explored the
(hetero)genesis of the ?homo oeconomicus? and self-descriptions of
economic subjects. Many such studies have focused on technologies of
government and of the self, e.g. the education of monetary subjects,
the social production of debts and debtors, and the emergence of the
?entrepreneurial self?. Interestingly enough, though, the dimension
of corporeality/materiality remains in the shadows. Bodies like that
of the calculating subject, for instance ? of bankers, traveling
salesmen, managers, salespersons ? are still waiting for
historicization, even if a recent study on the ?serving subject?
opens interesting perspectives in this regard. Particularly, a
history of productive bodies within the industrial regimes that
emerged after the threshold of biopolitical modernity of around 1900
remains a desideratum. This also holds true for the case of the
agricultural laborer. Likewise, the ?post-materialist? or ?post-
Fordist? working subjects have remained remarkably disembodied,
although we know quite well how bodies are used to optimize and
regenerate the ?resources? of these subjects ? via techniques of the
self like ?body therapy?, ?wellness?, ?self healing?, and the like.

The projected volume draws on both agendas and highlights the body in
its intrinsic relations with ?the economic?. Contributions shall thus
focus on the corporeal and/or material dimension of the production of
the economic, particularly in the following fields:

a) While the model of the ?human motor?, borrowed from
thermodynamics, was crucial for the constitution of productive bodies
at the end of the 19th century, new findings suggest its irrelevance
for present regimes of production and cultures of the self. It is
unlikely, however, that this model was directly and thoroughly
replaced by new ones. In this regard, we are looking for
contributions focusing on transformations of the ?human motor?, on
transitions between hegemonic subjectivities of the ?carbon? and the
?silicon age? (Gilles Deleuze), as well as on simultaneously emerging
concepts of productive bodies.

b) Relatively little research has hitherto been done with respect to
historical aspects of the corporeal/material production of ?the
economic? itself, e.g. the production and selection of ?economically
relevant/irrelevant? bodies. Contributions which address these issues
by crossing the classic scheme of economic liberalism (production,
distribution, consumption) are thus highly welcomed. We especially
invite scholars from the fields of dis/ability, gender, post-colonial
and queer history, and from the history of forced labor, who are
willing to explore the entanglements and exclusions by which economic/
productive bodies are constituted.

c) The discussion on whether only human bodies can become productive
bodies is to be (re-)opened as well. Obviously, working subjects are
hardly separable from their tools and means of production ? ranging
from a simple hammer to the ?cube farm?. We therefore invite scholars
who address, from a historical perspective, the question of the human/
non-human nature of productivity by analyzing ?productive objects? or
?bio-assemblages? (e.g. plants, animals, machines, production sites,
robots and computers, as well as pencils, desks and prostheses, to
name but a few possible objects) and their influences on the
constitution of specifically human productive bodies.

d) Finally, the constitution of productive bodies and economic
productivity accompanied the emergence of industrial regimes of
workforce organization as well as the establishment and integration
of markets, well before the 19th century. Little is known so far, for
instance, about the prehistory of the thermodynamic model that was
most prominent at the turn of the 20th century. We therefore welcome
contributions addressing the above listed issues and questions from a
?longue duree? perspective, especially those focusing on the
?Sattelzeit? of the decades around 1800.

Proposals should include an abstract of about 500 words and a short
biographical note. Please send proposals to Arina Heussler
(arina.heussler@unibas.ch<mailto:arina.heussler@unibas.ch>) no later
than June 30, 2014. Notification of acceptance of proposals will be
given by July 31. The full papers are to be submitted by January 31,
2015. Acceptance is based on a double-blind peer review process and
will be communicated by March 31, 2015. Publication is scheduled Fall/
Winter 2015.

Journée d’études – L’idée de guérison et de rétablissement en santé mentale

Journée d’études – L’idée de guérison et de rétablissement en santé mentale. Approches croisées des controverses et des vécus expérientiels

On propose d’analyser la guérison ou le rétablissement comme un processus social similaire à celui d’une sortie d’épreuve que celle-ci soit la maladie, le chômage, le divorce, la prison, etc. Postulant que toute épreuve contribue à transformer l’individu, il ne peut y avoir de restitution à l’identique de l’individu avant l’épreuve. Ce postulat ouvre une brèche dans le paradigme du normal et du pathologique. Le concept de rétablissement, plus complexe que celui de guérison, est utilisé en santé mentale et intègre l’idée de transformation, d’équilibre négocié avec soi-même et avec l’environnement proche et social.
Il est à noter que différentes institutions de santé (CCOMS, NHS, Santé mentale au Québec) s’engagent dans des campagnes de dé stigmatisation de la maladie mentale en donnant la parole à des individus atteints de troubles mentaux qui témoignent ainsi d’un retour à une vie normale ou des difficultés rencontrées dans la vie quotidienne. En revanche, dans le « marché psy » le mot guérison semble se maintenir, il faudrait en comprendre la raison.
A court terme, l’ambition est de produire des connaissances sur l’état des savoirs dans chacune des disciplines, d’évaluer le processus de réduction du stigma de certaines maladies comme la maladie mentale ou le cancer qui contribue ainsi à une certaine normalisation et/ou guérison. Quelles sont les parts respectives de l’individu, des connaissances et des institutions dans la construction de nouvelles normes sociales ?
Ces journées ont pour objectif d’engager un débat scientifique sur l’idée de guérison en faisant dialoguer des disciplines différentes. L’objectif poursuivi est double puisqu’il s’agit de susciter des interactions entre les disciplines mobilisées par ces journées d’études et d’engager la sociologie dans de nouvelles thématiques de recherche. L’enjeu serait de générer un groupe de recherche interdisciplinaire associant les partenaires scientifiques du programme (Clersé, CCOMS, Céries) sur l’idée de guérison.

Programme

9h15-9h30  accueil des participants

9h30-9h40 Introduction de la journée, Massimo Marsili (Psychiatre, CCOMS/EPSM Lille métropole)

9h40-12h00 Créativité et rétablissement

(discutant Lise Demailly, Sociologue-Professeur émérite ULille1-Clersé)

  • Stéphanie Pryen (Sociologue-Maitre de conférences Université de Lille3-Clersé)
  • Jean-Pierre Royol (Docteur en psychologie clinique-Art thérapeute)
  • Elise Vandeninden (Docteur en sciences de la communication Université de Liège)

12h00-13h00 Pause déjeuner

13h00-16h00 Psychothérapies et rétablissement

 Discutant : Florentina Rafael (Docteur en santé publique-CCOMS-EPSM)

  • Lise Demailly (Sociologue-Professeur émérite Université de Lille1-Clersé)
  • Françoise Champion (Sociologue-Chargée de recherches CNRS-CERMES3)
  • Olivier Martin (Représentant usagers Hôpital de Caen)
  • Marie Koenig (Docteur en psychologie clinique, Hôpital de Pontoise)

16h00-18h Réinsertion professionnelle et rétablissement

(discutants Olivier Dembinski, Sociologue, Maître de conférence UTBM, Jean-Luc Roelandt, psychiatre, directeur du CCOMS/EPSM Lille Metropole)

Association Un autre regard (Oise)

  • Bernard Pachoud (Professeur de psychopathologie-Psychiatre Université Paris Diderot-CRPMS)
  • Jérémie Soulé (sociologue-doctorant Université de Lille1 Clersé)

18h -18h30 Conclusion

  •  Catherine Déchamp-Le Roux (sociologue, Professeur Université de Lille1-Clersé)
  •  Lise Demailly (sociologue-Professeur émérite Université de Lille1-Clersé)
  •  Jean-Luc Roelandt (psychiatre, directeur du CCOMS/EPSM Lille Metropole)

Responsable scientifique : Catherine Déchamp-Le Roux

Coordination : Jérémie Soulé (Clersé) et CCOMS EPSM Lille

Partenariat : Lise Demailly (Clersé-Meshs), Florentina Raphael (CCOMS-EPSM Lille),Nadia Garnoussi (Céries ULille3), Christophe Niewiadomski (CIREL ULille3) et associations d’usagers

LIEUX

  • Maison européenne des sciences de l’homme et de la société – 2, rue des Canonniers
    Lille, France (59000)

DATES

  • vendredi 23 mai 2014