Category Archives: Calls for Papers

Calls for Papers

Voltaire between the Rhine and the Danube (18th-19th centuries)

Voltaire Days

Deadline for applications: 20 February 2018
Organizer: Guillaume Métayer (CELLF – CNRS)
Partners: CELLF (UMR 8599), Société des Études Voltairiennes, CEFRES, CERCLL (Jules Verne University, Picardie)
When & where: 22-23 June 2018, Paris-Sorbonne University
Language: French and English
Contact: gme.metayer@gmail.com

Outline

No-one among the Enlightened French writers and philosophers  entertained such extensive relations with the German-speaking world as Voltaire. Besides his many stays in Germany, and his well-known appointment as chamberlain to Frederick II at the Prussian court, Voltaire stayed in Gotha and Aix-la-Chapelle. His visits, relationships and above all his readings sparked many works of various genres, most famously, but not only, Candide (1759). Westphalia was also the philosophical and imaginative inspiration for an important chapter of L’Essai sur les Mœurs (“Essay on Universal History, the Manners, and Spirit of Nations”, 1756) and Voltaire wrote another, more detailed historical account, at the request of the Princess of Saxe-Gotha, entitled Les Annales de l’Empire (“Annals of the Empire”, 1753). L’Histoire de la guerre de 1741 (merged and adapted within the Précis du Siècle de Louis XV, “Short history of the Age of Louis XV“) also takes account of this political and cultural unity with its changing borders. As a historian, Voltaire addressed crucial topics such as the struggle between temporal and spiritual powers, in particular between papacy and the Holy Empire; the Reformation; or more widely, Europe’s political and religious identity.

Yet, Voltaire’s intense interest for Germany is pervaded with ambiguity: he is interested in the Empire’s policy, history and contemporary hope for a forthcoming “philosopher king” in Berlin at the expense of German literature, language and arts, which he looked down on and readily derided. This inconsistency explains the complex and polemical nature of Voltaire’s reception in the German-speaking world. Supporters and epigones prevailed to begin with but were soon taken over, with a few exceptions (Schiller, Goethe, Heine), by the critiques of the representatives of the literary and philosophical German renewal. Even before Romanticism, Lessing set the tone for this harsh critical tradition, continued by August Wilhelm Schlegel. Only from the 1870s, with the re-evaluation of David Friedrich Strauss, Dubois-Reymond, and most of all Nietzsche, did the figure of Voltaire evolve into becoming a cornerstone of the European Enlightenment.

Such interaction in time between Voltaire’s German world-view and the German, and more largely Central European reception of the philosopher writer will be at the core of this conference, being held forty years after the Mannheim conference*. Papers dealing with reception, circulation, and translation studies, or seminal monographies—insofar as they attempt to deal with both dimensions of this hermeneutic Wechselwirkung—will be welcome. The fate of Voltaire’s thought in the Austrian hereditary possessions  (Hungary, Galicia) would also offer very interesting case studies.

* Voltaire und Deutschland. Quellen und Untersuchungen zur Rezeption der Französischen Aufklärung. Internationales Kolloquium der Universität Mannheim zum 200. Todestag Voltaires [Mannheim, 1978], Stuttgart 1979.

Calls for Papers, workshops

CFP – Disability, Health and Handicap in Social Sciences and Humanities

Interdisciplinary Workshop

Organizers: Kateřina Kolářová (Faculty of Humanities, Charles University, Prague – FHS UK), Martina Winkler (Christian-Albrechts-Universität, Kiel), Filip Herza (FHS UK / CEFRES), Kamila Šimandlová (FHS UK)
When: 17/2/2018
Where: Akademické Centrum, Husova 4a, Prague 1
Language: Czech
Deadline for submission: 20/12/2017

Concepts of disability, health, sickness, debility, biological precarity and stigmatization come to the foreground in recent debates in social sciences and humanities. This workshop wants to open floor for interdisciplinary exchanges between disability studies and other fields of social sciences and humanities. Calling for explorations of different methodological approaches, perspectives and theoretical conceptualizations of disability and difference, debility and biological precarity, body and corporeality, the workshop aims to deepen discussions of already established themes, as well as to strike new theoretical paths. We specifically encourage presentations working with intersectional approaches that link disability to other categories of difference and power, such as gender, sexuality, ethnicity and race, class, age, and other relevant categories.

Presentations may address:

  • Cultural representations, cultural practices and symbolical regimes of body, embodiment, health, sickness and disability
  • Symbolical regimes of disability (such as e.g. “compulsory able-bodiedness and abledmindedness”), their reproduction and disturbances past and present
  • Moral economies of disability and the concept of welfare state in the state socialism and the post-socialist period
  • Post-/colonial politics of disability
  • Transnational circulations and translations of disability theory and disability politics
  • Transformations of expert discourses in relation to health and dis/ability, alternative knowledges and forms of expertise between the 19th and the 21th centuries
  • Health as a moral imperative and platforms for emancipatory discourses and strategies
  • Politics of inclusion and (social) exclusion
  • Histories, politics and praxis of institutionalization and “deinstitutionalization”
  • Biopolitics of dis/ability
  • Intersectional methodologies

We kindly ask potential contributors to submit their proposals until 20 December 2017 at simandlova@outlook.com

Workshop is organized within the project “(Post)Socialist Modernity and social and cultural politics of disability” jointly funded by the Czech Science Foundation (GAČR) and Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), held by the Faculty of Humanities Charles University. The event is co-hosted by CEFRES and the Institute of Sociology of the Czech Academy of Sciences.

Calls for Papers, International Conference

CFP: The Wording of Thoughts: Philosophy From the Standpoint of Its Manuscripts and Archives

The Wording of Thoughts: Philosophy From the Standpoint of Its Manuscripts and Archives—Methodologies, Histories and Horizons

Organizer : Benedetta Zaccarello, CEFRES
When & Where : 7-9 June 2018, Prague
Deadline for applications : 21 January 2018
Language: English
Partners: ITEM, IMEC, Patočka Archives (Czech Academy of Sciences), FHS UK

Please send your proposal (title and 300 word-long abstract) and bio-bibliographical short notice to the following address: benedetta.zaccarello@cefres.cz

Philosophy is written, practiced, lived through: it is the translation of the experience of a thinking subjectivity in a conceptual alphabet and a verbal fabric. The I of philosophy is a chimera whose head tickles the heights of abstract concepts and universal discourses, while its body is grounded in the lived experience. At the hinge between these two realms called for by the speculative effort, stands the verbal material. Its meaning can only be determined taking into account its relationship to its contexts, the writing and reading practices surrounding it, the horizons of significations and even the implicit polemical charge which characterizes every philosophical contention. Likewise, the specificity of each theoretical expression is both the sine qua non condition for the perpetuation of a discipline looking to evolve and transcend its own categories, and the most subjective and personal aspect of a work that traditionally aims at the “neutrality” of abstraction.

The “making of a philosophical text”, including its cultural features and societal contingencies, challenges the representation of the discipline’s history as a series of abstract findings and innovative intuitions that constitute the landmarks of our paradigms. The philosopher who writes is the first inclined to erase the complex intricacies of the negotiations between existence and theory, between conceptual inventiveness and shared vocabulary inherited from a centuries-old tradition. Yet it is obvious that the dynamics of philosophy production and reception are a complex phenomenon whose writing nature is a crucial stake.

As reminded by Derrida reading Paul Valéry, such dimension of the philosopher’s work is constantly and almost physiologically overlooked in the representations of the discipline’s aims. Strong borders seem to delimitate fields renowned to be dissimilar, if not incompatible: philosophy and literature are therefore often seen as rival siblings, and their respective horizons do not take easily into account some elements that turn out to be indispensable to understand—from a dynamic, historical-cultural point of view—the production of theoretical prose. Likewise, and opposite to the tradition of the Romantic period for instance, intellectual work rarely binds philology and philosophy.

For all these reasons, the philosophical manuscript is an odd object that has only recently started to receive proper appraisal. In Europe nevertheless, the creation of archive centers gathering major philosophical data—such as Nietzsche, W. Benjamin or Kierkegaard—has sustained the memory of philosophical writing and enabled such “arches” to cross time waiting for the moment when, partly thanks to the development of digital humanities, these materials could get a much deserved attention. Thanks to the editing of philosophical manuscripts, the information contained by such media beyond the text itself turns out to be manyfold. The ontology that vitalizes and structures the hermeneutical gesture behind the work on manuscripts is indeed different. Such perspective enables to look at the evolution of a theoretical thought as a living and specific adventure, and the history of the discipline a dynamic, manifold and choral process. Still, not all the documents, as dispersed and little known traces of the philosophical practices, can be turned into books and remain hidden to the public eye. But it is beyond doubt that accessing these archives often enables to better understand the appearance, the method, the approach and even the sources, along with the polemical targets and the hints that published books tend to excise or dim.

Often only the specialists working on the critical edition of the works of a thinker-writer, or the archivists in charge of a fund are able to develop knowledge from such materials: working on archives demands time, and it does not match the rhythms imposed today to research and intellectual production. Therefore creativity expressed by researchers as they come up with ad hoc tools to publish or interpret a set of manuscripts has not yet been subjected to a comparative approach aiming at setting common methodological principles. If genetic criticism has developed since the 1970s an important set of tools and philological methodology specific to the study of writers’ manuscripts, little has been done to elaborate guidelines when dealing with philosophical archives.

This conference aims at establishing a dialogue between specialists from various countries and continents who have worked on different corpus so to sketch a few first methodological lines and establish a collaborative pioneer network. The publication of the conference proceedings should be a first cornerstone of this new consortium.
As the history of several philosophical archives and their anchoring in history as such, we hope to shed some light on these places as knowledge sources and field training and to advocate for the inclusion of such materials for a new approach to the history and the exegesis of theory. 

Four panels will be organized:

1 – Archives’ History/Histories. We welcome contributions dealing with the history of philosophical archives as institutions and how they became embedded in the cultural and social landscape of their time. On the other hand, the history of philosophy that can be reached through working on manuscripts shall be tackled.

2 – Conservation & Edition. The aim is to collect the testimonies of various specialists who have worked as curators and/or editors of philosophical manuscripts to better understand the specific challenges they may have met with each specific theoretical writing.  Issues pertaining to the digitalization of theoretical funds and to the intelligibility of its objects will also be addressed. We welcome papers on paradigmatic cases that can also fit within the 3rd type of propositions below.

3 – Editions & Exegesis: approaches and methodologies. Several contributions and a round table should open common methodological perspectives from the observation of several philosophical corpus. We aim at sketching a guideline applied to philosophical manuscripts, whether from the point of view of interpretation or of publishing.

4 – The Archives of Theory. This last panel aims at collecting propositions dealing with theoretical corpus outside philosophy, sic as literary theory, art history, science history, semiotics… This comparative perspective should bring up the specificities of this type of documents in their relation to the philosophical materials.

Calls for Papers, workshops

CfP: (Trans)missions: Monasteries as Sites of Cultural Transfers

An International Workshop proposed by the Center for Ibero-American Studies of the Faculty of Arts, Charles University (SIAS FF UK), the French Institute for Research in Social Sciences (CEFRES) and the Institute of Art History of Czech Academy of Sciences (ÚDU AV ČR). The collaboration is realized within the Research project “Cataloging and study of the translations of Spanish and Ibero-American Dominicans”.

Deadline for proposals (250 words): 26 June 2017
Notification due: 31 July 2017
Time & Venue: 25(-26) September 2017, Prague
Scientific organizers: Monika Brenišínová (SIAS FF UK), Katalin Pataki (CEU/CEFRES) and Lenka Panušková (ÚDU AV ČR)

The aim of the workshop is to set into focus the monastic space as a multifaceted research theme from a global and interdisciplinary perspective. We invite papers that address the questions how monastic institutions contributed to the flow and exchanges of cultural practices and how their role as cultural mediators shaped their material culture and spatial politics. The scope of the workshop has no timely, geographical or confessional limitations as it intends to generate dialogue between researchers from various disciplinary backgrounds.

For centuries, monasteries served as centers of education and culture. Literary works, sermons, translations and artefacts were created among their walls that never served merely as an impenetrable isolation from the outer world, but rather represented a conscious politics of structuring both the physical and the mental space. They kept contact not only with their closer environment, but also formed part of greater intellectual, spiritual and economic networks and interacted with different stakeholders of worldly power. They could serve as strongholds of cultural and religious missions that penetrated into new territories, triggered intercultural and interconfessional interactions and facilitated knowledge transfers, while their long-lasting presence in a territory could also ensure continuity and enables the investigation of long durée changes, reforms and renewals. Their evolvements and transformations unavoidably shaped both their inner spaces (including material culture and architecture), and the landscape around them and thus, they also contributed to the formation of such notions as identity, borders and migration.

Against this background, we invite papers on the following thematic fields:

  • religious orders as stakeholders of social disciplining; confessionalization; colonization; cultural, religious and political missions; ecclesiastical and social reforms; etc.
  • monasteries as mediators in the flow of ideas; material goods (artefacts, relics, precious materials, medicinal drugs, etc.); devotional, educational, healing practices
  • spatial agenda of monastic institutions that shapes its closer environment materially (e.g. agricultural practices, setting up of parishes, chapels, shrines, etc.) and the perception the landscape in which they operate.

The workshop is designed primarily for young researchers— especially Ph.D. and postdoctoral students—aiming to explore the future perspectives of the aforementioned themes in an innovative way and to lay down the foundations of further cooperation beyond disciplinary and national boundaries. Simultaneously, it also aims to create a forum that features well-known scholars among its speakers and disseminates information about ongoing research projects, academic working groups and relevant publications. The Journal Ibero-Americana Pragensia also offers the opportunity to publish the presented papers. The language of the workshop is English, but abstracts submitted in other languages (German, Spanish, French) can be also accepted.

If you are interested in participating, please send your name, academic affiliation and an abstract of 250 words by 26 June to the following email address: workshopSIASCEFRES@gmail.com. Applicants will be informed about the selection of their papers by 31 July.

Calls for Papers

CFP: Tracing the Legacies of the Roma Genocide: Families as Transmitters of Experience and Memory

First international conference of the Prague
Forum for Romani Histories

When: 20–22 September 2017
Where: Czech Academy of Sciences, Villa Lanna, Prague
Deadline for submission: 31 March 2017

More on the Prague Forum for Romani Histories here

More on the board here

The conference is a joint event bringing together two recent academic initiatives focusing on the research on the history of the Roma and supporting new approaches in the field: the Prague Forum for Romani Histories and the Research network on ‘Legacies of the Roma Genocide in Europe since 1945’, which is funded by the Arts & Humanities Research Council (AHRC, United Kingdom). Both initiatives aim at fostering a debate on the history of Roma as part of European history and contemporary European society.

The AHRC-funded Research network on ‘Legacies of the Roma Genocide in Europe since 1945’ is an international group of historians, social scientists, and scholars of language and culture, working with representatives of Romani communities to explore how the genocidal policies pursued in Europe between the mid-1930s and 1945 have shaped the social, political, and cultural history of Roma since 1945. It is led by Celia Donert and Eve Rosenhaft at the University of Liverpool in partnership with the MigRom project at the University of Manchester and the Romani Studies Seminar, Charles University, Prague. The conference is closely linked to its other activities planned for 2017 (workshops for researchers on conceptual approaches and state practices, as well as other events for the general public).

The Prague Forum for Romani Histories is an international academic initiative to promote interdisciplinary, intersectional, and transnational scholarship and dialogue on the study of the Roma as an integral part of European societies and an integral component of the historic research in and of Europe. Supporting methodological approaches that concentrate on processes of social differentiation and acknowledging the problematic role of disciplinary knowledge in reifying unequal power relations, the Forum seeks to contribute to decentring hegemonic national and identity-based narratives in European history. By doing so it seeks to promote reflexive, self-critical work which foregrounds Roma as historical co-actors, without downplaying discrimination and persecution histories. The Forum is institutionally based at the Institute of Contemporary History of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague. The partners in establishing the Forum are CEFRES, Prague, and the Romani Studies Seminar at Charles University, Prague. The planned conference is the inaugural event of the Forum.

The conference will be complemented by a workshop for Ph.D./MA students whose final theses are based on a historically informed approach to the study of the Roma. The workshop will be organized by the Prague Forum for Romani Histories in cooperation with the NAIRS (Network of Academic Institutions on Romani Studies) Summer School and announced in a separate call. For further information, please visit the website of the Prague Forum for Romani Histories and/or NAIRS.

Understanding the genocide of the Roma during World War II seems crucial for understanding the post-war history of Romani families and communities across Europe. At least 130,000 Roma were killed as a direct result of racial policies pursued by the German state, its allies, and other European states between 1933 and 1945. Some activists and scholars claim that as many as half a million Roma were killed. Yet although the mechanisms and scope of the Roma Holocaust are now partly understood, the legacies of mass killing, ghettoization, sterilization, and slave labour for first-, second- and third-generation survivors are still unknown. It appears likely, however, that understanding the trauma of the mid-twentieth-century genocide, as well as its contested recognition by majority societies, is of paramount importance for understanding the persistent discrimination against European Roma today.

The purpose of the conference is accordingly to map current research and guide a developing research agenda, investigating the ways in which past experiences and memories of persecution and violence have influenced family histories, political and social identities, and state-society relations amongst the Roma in different parts of Europe since 1945. Such investigations necessarily have a broad geographical focus, going beyond the more familiar sites of memory like the Auschwitz Gypsy camp to consider topics such as the legacies of the wartime deportation of Romanian Roma to Transnistria. We also welcome critical longer-term approaches to periodization, which might shed light on the specificity (or otherwise) of the events that took place between the mid-1930s and 1945. Our hope is thus to promote much-needed comparative and transnational perspectives on the history of Roma in post-war Europe, and also to connect scholarship in the field of Romani Studies to broader debates about the legacies of genocide in contemporary European history.

We invite papers from scholars in all disciplines, including historians, ethnographers, and cultural studies scholars, and particularly welcome cross-disciplinary, comparative, and transnational approaches. Our aim is not to reify an image of the Roma as homogeneous victims of genocide. Rather, we invite contributions that explore and contest narratives of victimhood, for example, by investigating the various ways in which individuals and families have responded to the experience of discrimination in everyday life, interactions with public authorities, politics, economic activities, or activism.

Papers might explore the following questions:

  • How might we search for the traces of genocide in the subjective and material experiences of Romani families since the end of the Second World War?
  • How can scholars trace and narrate the legacies of the Roma genocide within families of first-, second- and third-generation survivors?
  • To what extent can we compare the memories of persecution amongst Roma in different places, and in different migration contexts and with other population groups?
  •  To what extent have continuities in discriminatory practices within local and national welfare agencies, police, health and education authorities in post-1945 Europe influenced experiences and memories of persecution among Roma communities and families?
  • In the light of an emerging agenda of memorialization among Roma advocacy groups, how can we contribute to contextualizing policies and practices of commemoration and memorialization in different local, national, and transnational sites since 1945?
  • How has the legacy of genocide shaped the political construction of Romani identities, for example, through social activism or political movements?
  • What are the ethical and political dilemmas for historians who seek to explore these histories of trauma and violence?

We expect to be able to pay full travel and accommodation costs.

Abstracts of up to 500 words and a short biography should be emailed to legacies2017@gmail.com by 31 March 2017.

Calls for Papers

CfP: Acts of Justice, Public Events: World War II Criminals on Trial

Deadline for submission of proposals: 30 March 2017
Notification due: 1 June 2017
When and Where: 12-14 Octobre 2017, CEFRES, Prague
Language: English

This conference originates from the encounter of three projects: a Russian-French project on trials in the USSR (FMSH/RGNF), the micro-project of the Labex Création, Arts, Patrimoines ‘Images de la justice”, and the WW2CRIMESONTRIAL1943-1991 project supported by the French National Research Agency, whose first step it is.

Partners : CEFRES, March Bloch Center, CERCEC, CEFR, GDR “CEM” and CERHEC
Scientific Committee: D. Astashkin, A. Blum, A. Kichelewski, S. Lindeperg, F. Mayer, G. Mouralis, M. Steinle, I. Tcherneva

Please send by the 30 of March 2017 a 300 word proposal in English including a title, along with a selective bibliography and a short resume to: https://ww2justice.sciencesconf.org/submission/submit

Contacts:
Audrey Kichelewski : kichelewski@unistra.fr
Irina Tcherneva: irina.tcherneva@ehess.fr

Travel and accommodation costs will be covered by the organizers in priority for researchers without tenure.

Outline

The social history of trials of war crimes and of crimes against humanity,[1] which took place in the aftermath of WWII and its following decades, opens up two new investigation fields. First, taking into account the legal, political and social dimensions of these trials calls forth the inclusion of the various actors who co-produced the legal action. Recent historiography has indeed started to investigate the practices and discourses of the professionals working in the justice system, as well as of the political authorities and of the witnesses who somehow shaped the trials. Second, the diversity of the media mobilized to cover the trials, along with the diversity and temporalities of their hybrid usages, are still a brand new field of exploration. Therefore, the studies focusing on the platforms disseminating the information about these trials cast a new light on the frictions between the ‘legal dramaturgy’ and those provided by journalistic, literary, and visual narratives.

The aim of this conference is to join these two fields of investigation focusing on the trials which were designed as public events. By including the many professional and social actors who got involved and shaped such public, or publicized, trials, we endeavour to question the notion of publicization. The political and institutional choices not to have closed hearings had an impact on the ways such trials were made public. A specific policy accompanied the distribution of the information in order to channel their perception by the population as well as the interactions . On an epistemological level, putting at a distance the notions of communication and mediatization allows for a reappraisal of these actors, who were more than those implementing political decisions. It also enables to consider the press, written or filmed, the radio and the theatre, not only as sheer channels of political information through other media. Analysing the forms of involvement of these various actors (magistrates and police force, whistle-blowers, witnesses, defendants…) should therefore be crossed with a study of the part played by the media supports in the organization, the development and the reception of the trials. The conference will thus highlight the specificity of these publicized trials within the procedures conducted against criminals against humanity.

The tensions between the legal and historical nature of such trials shall not only be studied through the intents and practices of the political and legal authorities, but also through the part played by the other co-makers of the event. Special emphasis will be put for instance on the search for perpetrators by former victims who called on investigative bodies to bring them to justice, on the involvement of commemorative associations in organizing the trials, on the reactions of the public, on the media coverage of the trials. the readers of the newspapers which published such promotional materials, demanded heavier sentences and a large coverage of the prosecutions of war criminals. Was such public participation only organized from the top? Moreover, legal and media actors, witnesses and memory communities took part in the shaping of WWII narratives promoted in the public space in part by legal action.

If we consider these trials as social facts, another challenge must be met that concerns more specifically the trials taking place in the East of Europe, in the states undergoing Soviet satellization. An analytical method seeks to understand how public space was thought up in socialist regimes. Benefiting from the outcomes of the research led on the forms of autonomy of social actors under socialism, we strive to intertwine this perspective with a comparative approach as we investigate the trials taking place in Eastern and Western Europe. Such approach will enable to deal both with the political dimension of public trials and with the forms of mobilization of professional and social actors in the context of the Cold War.

The political time frame pertaining to each country will be taken into consideration. For instance, the legacy of the Soviet trials of the 1930s shall not be overlooked, although the transformations introduced in the after-war should not be underestimated. How were such trials of crimes against humanity employed in order to consolidate the internal legitimacy of the various regimes, to unfold political pedagogy and stir popular participation within the societal project aimed at? Did individual requests or popular unrest influence the choice to make these trials public or not? The proposed method should enable to position them in connection with the national narratives on WWII cast after the war and to give a sense of the responses according to the various types of political regimes.

[1]  The generic term ‘war crimes’ was commonly used in the texts and proceedings of this period referring to acts and violations of the rights and customs of war (definition of “war crimes” in the August Statute of the International Military Tribunal, 1945), and to ‘crimes against humanity’ (ibidem).

[2] Interrogation which continues the analyses on Western media transforming the information on such trials. A. Pinchevski & T. Liebes 2010, M. Steinle 2004, J. Maeck & M. Steinle 2016.

Topics

The conference will be built around three research topics. Which professional, institutional and individual actors got involved as these trials unfolded within the different historical and national contexts, and what was the extent of their autonomy? To what political and social aims did the publicization practices of these trials answer to? How did the arts and the press media shape the reception of these trials?

The first research topic of this conference shall be devoted to identifying of the involved actors, and to understanding the forms and extent of their involvement, and the mutual interactions of such actors with uneven political and symbolic assets. It shall follow the steps of the publicization of the trials: the mobilization of actors (broadly speaking, e.g. including close and distant audiences of the trials); the making of media (films, photography exhibitions, etc.); the reception.
Papers dealing with the following topics will be especially welcome: what relationships did political makers engage with the population? What could prompt new actors (institutional, associative…) to get involved as the trials were set up? What interactions can be observed during the reception of these trials? In socialist regimes, could the political pedagogy conducted by political authorities during the trials stir social initiatives? According to which criteria, the degrees of the autonomy of the bottom up legal elaboration can be determined for different national contexts?

The second research topic shall investigate the aims granted by the State to such public trials and their political consequences. The reinterpretation of WWII during the trials stands out within the range of legitimacy strategies followed by the State. Was the public nature of these trials connected with commemorative endeavours, even with small-scaled investigations? More broadly, how were such decisions to make these trials public received? In this wake, what practices were unfolded by legal and professional actors or by witnesses? What spaces of autonomy were at stake as knowledge and expertises met? What pedagogy of power can be disclosed as the work of the legal system received such emphasis?

Special focus shall be put in a third topic area on the communication tools used to cover the trials and on their content. Connecting studies on cinema, the written press, the radio, leaflets, and the arts, can help understanding the specificity and temporality of the usages of each medium.
Media professionals, who put into words and images the portraits of the victims, the perpetrators and the witnesses, shall be put under scrutiny, along with the processes they resorted to. How did they interact with the know-how and the documentation that were provided by other professional actors implied in setting up the legal procedures? In which social, political and professional contexts did the visual and textual representations get shaped? How did the media impact the trial dramaturgy, the attorneys, judges, defendants and witnesses?[2] What portraits of the public did they sketch? Observing the possible correlations, or even confrontations, between the ‘legal dramaturgy’ elaborated by legal actors and the police, on the one hand, by the media on the other, shall be at the core of this topic.

Papers can consist in case studies of trials or approach transversal dynamics can focus on types of involved actors, forms of public engagement and of mediatization of the trials. The analysis of international dimensions of such trials is particularly welcome, both in terms of aims sought by a large-scale media coverage and in terms of international exchange of information, legal know-how, witnesses, exhibits.

Selective Bibliography

  • Astaškin, Dmitrij. 2014. ‘Otkrytyj sudebnyj process nad nacistskimi voennymi prestupnikami v Novgorode (1947 god)’, in: Janin, V. (Ed.), Novgorodskij Istoričeskij Sbornik. Sbornik Naučnyh Trudov. Velikij Novgorod, Institut istorii RAN / Novg. gos. universitet, Velikij Novgorod: 352-375.
  • Astaškin, Dmitrij. 2015. Sovetskij Njurnberg. Processy nad nacistskimi prestupnikami na territorii SSSR v 1943-1949 gg.. Rossijskoe istoričeskoe obščestvo / Gosudarstvennyj central’nyj Muzej sovremennoj istorii, Moskva.
  • Bankier, David & Michman, Dan (Eds.), 2010. Holocaust and justice: representation and historiography of the Holocaust in post-war trials. Yad Vashem, Jerusalem, Israel.
  • Barbat, Victor. 2017. ‘Une guerre en marge. Le conflit sino-japonais sur les écrans soviétiques, 1938-1941’. Conserveries mémorielles. To be published in 2017.
  • Berkhoff, Karel C. 2009. ‘“Total Annihilation of the Jewish Population”: The Holocaust in the Soviet Media, 1941-45’. Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History 10 (1): 61 ‑ 105.
  • Berkhoff, Karel C. 2012. Motherland in Danger Soviet Propaganda during World War II. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
  • Bosch. William. 1970. Judgement on Nuremberg. American Attitudes toward the Major German War-Crime Trials. Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press.
  • Cassiday, Julie A. 2000. The Enemy on Trial: Early Soviet Courts on Stage and Screen. DeKalb, Ill.: Northern Illinois University Press.
  • Cehreli, Ayse Sila. 2014. Les magistrats ouest-allemands font l’histoire: la “Zentrale Stelle” de Ludwigsburg. Paris, France: L’Harmattan.
  • Christian, Michel & Emmanuel Droit. 2005. “Écrire l’histoire du communisme : l’histoire sociale de la RDA et de la Pologne communiste en Allemagne, en Pologne et en France”. Genèses no 61 (4): 118‑33.
  • Delage, Christian. 2006. La vérité par l’image: de Nuremberg au procès Milosevic. Paris: Denoel.
  • Delpla, Isabelle. 2011. Le mal en procès: Eichmann et les théodicées modernes. Paris: Hermann.
  • Douglas, Lawrence. 2001. The Memory of Judgement Making Law and History in the Trials of the Holocaust. New Haven [CT]: Yale University Press. http://site.ebrary.com/id/10217106.
  • Douglas, Lawrence, Martha Merrill Umphrey & Austin Sarat. 2005. Law on the Screen. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  • Douglas, Lawrence, 2016. The right wrong man: John Demjanjuk and the last great Nazi war crimes trial. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
  • Dufour, Diane & Christian Delage. 2015. Images of conviction: the construction of visual evidence. Paris: Le Bal : Éditions Xavier Barral.
  • Feferman, Kiril. 2014. ‘Soviet legal procedures against the Nazi criminals and Soviet collaborators as Historical Sources’. Legacy, no 6: 34‑ 43.
  • Feltman. Brian K. 2004. ‘Legimizing Justice: The American Press and the InternationalMilitary Tribunal, 1945–1946’. Historian, 66 (2): 300–319.
  • Fischer, Axel. 2014. ‘Promoting International Criminal Law: The Nuremberg Trial Film Project and US Information Policy after the Second World War’. In Historical Origins of International Criminal Law: Volume 1, Morten Bergsmo, Wui Ling Cheah, et Ping Yi: 623‑53.
  • Friedman, Alexander. 2016. ‘Krankenmorde im Raum Minsk und ihre Aufarbeitung in der Sowjetunion und in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland’ in Alexander Friedman and Rainer Hudemann (eds.): Diskriminiert – vernichtet – vergessen. Behinderte und Kranke in der Sowjetunion, in den besetzten sowjetischen Gebieten und im Ostblock, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag: 395-414.
  • Friedman, Alexander, 2016. “”Objektiv unausweichliche Maßnahmen“. Die Ermordung von Menschen mit körperlichen und geistigen Behinderungen In den besetzten sowjetischen Gebieten: Die Beispiele Šumjači (Gebiet Smolensk) und Makar’evo (Gebiet Leningrad)’ In Alexander Friedman and Rainer Hudemann (eds.): Diskriminiert – vernichtet – vergessen. Behinderte und Kranke in der Sowjetunion, in den besetzten sowjetischen Gebieten und im Ostblock, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 385–393.
  • Hicks, Jeremy. 2012. First Films of the Holocaust: Soviet Cinema and the Genocide of the Jews, 1938–1946. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
  • Holmila. Antero. 2011. Reporting on the Holocaust in the British, Swedish and Finnish Press, 1945-50. London. Palgrave Macmillan: 89–106.
  • Smith, Jeremy & Melanie J. Ilic. 2011. Khrushchev in the Kremlin : Policy and Government in the Soviet Union, 1953–1964. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY : Routledge.
  • Kantorovitch, Nati. 2007. ‘Soviet Reactions to the Eichmann Trial: A Preliminary Investigation 1960–1965’, Yad Vashem Studies, t. 35. 91–122.
  • Koskenniemi, Martti. 2002. The Gentle Civilizer of Nations: The Rise and Fall of International Law, 1870–1960. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Koskenniemi, Martti 2002. Between Impunity and Show Trials. Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law 6, 1–35.
  • Kozlovsky-Golan, Yvonne. 2011. “L’image visuelle de la Shoah et les procès de Nuremberg. Le film Les Camps de concentration nazis et son impact”. Les Écrans de la Shoah. La Shoah au regard du cinéma, Revue d’histoire de la Shoah, no 195: 61‑104.
  • Krakovsky, Roman. 2014. Réinventer le monde. Les cadres sociaux d’espace et de temps en Tchécoslovaquie communiste. Paris: Publications Sorbonne.
  • Lindeperg, Sylvie & Annette Wieviorka. 2008. “Les deux scènes du procès Eichmann”. Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales 63 (6): 1249‑74.
  • Lindeperg, Sylvie & Annette Wievorka, éd. 2016. Le Moment Eichmann. Bibliothèque histoire. Paris: Albin Michel.
  • Maeck, Julie, et Matthias Steinle. 2016. L’image d’archives : Une image en devenir. PU Rennes.
  • Marrus. M. R.. 2000. “L’histoire de l’Holocauste dans le prétoire”. In Bayard. Florent, (dir.), Le génocide des Juifs entre procès et histoire. 1943-2000. Bruxelles. Complexe: 26–56.
  • Michalczyk, John J. 2014. Filming the End of the Holocaust: Allied Documentaries, Nuremberg and the Liberation of the Concentration Camps.
  • Moine, Nathalie. 2011. ‘Defining “war Crimes against Humanity” in the Soviet Union Nazi Arson of Soviet Villages and the Soviet Narrative on Jewish and Non-Jewish Soviet War Victims, 1941–1947’. Cahiers Du Monde Russe 52 (2-3): 441‑73.
  • Moine, Nathalie. 2013. ‘‘Fascists Have Destroyed the Fruit of My Honest Work”. The Great Patriotic War, International Law and the Property of Soviet Citizens’. Jahrbücher Für Geschichte Osteuropas 61 (2): 172‑95.
  • Mouralis, Guillaume. 2008. Une épuration allemande: la RDA en procès, 1949-2004. Paris: Fayard.
  • Mouralis, Guillaume. 2015. “Outsiders du droit international. Trajectoires professionnelles et innovation juridique à Londres, Washington et Nuremberg, 1943-1945”. Monde(s) 1: 113-34.
  • Mouralis, Guillaume. 2012. ‘Lawyers versus Jurisconsults: Sociography of the Main Nuremberg Trial’, In: X., D.K.M., Leuwers, H. Luyten, D. et Rousseaux, (Ed.), Justice in Wartime and Revolutions: Europe, 1795–1950 : Europe, 1795–1950, Justice and Society. Archives générales du Royaume, Bruxelles: 325–36.
  • Pendas, David O. 2006. The Frankfurt Auschwitz trial, 1963-65: genocide, history and the limits of the law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York.
  • Pinchevski, Amit, & Tamar Liebes. 2010. ‘Severed Voices: Radio and the Mediation of Trauma in the Eichmann Trial’. Public Culture 22 (2): 265 ‑ 91. doi:10.1215/08992363-2009-028.
  • Schulberg. Sandra. 2012. ‘Filmmakers for the Prosecution. The Making of Nuremberg: Its lessons for Today’. American Bar Association. Chicago. http://www.americanbar.org
  • Shneer, David. 2011. Through Soviet Jewish Eyes: Photography, War, and the Holocaust, Rutgers U.P.
  • Shneer, David. 2015. ‘Is Seeing Believing ?: Photographs, Eyewitness Testimony, and Evidence of the Holocaust’, In East European Jewish Affairs, vol. 45, no. 1.
  • Steinle, Matthias. 2004. “Images inter-allemandes pendant la guerre froide: les séries “Archive sagen aus” (DEFA) et “Mitteldeutsches Tagebuch” (SFB).” Allemagne d’aujourd’hui: 178‑90.
  • Voisin, V., 2012. ““Au nom des vivants”, de Léon Mazroukho : une rencontre entre discours officiel et hommage personnel”, In Pozner, V., Laurent, N. (Eds.), Kinojudaica: les représentations des Juifs dans le cinéma de Russie et d’Union Soviétique des années 1910 aux années 1980. Nouveau monde ; Cinémathèque de Toulouse, Paris; Toulouse: 365-407.
  • Voisin, Vanessa. 2015. L’URSS contre ses traîtres: l’Épuration soviétique (1941-1955). Paris, France: Publications de la Sorbonne.
  • Voisin, Vanessa. 2016. “Le procès de Jérusalem et la représentation de la Shoah en URSS”. In Lindeperg. Sylvie, Wieviorka. Annette (eds.). Le Moment Eichmann. Paris: Albin Michel, 139 ‑ 68.
  • Weiss-Wendt, Anton. 2009. Murder without hatred Estonians and the Holocaust, Syracuse, N.Y., Syracuse University Press.
  • Weiss-Wendt, Anton. 2004. ‘Extermination of the Gypsies in Estonia during World War II’. In Collaboration and Resistance During the Holocaust: Belarus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, eds.: David Gaunt et al., Bern: Peter Lang: 383‑402.
  • Wittmann, Rebecca. 2005. Beyond Justice the Auschwitz Trial. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.