CEFRES Review of Books – June 2019

The new edition of CEFRES Review of Books will take place on Tuesday 25 June at 5 pm at CEFRES library.
Join us for a discussion around the latest publications in humanities and social sciences from France.

This informal meeting gathers CEFRES team, the library readers, and professionals from libraries and publishing. The aim of our Review of Books is to make better known the publishing landscape in humanities and social sciences. Each book is presented in no more than 10 minutes, so to stress its originality and stakes.

So far, the following presentations are announced:

Diane AFOUMADO : Indésirables (Calmann-Lévy, 2018), par Florence Vychytil Baudoux
Franz FANON : Oeuvres. N° 2 (La Découverte, 2018), par Thomas C. Mercier
Marc JOLY : La révolution sociologique (La Découverte, 2017) par Jan Maršálek
Claudia MOATTI : Res Publica. Histoire romaine de la chose publique (Fayard, 2018), par Hana Fořtová
Gérard NOIRIEL : Une histoire populaire de la France, De la guerre de Cent ans à nos jours (AGONE, 2018) par Michel Perottino

Revisiting the 1989 event in Central Europe: social margins, writing practices, new archives

International Conference

Venue: Scientific Center of the Polish Academy of Sciences (74, rue Lauriston, Paris), Sorbonne University (17, rue de la Sorbonne, “Salle des actes”, Paris)
Date: 7-8 June 2019.
Organizers: Science Centre of the Polish Academy of Sciences in Paris, Centre of Polish civilisation (Sorbonne University), CEFRES, Centre of French Civilisation and Francophone Studies in Warsaw
Language: English

This conference is the first in a cycle of conference entitled “1989-2019: Beyond the Anniversary, questionning 1989“, held in Paris, Warsaw and Prague.

You can check the detailed program here.

Argumentary

What is known about 1989, this chain of major events that have shaken up the map of Europe and the world? The collapse of communist regimes has been extensively studied and commented on. The human and social sciences have long focused on the 1989 enigma, which saw the un-anticipated collapse of the European part of the Soviet bloc in just a few months. However, the work on 1989 quickly led to other research agendas, proposing to study the current transformations in Central and Eastern Europe. Because contrary to what the large number of stories about 1989 may suggest, there are few empirical studies on this object and for good reasons. Because of its historical situation as the final moment of the communist period and as the inaugural moment of the “democratic transition”, 1989 was finally little addressed as such and for itself. Retrospective analyses of the reasons for the fall of the communist bloc and prospective studies on the democratization of Eastern European societies quickly marginalized the event as an object of investigation, in favor of more interpretation-oriented writings. More recently, it is more a questioning around the memory controversies on 1989 that has caught the attention of researchers. This conference therefore proposes a return to the event itself. Going back to the field, diving in the past, mobilizing new sources, without of course sacrificing the analysis to pure facts. This is the perspective adopted which consists in questioning the event through its social margins, actors who have until now remained in the shadows (for example workers or women), through writing and cultural practices and by engaging in a debate on the archives of 1989, raising new or too long ignored questions. Several leads seem to be possible:

1989 and social margins : What did 1989 mean for the Eastern European working classes, rural communities, people living in urban areas far from the heart of events, women, young people or the regime’s elites? Crossing the political event and the social worlds offers an original perspective on the dynamics of the collapse and makes it possible to rethink the relationships between the “revolutionary process” and social classes, which are known to be central to Marxist theory.
Writing and cultural practices : How was 1989 figured, documented and co-constructed, both during and after, through various writing practices (diaries, actors’ memoirs, underground press, samizdats, correspondence) and artistic genres such as literature, theatre, happening, painting or documentary? What traces does it leave in the visual memory of the event? What exactly is described, from what point of view?
New archives : Which archives were constituted on 1989 and on the period preceding the event? Are the archives on 1989 part of the archives of communism? Did 1989 produce its own archivists? Who are they and how can these archives be used? How can we interpret the development of oral history in the East and the multiplication of real “banks of testimonies”, which are emerging as new archives of communism and post-communism?

It is therefore about revisiting 1989 by consciously taking a fragmented look on the series of political events that have transformed Central and Eastern Europe. Hence the use of new and heterodox sources: oral history with ordinary citizens, self-writing, memoirs written by former members of the opposition or communist parties, posters, literary and artistic materials, etc., which have been the subject of so few publications since then.

Scientific direction of the Cycle of conferences

Maciej Forycki, Scientific Centre in Paris of the Polish Academy of Science
Jérôme Heurtaux, CEFRES–French Research Centre in Humanities and Social Sciences
Nicolas Maslowski, Centre for French Studies (CCFEF), University of Warsaw
Paweł Rodak, Centre of Polish Civilisation, Sorbonne University

Delegitimization as Social Phenomenon

International Conference

Location: Warsaw
Date: 24th and 25th of May 2019
Organizers: Institute of Philosophy, French Civilisation Center, Warsaw University
Partners: CEFRES
Language: English

Check the program here.

Delegitimization as Social Phenomenon

An event, consequently, is not a decision, a treaty, a reign, or a battle, but the reversal of a relationship of forces, the usurpation of power, the appropriation of a vocabulary turned against those who had once used it, a feeble domination that posits itself as it grows lax, the entry of the “masked other”. Michel Foucault, Nietzsche, Genealogy, History

It is quite striking that Foucault’s definition of historical event bears all the characteristics of delegitimization i.e., the loss of authority or an abrupt refusal of recognition. This is no coincidence. Delegitimization is a historical event because it appears as the precondition for the possibility of any novelty in the social world. It is the negative moment preceding any positivity. Delegitimization precedes the change and generates it. The weapons held by the authority are turned against it, the sacred is turned into profane, the glorious into infamous, what is weak becomes strong, and the ignominious takes place in the sun. The figure of delegitimization is indeed one of the most powerful in the modern social imaginary – it arguably represents a heroic moment of progress.

The edifice of the Enlightenment was built through all series of delegitimizations: the delegitimization of Aristotelian teleology paved the way for modern science; the delegitimization of revelation brought the freedom of thought and of speech; the delegitimization of monarchy produced democracy; the delegitimization of privilege – equality before law. Delegitimization pairs up with either collective or individual emancipation. Moreover, in modern societies, delegitimization becomes an institutionalised game. Inscribed within scientific, artistic and political fields it ensures their internally competitive nature. We confront here an apparent paradox where the very legitimacy of any distinction or advantage depends on the possibility of delegitimization standing at bay. Yet, this seems to be a virtuous paradox. If we recognise that every legitimacy, even if to a different degree, carries some fair amount of the arbitrary usurpation and violence, it plainly deserves to be exposed to a reversal of fate.

And yet delegitimization as social practise is far from being an innocent endeavour. It hardly meets any normative expectations. It rarely passes only through a fair critique, it produces strawmen, misinterpretations or puts things out of proportion. The enterprise of delegitimization favours the performative efficiency over the power of argument; the feeling over the reason. It has aversion to nuance. As some prominent contemporary thinkers point out, it proceeds by fabricating empty signifiers filled with imaginary equivocations. Not only does delegitimization distorts its objects, it also constantly manipulates, displaces or conceals the subject of the whole making. The subject of delegitimization is often, if not always, ‘a masked other’ as denunciator rarely speaks undisguised and in his own name; he is rather a Porte-parole for entity of his own making. The art of delegitimating is indeed the backbone of populism. And so the ‘masked other’ appears elsewhere and in different form, when delegitimating turns no longer against holders of power and prestige but against those who lack them dramatically. Withdrawal of recognition targets mostly the ones who lack recognition, by means of stigmatisation, vilification, objectification and dehumanisation. Delegitimization is therefore inherent in every pogrom or genocide.

The goal of our seminar is an interdisciplinary exchange aiming at understanding contemporary crises of legitimation. We hope to achieve this by taking the broadest possible scope in space, time and method.

From Bohemia to the Adriatic Sea and Back: The Topography of Central-European Patrimony, between Imperial Paradigm and National Contingencies (1900-1940)

Lecture by Daniel Baric

Venue: Institute of Art History (Husova 4, Prague 1)
Date: 22nd May 2019 at 4.30 pm
Organizers: CEFRES, ÚDU AV ČR

Daniel Baric

Daniel Baric studied History and completed German, Slavic and Hungarian studies in Paris, Berlin and Budapest. A former associate professor at the Department of German studies of Tours University, he is currently working at the Department of Slavic studies of Sorbonne University.
His researches focus on cultural transfers and interculturality in Central Europe, especially within the Habsburg Empire.

Abstract

To reflect upon the elaboration of patrimony policies and their endorsement by local actors means necessarily to take into account a wider context. The relationship of central imperial power with its Oriental circumferences is one of its major dimensions even more significant for the Austrian Empire.

There is a double aspect in Daniel Baric’s ongoing researches. They can be especially observed located among its geographical and historical boundaries. On the one hand, we can find a focus point on imperial Viennese institutions as they are considered to be an instrumental in the genesis of modern patrimony policies. On the other hand, there is a specific study revolving around the most peripheral provinces of Austria-Hungarian, Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Adriatic coast under Austria-Hungarian administration (1878–1918)

Our considerations will be concerned by the tremendous consequences due to the evanescence of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in the domains of embellishment policy and cataloging process.

Archeologists had indeed to find new ways of protecting patrimony through the implementation of new museums and university chairs (i.e. Carl Patsch in Sarajevo and then Vienna, Anton Gnirs in Pula and then at Loket). This process had been achieved by overcoming imperial structures that had collapsed in 1918.

Both of them were scholars born in Bohemia and trained in Prague. In accordance with their acknowledged expertise, they were sent to the Slavonic speaking provinces in the South of Austria-Hungary. They also both finished their researches once they went back to Bohemia and Austria.

The mainstream archeological researches were modified due to political changes and their own departure from their first fields of excavation. De facto, studies on romanization and imperial latinity that were so strongly developed in the Austria-Hungarian period were no more dominant. A new interest emerged for all things medieval and national, giving way to a new paradigm in archaeology.

The tight ties between biography and topography shall be addressed, in regard with current researches based on (mainly autobiographical) manuscripts due to be published.

Daniel Baric’s bibliography

Publications
1. Langue allemande, identité croate. Au fondement d’un particularisme culturel, Paris, Armand Colin, 2013. (Croatian translation : Zagreb, Leykam, 2015)

As an editor
2. Identités juives en Europe centrale, des Lumières à l’entre-deux-guerres, with Tristan Coignard and Gaëlle Vassogne, Tours, Presses universitaires François-Rabelais, 2014.

3. Archéologies méditerranéennes, Revue germanique internationale, 2012.

4. Mémoire et histoire en Europe centrale et orientale, with Jacques Le Rider and Drago Roksandić, Rennes, Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2010.

Theologies of Revolution: Medieval to Modern Europe

Workshop

Date: 20 and 21 May 2019
Place: Academic Conference Center (AKC, Husova 4a,
Prague 1) et Faculté des Lettres de l’Université Charles, salle 104 (FF UK, náměstí Jana Palacha 2, Prague 1)
Organized by: Martin Pjecha (CEU / CEFRES)
Organized in partnership with: CEFRES, Centre for Medieval Studies (CMS), Central European University (CEU)
Language: English

Keynote speakers

Phillip Haberkern (Boston University) : When did Christians Become Revolutionary? A Reflection on Hannah Arendt
Matthias Riedl (Central European University, Budapest) Apocalyptic Platonism: The Thought of Thomas Müntzer

Report to the call for contributions.

20th May 2019

10:00 – Introductory comments

10:30-12:00 – Panel 1: Urban and noble rebellion in the 17^thcentury

Rik Sowden (University of Birmingham): Religion and rebellion in Nottingham during the British Civil wars – (discussant: Vladimír Urbánek)
Márton Zászkaliczky (Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Institute for Literary Studies, Budapest): Calvinist Political Theology in the Bocskai Rebellion (1604-1606) – (discussant: Vladimír Urbánek)

12:00-13:00 – Lunch

13:00-14:20 – Panel 2: 20^th century interpretations

Behrang Pourhosseini (University Paris 8): From Christian Victimary Politics to Shi’ite Messianism : A Debate around the Iranian Revolution – (discussant: Thomas C. Mercier)
Giacomo Maria Arrigo (KU Leuwen/University of Calabria): Gnosticism and Revolution: Towards an Explanatory Pattern – (discussant: Matthias Riedl)

14:20-14:40 – Coffee break

14:40-16:00 – Panel 3: Imperial and Soviet Russia

Anastasia Papushina (CEU, Budapest): Martyrs and heroes: revisiting religious patterns in revolutionary times – (discussant: Hanuš Nykl)
Daniel García Augusto Porras (Universitat Ramon Llull (Barcelona)/Universidad Pontificia Comillas ): Revolution as political religion in Russia: Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor and its interpreters in Russian religious thought – (discussant: Hanuš Nykl)

16:00-16:20 – Coffee break

16:30-18:00 – Keynote 1

Matthias Riedl (CEU, Budapest): Apocalyptic Platonism: The Thought of Thomas Müntzer

21st May 2019

10:00-11:20 – Panel 4: The French Revolution

Mathias Sonnleithner (MLU, Halle-Wittenberg) : Robespierre’s Belief to Be God’s Chosen – A Key Element of the Political Theology of the Terror – (discussant: Jakub Štofaník)
Amirpash Tavakkoli (EHESS, Paris) : French revolution, a Christian reading – (discussant: Jakub Štofaník)

11:20-11:50 – coffee break

11:50-13:10 – Panel 5: Violence and bliss in medieval Bohemia

Pavlína Cermanová (CMS, Prague): The Theology of Hussite Innocence – (discussant: Phillip Haberkern)
Martin Pjecha (CEU, Budapest/CEFRES, Prague): “Cosmic” revolution in radical Hussitism – (discussant: Phillip Haberkern)

13:10-14:30 – Lunch

14:30-16:30 – Panel 6: Intellectual transfers and comparisons in early modernity

Sam Gilchrist Hall (Károli Gáspár University of the Reformed Church in Hungary, Budapest): “But I do not doubt the people”: Thomas Müntzer and King Lear – (discussant: Matthias Riedl)
Luke Collison (Kingston University London): Hobbes and ‘Religion’ on the Threshold of Modernity – (discussant: Matthias Riedl)
Benjamin Heidenreich (University of Würzburg): Huldrich Zwingli´s influence on the “Peasants´ War” of 1525 – (discussant: Phillip Haberkern)

16:30-16:50 – Coffee break

17:30-19:00 – Keynote 2

Phillip Haberkern (Boston University): When did Christians Become Revolutionary? A Reflection on Hannah Arendt
FF UK, salle 104 (náměstí Jana Palacha 2, Prague 1)

19:00 – Closing remarks