Colloque interdisciplinaire et international organisé à Corte (Corse) par le Musée de la Corse les 19 et 20 juin 2014.

jusqu’au 31 octobre 2013

En 1914, la guerre entraîne des millions d’hommes vers des horizons nouveaux dont beaucoup ne reviendront pas. Composées en majorité de simples citoyens ayant endossé l’uniforme, des armées s’affrontent au nom de nations au sein desquelles résonnent et s’entremêlent différents modèles de patriotisme, de nationalisme et d’identités sociales. Si depuis quelques années, la recherche historique, aussi bien nationale qu’internationale, s’intéresse de plus en plus aux témoignages précieux de ces hommes ordinaires ballotés par le flux et le reflux d’événements qui les dépassent, l’attention sur les « groupes » (une notion à discuter) régionaux ou nationaux minoritaires, compris comme des entités conscientes d’elles-mêmes, construisant et véhiculant des identités socioculturelles et des expressions patriotiques singulières au sein de leur nation d’appartenance, demeure une clé de lecture aujourd’hui relativement peu étudiée. De fait, il apparaît important de mieux connaître ces groupes, dans leur double dimension sociale et politique, de comprendre leur vision de la guerre, leurs rapports à la nation, au nationalisme et à leurs identités plurielles, parfois concurrentes.

Dans un cadre très large, il s’agit d’éclairer les articulations structurant leur(s) identité(s) régionale(s) et/ou nationale(s), au sein de l’entité nationale étatique. D’abord, ces groupes forment-ils des entités sociales homogènes, au sens de repérables et d’objectivables par le sociohistorien ? Comment les individus composant ces groupes sont-ils saisis par la guerre ? Leurs groupes s’en retrouvent-ils renforcés ? Divisés ? Qu’en est-il des Corses mobilisés dans l’armée française ? Quid de la participation des Alsaciens-Mosellans à l’effort de guerre allemand ? Comment se comportent les Italiens du Trentin, les Tchèques, les Slovaques, etc., au sein de l’empire austro-hongrois en guerre ? Le conflit a-t-il été le grand moment de cristallisation du sentiment national ou bien seulement une étape supplémentaire du renforcement des États-nations ? Qu’en est-il d’une France aux identités régionales encore vivaces malgré la laborieuse mais relativement efficace affirmation de l’État ? De l’Italie, dont le processus national est loin d’être achevé en 1914 ? Ou encore des Québécois au Canada ? Comment l’Autriche-Hongrie a-t-elle géré ses minorités à l’arrière et sur le front ? Dans les empires coloniaux, quelles sont les répercussions de la participation à l’effort de guerre national – celui de la métropole coloniale – sur les constructions identitaires des colons et des colonisés ; portent-elles en germe la construction nationale d’États post-coloniaux ?

D’une manière générale, que produisent les expériences de guerre des groupes porteurs d’une identité régionale et/ou nationale différente de celle des États qui les mobilisent ? Participent-elles finalement au renforcement de la construction nationale de l’entité étatique ? Au contraire, sont-elles le lit de (nouvelles) résistances ? Comment cela s’exprime-t-il ? Par différentes échelles de solidarité, de la cohésion du groupe primaire de combat (renforcé au début de la guerre par le recrutement régional) aux solidarités régionale et nationale ? Comment ces solidarités interagissent-elles avec les solidarités de classe ou de condition ? L’analyse des constructions et interactions identitaires complexes propres aux diverses minorités engagées dans la Grande Guerre recèle de nombreuses pistes pour la compréhension de ces frontières intra-étatiques peu visibles, redessinées dans la diversité sociale et le brassage national des tranchées.

L’échelle nationale, à travers le rapport centre-périphérie, permet une première approche à partir d’axes distincts. Ainsi, sous les angles différents et complémentaires d’une histoire à la fois sociale, politique et culturelle, il s’agira d’étudier les processus de définition et d’autodéfinition des groupes identitaires (minorités nationales, identités régionales, etc.) dans le double cadre de la nation en guerre. Les contributions s’articuleront autour des problématiques suivantes :

Comment s’articulent identités régionales et identités nationales dans les processus de mise en guerre de l’État (« mobilisation » des corps et des esprits, expression patriotique, etc.) ?
Comment ces identités plurielles résistent-elles l’une à l’autre, se transforment-elles au contact l’une de l’autre, se fondent-elles l’une dans l’autre…, dans le contexte des brassages dans les tranchées, les hôpitaux, les hivernages, les chantiers, les usines, ou lors des permissions (pratiques, expressions, etc.) ?
Ces différentes identités renforcent-elles la ténacité des combattants ?
Le conflit a-t-il tenu un rôle dans l’apparition ou la structuration d’un sentiment de rejet du sentiment national entre 1914 et 1918 et après-guerre ? A-t-il joué en faveur d’un essor de nationalités jusque-là étouffées ? D’un repli sur les « petites patries » ?

Si le colloque porte essentiellement sur une vision « par le bas » du conflit, discuter l’essor ou le repli identitaire revient à évoquer la construction et la postérité politiques de ces identités prises dans la guerre :

Quels modes d’administration les États en guerre ont-ils développé vis-à-vis de leurs minorités ? Quelles stratégies identitaires de légitimation de la guerre et de l’État en guerre ont-ils employé ?
Comment les politiques étatiques, les élites sociopolitiques locales ou encore les médias régionaux ont-ils cherché, à l’arrière comme au front, à développer le sentiment national et niveler ou reléguer l’expression d’identités différentes ? Des discours aux pratiques, quelle fut l’efficacité réelle de ces procédés ?
Enfin, comment les États en conflit ont-ils tenté de jouer sur les identités régionales ou les minorités des nations rivales afin d’affaiblir leurs ennemis ?

L’objectif scientifique du colloque repose sur une approche comparée, internationale et interdisciplinaire, de la Grande Guerre.

Colloque interdisciplinaire et international organisé à Corte (Corse) par le Musée de la Corse les 19 et 20 juin 2014.
Modalités de soumission

Les propositions de communications sont à soumettre en français à :

jean-paul.pellegrinetti@wanadoo.fr et sylvain.gregori@wanadoo.fr

Elles ne devront pas excéder 5 000 signes et devront comporter un bref descriptif des sources envisagées.

Le dépôt des propositions s’effectuera
jusqu’au 31 octobre 2013

Les candidats seront informés de la décision du comité organisateur au plus tard le 31 décembre 2013.
Comité scientifique

Sylvain Gregori (Musée de Bastia, chercheur associé au CMMC. Université de Nice Sophia-Antipolis)
Charles Heimberg (Université de Genève)
Michel Litalien (Direction de l’Histoire et du patrimoine, Ministère de la Défense nationale du Canada)
Julien Mary (Université Paul Valéry-Montpellier III)
Jean-Paul Pellegrinetti (Université de Nice Sophia-Antipolis)
Frédéric Rousseau (Université Paul Valéry-Montpellier III).

Partenaires

CMMC (Université de Nice Sophia-Antipolis)
CRISES (Université Paul Valéry-Montpellier III)
CRID 14-18

Bibliographie indicative

Benedict Anderson, L’imaginaire national. Réflexions sur l’origine et l’essor du nationalisme, Paris, La Découverte, 2002 [Imagined communities, 1983]
François Bouloc, Rémy Cazals et André Loez, Identités troublées. 1914-1918 : Les appartenances sociales et nationales à l’épreuve de la guerre, Toulouse, Éditions Privat, 2011.
Rémy Cazals et André Loez, Dans les tranchées de 14-18, Pau, Cairn, 2008.
Jean-François Chanet, L’école républicaine et les petites patries, Paris, Aubier, 1996.
Jean-François Chanet, Vers l’armée nouvelle. République conservatrice et réforme militaire, 1871-1879. Rennes, Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2006
Christophe Charle, La Crise des sociétés impériales. Allemagne, France, Grande-Bretagne (1900-1940), Paris, Le Seuil, 2001.
Éric Hobsbawm, Nations et nationalisme depuis 1780, Paris, Gallimard, 1992.
Jules Maurin, Armée, guerre, société: soldats languedociens (1899-1919), Paris, Publications de la Sorbonne, 1982.
Gérard Noiriel, État, nation et immigration. Vers une histoire du pouvoir, Paris, Gallimard, 2005.
Panikos Panayi, Minorities in Wartime. National and Racial Groupings in Europe, North America and Australia during the Two World Wars, Oxford, Berg, 1993.
Odile Roynette, “Bons pour le service”. L’expérience de la caserne en France à la fin du XIXe siècle, Paris, Belin, 2000.
Anne-Marie Thiesse, La Création des identités nationales, Paris, Le Seuil, 1999.
Patrick Weil, Qu’est-ce qu’un Français ? Histoire de la nationalité française depuis la Révolution, Paris, Gallimard, 2004.

Before the 1st of May 2013

Following the European seminar held in Tours on this topic in June 2012, the PY network invites young researchers in Social Sciences working on the post-Yugoslav space to submit articles for a forthcoming publication (in French or in English) in an influential European journal. The issue will be titled: “Dwelling/living in the Post-Yugoslav space”, focusing on the evolution of relations between space and people in former Yugoslavia. Our ambition is to offer a fresh view and a better understanding of political, economic, socially rapid and complex evolutions in the region and to participate more broadly to a better understanding of socio-spatial processes in our contemporary world. The objective is also to facilitate, to promote and to make visible research analysis of young researchers working on the post-Yugoslav area.

Synopsis

Understood as a way for the individual to be in an environment, dwelling is a complex phenomenon challenging to define/grasp due to its modes being both material and ideal arrangements of representations and practices of the world (Bailleul and Feildel, 2011). Put differently, the inhabitants of aspace –as a lived experience and as a place of life- physically and symbolically appropriate it (Vassart, 2006). These individual and social relations between human being(s) and space(s) rely on personal, collective and cultural dynamics, which generate a very rich variety of meanings of home places. Dwelling is for the human being a manner to define its possibilities to be in space and time.

In the context of the post Yugoslav space, the verbs to dwell and/or to live acquire a particular resonance. In 1993, Michel Sivignon pointed out the grim actuality of these words during the Yugoslav conflicts. People have fought to guarantee their rights to live (in a house, a village, and a valley) but also to prevent others from living (in the neighbouring house, village, and valley). Wars were about getting rid of certain inhabitants but also about denying and deleting the signs and the marks they left in space and time.

If the 1990s conflicts may be questioned through the concept of dwelling, it is also possible to use this latter to elaborate a renewed perspective on recent reconfigurations of societies and territories in the former Yugoslav space. Other phenomena should also be integrated in such an analysis, e.g. the end of the socialist regime, the emergence of new nation-states, of market economy and the effects of supranational processes such as European integration and globalisation. Those have led to the emergence and the multiplication of new actors producing norms and representations –groups or individuals, state(s) or international organisations. Doing so, one may develop an approach much less concentrated on conflicts and nationalisms but focusing also on other aspects of the recent changes that have impacted (or not) on the way people live and dwell in space and time. Private ownership for instance is one phenomenon that has modified the relation between people and ground / land. It may result in a new personification of space and in new processes of formalising practices and representations in space that used to be informal.

In this call for papers, we are mainly interested in 3 themes:
1/ to be inhabitant and citizen in post-Yugoslav States

The end of the socialist political and economic system, the emergence of new sovereign nation-states as well as the successive migration of people over the last 20 years question the evolution of the relation between inhabitants and their new state(s) –changes in regime(s), legal statuses, definition of membership to the citizenry, borders and boundaries, law– and with neighbouring states –e.g. multiple citizenships. As a result of multiple historical, social and political processes, post-Yugoslav citizenships and their vocabulary refer to different definitions and meanings through time and space in the area. Besides, it is necessary to take into account the practices they encompass without being too close to normative understandings of other “citizenships” – e.g. British or French. Thus, this theme aims at questioning the evolution of citizenship(s) and citizenship regimes through their implication in everyday life and ordinary acts in post-Yugoslav spaces. What does this evolution imply in terms of dwelling (e.g. access to housing or other resources and rights)?
2/ to dwell, to live, to move in the post-Yugoslav space

Many researchers in the French academic context have recently noted the emergence of polytopic ways of living. More precisely, they argue that society has evolved in a way in which inhabitants have become more mobile in their everyday life and along their lifetime (Bailleul et Feildel, 2011; Stock, 2006). To what extent does this general observation fit with the post-Yugoslav context?

Mobility should be perceived as a vector/vehicle in the construction of the meaning that individuals give to the space in which they live in. Hence, the question is: which information do the recent changes in individuals’ mobility and spatial identities in former Yugoslavia give about the ways people dwell/live in spaces? And reversely how are these ways of living/dwelling modifying spatiality, mobility and identities of individuals living in post Yugoslav spaces? We welcome contributions dealing with the evolutions of links between spatial and social reconfigurations. Different kinds of mobility may be treated: forced mobility (refugees/returnees), regular mobility (for familial, economic, social reasons…), and daily mobility, from local to international scales.
3/ to live and to remember in former Yugoslavia

Socio-political evolutions in the (post-)Yugoslav space have been going hand-in-hand with an evolution of historical reference frames in spaces and societies. From the former socialist regime to the rising of nationalisms in the 1980s, the affirmation of new nation-states and local reconfigurations in the 1990s, the historical references in which societies take root seem both to proliferate and to merge. A stimulating empirical approach avoiding any oversimplification may be to focus on the evolution of the relations with memory and places of memory –lieux de mémoire– through the processes of recognition and incorporation of heritage status. We welcome approaches based upon the premises that history is only an interpretation and a production of past facts in a specific socio-political context by different actors and that this interpretation participates to identity construction processes for individuals and groups. Articles questioning heritage statuses in post-Yugoslav territories and societies are welcome as well as analyses of storytelling and production of discourses at the local and the national scales.
Process of selection

We invite young researchers, PhD students and post-doc in Social Sciences working on the post-Yugoslav space to apply to this call. Writing language has to be French or English.

Propositions should be 500 words long. They should be sent before the 1st of May 2013 at the following e-mail: reseaupy@yahoo.fr . They should come with a one-page CV in French or in English.

The selection committee will pay attention in particular to the scientific and language quality of propositions and to their link with the three themes developed in this call.

The accepted applicants will be notified in May; articles should be submitted during summer 2013.
The PY network

The PY network aims at bringing together PhD students and young researchers dealing with reconfigurations of post-Yugoslav societies and territories.

For more information, see: http://www.facebook.com/ReseauPy ; http://reseaupy.hypotheses.org
Heads of the network:

Cyril Blondel, PhD student in politics and in regional planning UMR CITERES (CNRS 7324), Université de Tours cyril.blondel@univ-tours.fr
Guillaume Javourez, PhD student in geography UMR TELEMMe (6570); Université d’Aix-Marseille g.javourez@univ-provence.fr
Marie Van Effenterre, PhD student in anthropology EHESS, UMR IIAC-TRAM (CNRS 8177), Paris marievaneffenterre@gmail.com

November 28-29, 2013
Kaunas
Conference organizer: Vytautas Magnus University

Deadline: 1 September 2013

The conference is organized according to:
PROGRAME FOR HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT FOR 2007-2013
“Support to Research Activities of Scientists and Other Researchers (Global Grant)”

Central and Eastern European Region: Research of the Construction of National Narratives and Politics of Memory (1989-2011) VP1-3.1-ŠMM-07-K-02-024

The historians of the majority of the European countries claim that the history of their nation is unique and exceptional. These claims serve as a basis for the formation of the historical image and politics of memory of the country at the national level. The visions of this “special way” are especially typical to the national historiographies and popular forms of memorialisation of the Central and Eastern European countries. They are based on the idea of exceptionality and belief that the history of a specific country is unique and incompatible with the historical narratives of the neighbouring countries. The authors of such ethno-centric narratives limit themselves only to the analysis of events within the boundaries of their country; cross-national approach to the same historical happenings is not applied. Such situation could be explained as a natural need of the post-communist countries to form their identities. Due to the newly restored/ acquired independencies, the need was especially urgent.
On the other hand, the situation is changing and new methodological approaches to novel cultural, memory, post-structural, post-colonial and other histories and spheres of research challenge the homogeneity of national narratives. Regional research of historical narratives and forms of memorialisation is especially topical in the transition from individual comparative analyses to large-scale comparative studies. Thus the prior aim of this conference is to enhance the  development of the comparative studies of national narratives and the processes of memorialisation in the Central and Eastern European Region by  analysing the national reflections of the past within the framework of the historical narratives of the whole region.
As an answer to the current topicalities, the chronological framework of the conference encompasses the post-soviet period, which signifies the erosion of the earlier narratives, the reconstruction of the old narratives and forms of memorialisation, and the formation of new historical narratives, memory forms and national identities.
We kindly invite researchers from the disciplines of Humanities and Social Sciences interested in the research of the Central and Eastern European Region to participate in the conference.

The conference covers these areas:

Theoretical problems of the relation between memory and history
The relationship between the academic historiography and popular historical narrative
National heroes: between a legend and political order
The problems of autochthonic approach and the development of pseudo-ethnogeneses in the national narratives
The problem of intertwined and confronting representations of the past in the national narratives of the neighbouring countries
Ideological and world-view vectors of national narratives
Division of historical heritage
The relationship of individual (cognitive) memory with the historical narratives
The reflections of post-communist transformations in contemporary national narratives
The influence of the membership in the European Union and the contemporary politics of Russia on the construction of the national narratives

Length of talks: 20 minutes

Conference language: English

All conference articles will be peer reviewed. Accepted articles will be published in a collective volume of scientific papers.

Researchers are kindly requested to fill in the participant’s form. Abstracts should be 300-500 words long, in English, and should be sent by 1 September 2013.

Participant’s form should be sent to the conference office:
v.kasperavičiūtė@hmf.vdu.lt

Telephone number for enquiries:
+370-37-327836

The organizers of the conference will cover meal and accommodation expenses.

The organizing committee of the conference:

Chairman:
dr. Marius Sirutavičius (Vytautas Magnus University) m.sirutavicius@gmail.com

Members:
dr. Liudas Glemža (Vytautas Magnus University) l.glemza@hmf.vdu.lt
assoc. prof. dr. Rūstis Kamuntavičius (Vytautas Magnus University) r.kamuntavicius@hmf.vdu.lt
dr. Vitalija Kasperavičiūtė (Vytautas Magnus University) v.kasperaviciute@hmf.vdu.lt
dr. Andrius Švarplys (Vytautas Magnus University) a.svarplys@pmdf.vdu.lt
dr. Jurgita Vaičenonienė (Vytautas Magnus University) j.vaicenoniene@hmf.vdu.lt

The scientific committee of the conference:

Chairman:
prof. habil. dr. Egidijus Aleksandravičius (Vytautas Magnus University)

Members:
assoc. prof. dr. Kastytis Antanaitis (Vytautas Magnus University)
dr. Halina Beresnevičiute Nosálová (Masaryk University, Brno)
dr. Moreno Bonda (Vytautas Magnus University)
prof. habil. dr. Krzysztof Buchowski (University of Bialystok)
dr. Vytautas Petronis (Herder-Institute, Marburg)

Colloque à l’École française de Rome « Presse et exil dans l’Europe du XIXe siècle », 23-24 septembre 2013

Les propositions de communications doivent nous parvenir
avant le 24 avril

L’équipe « Exil » rassemble des chercheurs français et italiens autour d’un projet de base de données collective sur les exilés politiques italiens dans la Méditerranée du XIXe siècle, avec le soutien de l’École française de Rome. Elle prévoit un programme de rencontres sur le thème de l’exil ouvertes sur l’ensemble du monde européen. Le premier de ces projets porte sur la presse et l’exil au xixe siècle.

Tout au long de l’époque contemporaine, l’exil a constitué une forme de mobilisation à part entière, qui s’est inscrite dans le répertoire d’actions contre-révolutionnaire, libéral, républicain, puis socialiste et anti-fasciste. Pour le patriote lombard Carlo Cattaneo, c’était ainsi une « nouvelle institution » que le poète Ugo Foscolo avait donnée à l’Italie du Risorgimento en quittant Milan en 1816 pour embrasser une vie de proscrit. Cette modalité de l’engagement politique a alimenté des flux migratoires quantitativement de plus en plus importants dans l’Europe du xixe siècle et du premier xxe siècle, mais ce n’est pas par son effectif qu’il convient de jauger son importance. Car les exilés, même en petit nombre, ont joué un rôle crucial dans l’internationalisation des débats politiques et la circulation des idées, favorisant la naissance d’une sphère publique européenne ou transatlantique et de nouvelles formes de politisation. Ils ont également joué un rôle économique et professionnel non négligeable, contribuant à faire circuler techniques, process, savoirs et savoir-faire entre communautés d’exilés et pays d’accueil. Faire l’histoire de leurs expériences permet d’envisager le développement des cultures et des identités au-delà de la sphère étroite de la nation ou du groupe, pour reconnaître l’importance des échanges et des interactions dans la formation de communautés séparées.

Le projet se fonde sur l’idée que la contribution des exilés à la presse de leur temps constitue une fenêtre d’analyse sur l’exil comme expérience politique, créatrice d’« exopolitie », ainsi que Stéphane Dufoix a proposé de baptiser l’espace spécifique dans lequel les exilés mènent leurs différentes activités. L’exil représente, dans le même temps, un facteur d’ouverture de la presse européenne aux pays étrangers, contribuant ainsi à l’internationalisation de certains slogans et thèmes politiques dans l’Europe des guerres civiles et des constructions nationales, ainsi qu’à la circulation des connaissances liées au monde du travail.

Nous nous intéressons donc à l’ensemble des façons dont les exilés ont pu contribuer à la presse de leur temps, comme journalistes ou plus rarement comme éditeurs, aux périodiques qui accueillaient leurs contributions comme aux organes de presse que des proscrits ont pu créer durant leur séjour à l’étranger, et aux conditions réservées dans chaque pays d’accueil à cette activité. Les sources qui nous permettront de nous pencher sur ces phénomènes iront des journaux eux-mêmes aux sources administratives et diplomatiques, en passant par les archives privées et les correspondances d’exil.

Problématiques retenues

Les conditions d’écriture et de publication des journaux d’exil (cadre juridique et économique dans lequel s’inscrit la publication de ces organes de presse, parfois clandestins ; censure exercée par le pays d’accueil mais aussi par la diplomatie du pays d’origine ; importance des lectorats visés, qu’ils se trouvent dans le pays d’accueil ou dans le pays de départ).
Le contenu technique et professionnel de cette presse (annonces, offres de travail, rubriques spécifiques…
Les stratégies éditoriales et politiques des rédactrices et rédacteurs, mais aussi des lectrices et des lecteurs (utilisation de la presse pour légitimer un combat politique mené depuis l’étranger, pour cliver ou au contraire rassembler une communauté d’étrangers dispersés dans le pays d’asile).
Le contenu idéologique et culturel de ces périodiques (la presse comme moyen d’influencer le débat national du pays d’origine, ou comme interface avec celui du pays d’asile ; la part prise par la presse d’exil dans une histoire du sentiment public international ; les représentations et les transferts culturels permis par cette presse parfois bilingue, pont entre deux ou plusieurs cultures).

Modalités de soumission

Les propositions de communications doivent nous parvenir
avant le 24 avril

aux trois adresses suivantes : catherine.brice@gmail.com, delphinediaz@gmail.com et simon.sarlin@gmail.com.

Ces propositions comporteront

un titre,
un résumé d’environ 2.000 signes,
ainsi que les coordonnées complètes de l’intervenant(e) (nom, prénom, fonction, rattachement institutionnel et courriel).

Comité scientifique

Sylvie Aprile (Université Lille III), Catherine Brice (Université Paris-Est Créteil), Simon Burrows (University of Western Sydney), Christophe Charle (Université Paris 1), Diana Cooper-Richet (Université de Versailles-Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines), Delphine Diaz (Université Paris-Sorbonne), François Dumasy (École française de Rome), Simon Sarlin (Université Grenoble II).

Revolts and uprisings in the era of nationalism (1804-1908)

International conference, November 2013 at Panteion University,
Athens

Deadline:1 April 2013

Description
The chronological frame of the conference extends from the first Serbian uprising (1804) to the Young Turk Revolution (1908). During these hundred years, the map of Southeastern Europe was reshaped through a series of revolutionary movements, mainly national and liberal. Besides, this part of Europe, mostly under Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman rule, experienced the echo of the European revolutions in 1830 and 1848, and of the unification of Italy and of Germany. We may claim that the “Age of Revolutions” in the Balkans expanded until the early twentieth century. Starting from the main thematic axis of revolutionary movements in the Balkans, our objective is to revisit the existing literature in order to put new questions in a comparative and multiperspective way. We are interested in new empirical data that will support comparative thinking about various Balkan cases but also with reference to the Western paradigm. Fields of study could be the personnel involved in different ways in these movements (focusing particularly on the role of women), the diverse ways Europe and the West responded to these movements and how these movements mirrored European developments, the varied identities (pre-existing or under construction) and the ways these movements were commemorated in different national contexts during the nineteenth and the twentieth century. A specific emphasis is placed on the economic and social parameters of revolts as well as on reforms initiated in order to prevent social upheavals or as a result of the modernization project. Experiencing the Revolution at the local and everyday life level by ordinary people will also be an important field of study.

The main aim of the conference is to convey a multi-disciplinary analysis of the question what a “Revolution” in the Balkans was during the long nineteenth century in a broader semantic and social context: Is it possible to build a typology of revolutionary movements in the Balkans? What is the relation of these movements with the ones in Western Europe of that time? Is there a kind of “revolutionary recipe” travelling around Europe via cultural transfers? What are the local characteristics of revolts in different parts of South-East Europe? Who were the revolutionaries? Which is the relation between Revolution and Reform? Which is the historiography and which is the memory of these movements? It is also important to investigate the instances of what was opposite to Revolution, its conceptual ‘other’ under different faces: counter-revolution; reform; evolutionism/traditionalism; alternative loyalties etc.
Conference overview
In particular the conference will be organized around the following themes:
a. Nationalism and the creation of nation-states: different cases and processes of nation-building expressed through revolts and uprisings. Alternative forms of political loyalty and group identity that were competitors to nationalism.
b. People: Intellectuals, Military, Politicians, Women. We are particularly interested in “hybrid” cases and fluid identities -personalities participating in other than their national revolutionary movement or changing identity during their life.
c. Counter-revolutions: the fear of revolution; reactions to revolutions from the old political and social order.
d. Revolts and Violence: violence as part of traditional societies; violence as catalyst in historical change; revolutionary violence; the stereotype of a “Balkan” violence.
e. The everyday life during a revolution: City and country; how ordinary people experience a revolutionary movement; changes in people’s lives as long as a revolt lasts; the everyday life of revolutionaries.
f. Symbols and rituals of a revolution: Flags, songs, all forms of symbolic expression.
g. Europe and the Balkans: Responses to the Balkan revolutionary movements in the West and how the West perceived these events; cultural transfers between Western and Southeastern Europe (ideas, people, vocabulary); transfer of western ideologies in a Balkan context; the role of the “Great Powers”.
h. Tradition, Modernization and Reform: Traditional and modernizing elements in revolutionary movements; reforms as a result of revolutionary movements; reforms without revolts; reforms in order to avoid revolts.4
i. Historiography: National historiography on revolutionary movements; western historiography; alternative and revisionist approaches.
j. Art and Memory: Commemoration of revolts, uprisings and revolutions. How art represents these events then and how memory deals with them over time.
Scientific Committee
Prof. Halil Berktay, Sabanci University, Istanbul
Prof. Hannes Grandits, Humboldt University, Berlin
Assoc. Prof. Alexander Kitroeff, Haverford College, USA
Prof. Christina Koulouri, Panteion University, Athens
Prof. Diana Mishkova, Centre for Advanced Study, Sofia
Prof. Stefanos Papageorgiou, Panteion University, Athens
Dr Dubravka Stojanovic, University of Belgrade
Organizing Committee
Christina Koulouri (Panteion University)
Kostas Katsapis (KENI, Panteion University)
Alexandra Patrikiou (KENI, Panteion University) Evdoxia Papadopoulou (KENI, Panteion University) Chrissa Tzagaroulaki (KENI, Panteion University)
Secretariat: Alexandra Patrikiou (KENI, Panteion University)
We welcome proposals for papers of 15-20 minutes from established scholars, postdoctoral researchers, postgraduate students, independent researchers and educators from various backgrounds. Submission of 300-word proposals in English (abstract only; no full papers) along with short bios should be sent to keni.panteionuniversity@gmail.com by 1 April 2013. Since funding to cover the entire conference is not certified yet, guests are encouraged, if indeed they have this possibility, to acquire individual funding from their home Institution. We will notify for the approved papers by 15 May 2013.

Second World Urbanity: Between Capitalist and Communist Utopias

Please send paper proposals (a 300-500 words abstract and a 1-page cv) to swurbanity@gmail.com
by February 1, 2013.

Second World Urbanity: Between Capitalist and Communist Utopias seeks to investigate the history of the radical reshaping of the Soviet World (in our words – the Second World), that Ada Louise Huxtable reported on in the late 1960s. This project aims to bring together scholarly contributions on the various endeavors in the Second World to conceive, build, and inhabit a socialist cityscape that was an alternative to the segregated spaces of capitalist cities and the atomized world of suburbia. Imagining and designing urban space were undeniably powerful instruments of forging socialist modernity. Second World Urbanity pays close attention to the tensions between global challenges and locally driven agendas that made architects, planners, and ordinary dwellers alter socialist modernity according to more particular interests.

Argument

In 1967 the architecture critic Ada Louise Huxtable published a long piece in the New York Times on Soviet advances in urban planning and construction. Surprisingly for the Cold War era, the author openly praised the Soviets for creating a country-wide system of mass production of standardised prefabricated cheap housing, ‘an architectural sputnik’  in her own words. She claimed with great enthusiasm, ‘In size, scope and boldness, in spite of crudities, failure and sometimes ludicrous imperfections it is a singularly important undertaking of the 20th century.’ Moreover, she noted, ‘the latest product is acceptable as architecture.’ Describing new residential neighborhoods mushrooming all across the Soviet Union, she wrote: ‘There is no scale, no variety, no surprise. It is monotony with light, air, sun, and greenery in season, and on sum, that effect is no worse and sometimes a good deal better than a lot of construction on the outskirts of large American cities.’ Admitting all the flaws of current Soviet construction she urged her readers to pay closer attention to this ‘special brand of modern architecture [that] is reshaping the Soviet World.’

Second World Urbanity: Between Capitalist and Communist Utopias seeks to investigate the history of the radical reshaping of the Soviet World (in our words – the Second World), that Ada Louise Huxtable reported on in the late 1960s. This project aims to bring together scholarly contributions on the various endeavors in the Second World to conceive, build, and inhabit a socialist cityscape that was an alternative to the segregated spaces of capitalist cities and the atomized world of suburbia. Imagining and designing urban space were undeniably powerful instruments of forging socialist modernity. Second World Urbanity pays close attention to the tensions between global challenges and locally driven agendas that made architects, planners, and ordinary dwellers alter socialist modernity according to more particular interests. What were the visions and meanings that architects and urban planners sought to communicate through their work? What pre-existing styles did they draw on, reject, and appropriate, and was there a Second World postmodernism?  To what degree was the socialist cityscape a product of negotiation between its dwellers and its designers? Where did other local players–such as major industries and local party bosses–fit in such negotiations over the design and construction of the socialist city?

As a venue for opening a conversation about the new approaches to urbanity and planning, this project goes beyond the geographic boundaries of the Eastern Bloc and seeks transnational, comparative, and global approaches to the study of the socialist city. We propose to think of socialist urban planning from Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union to China and Cuba as a distinct and multifaceted division of global urban planning trends. Just as the geographic scope is broad so, too, is our chronological reach, which will span the early post-World War II period through the collapse of state socialism and beyond to the present day. Was there a common denominator to the variety of projects and planning efforts implemented from Cuba to China, from the Urals to Belgrade? Was it socialist in form and national in content as the common formula of Socialist Realism suggested? Or was it modern in form and undefined in content, to paraphrase the formula Kevin Plath and Benjamin Nathans recently coined for describing the nature of late-Soviet culture? In exploring such questions, what do we – urban historians and historians of architecture – have new to say on the history of the Second World? What are the new research questions that our subfield has generated in recent years?

The present stage in our project is a conference that will be hosted at The Center for the History and Culture of East Central Europe, in Leipzig, Germany, June 21-23, 2013. Paper proposals are solicited for this conference and an edited volume of selected papers on a wide range of topics from (but not limited to) the history of professional networks and institutional organization, monumental projects, mass housing schemes, transfers of technologies and styles, the organization of public and private spaces, the political engagement of urban planning professionals, the treatment of gender, ethnic, and class differences in the socialist cityscape, the role of the state, the ideological premises of urban schemes and visionary projects, everyday life, urban residents’ (mis)uses of planned urban spaces. Papers from all disciplines in the social sciences and humanities will be considered.
On the Project: Three Main Goals

Second World Urbanity is a scholarly project that seeks to redefine scholarly examinations of the global socialist cityscape.  In preparation for the conference in Leipzig in June 2013, we held a “virtual conference”in July 2012 to map out the major themes and questions of this project, including our adoption of the terms “second world” and “urbanity”. For more on this preliminary discussion, see our project statement at http://secondworldurbanity.umwblogs.org/virtual-conference/.

As the main three goals of the project we see the following:

1 New map: The primary goal of the project is to write an entangled history of Second World Urbanity that maps a variety of interactions and exchanges, and privileges a vision of a decentered political community that developed a number of meaningful connections beyond state socialist regimes’ relationship with Moscow.

2 New language: We seek to weave together such different narratives as the history of architectural movements and grand urban planning theories, changes in state policy and ideology, and the lived experience of diverse social actors in the Second World and across its borders. The major methodological challenge of the project is thus to work out the language that is capable of bridging conceptual divergences among the various disciplines that participants on this project employ in their own work.

3 New identity: This project aims to call into question the place of the subfield that could be vaguely defined as urban studies vis-à-vis other related fields such as global history, state socialism studies, the history of architecture and material culture, and seeks to redefine this relation.
Submission guidelines

Please send paper proposals (a 300-500 words abstract and a 1-page cv) to swurbanity@gmail.com
by February 1, 2013.

Paper proposals will be reviewed by the project’s organizers and program committee. We will announce the papers that have been accepted on March 1, 2013.

If your paper is accepted for the conference, the deadline for submitting your paper will be May 20, 2013. Papers should be no longer than 5,000 words including footnotes. Papers will be distributed to conference participants ahead of the conference via our project’s blog.

The project is presently soliciting funds to cover some of the transportation and/or housing costs of participants. We will know whether such funds are available only in Spring 2013. Therefore, interested participants should plan for covering costs through their home institutions. The conference will not have a conference fee.

The conference will be hold on June 21-23, 2013, at The Centre for the History and Culture of East Central Europe, Leipzig, Germany

The conference language will be English.
Program committee

Andres Kurg,
Brigitte Le Normand,
Daria Bocharnikova,
Kimberly Elman Zarecor,
Marie Alice L’Heureux,
Steven Harris,
and Vladimir Kulic.

Phantom Borders in the Political Behaviour and Electoral Geography in East Central Europe

no later than March 30, 2013

We understand phantom borders as political borders, which politically/legally do not exist anymore but seem to appear in different forms and modes of social action and practices today, as for example voting as one part of political behaviour. Considering the visibility of historical borders in the territorial distribution of election results in Poland or Ukraine – many more countries in Europe and the world could be mentioned – the question occurs if or if not this visibility indicates a persistence of historical (social or political) spaces or why else these phantom borders seem to be visible. One indicator of phantom borders are maps illustrating the territorial distribution of election results. But we would like to look also at other particularities of political processes and negotiations as for instance the territorial distribution and organisation of unions, parties, political youth organisations, movements of political protest and opposition, the potential territorial aspects of laws or other political decisions. Furthermore we would like to address how parties, politicians and other political actors use, address or/and exploit (re)constructed local and regional particularities to gain political support, as for instance the Ukrainian language law which was passed in 2012 which obviously aimed at gaining support from minorities speaking other languages than Ukrainian.

Within the conference we want to elaborate on different territorial particularities concerning cultural, historical, social, linguistic, religious and economic aspects which may affect political behaviour and electoral geography. Therewith the conference has a strong interdisciplinary approach looking for presentations of geographers, historians, political scientists, social scientists, regional studies scientists, ethnologists.

The conference will be comparative and therewith discuss various case studies analysing and interpreting particularities in different ways and at different levels. The aim shall not only be to observe the potential territorial distinctiveness of political behaviour and electoral geography but also to explain them and discuss interpretations that have already been suggested.

Since the conference is organised in the framework of the BMBF funded joint project „Phantom Borders in East Central Europe“ (www.phantomgrenzen.eu), the focus of studies should be on East Central Europe, but interesting case studies from all over the world addressing the main subjects of the conference are highly welcome. We are very interested in empirical studies. The papers and presentations may focus on one or several of the below mentioned issues addressing the phenomena and explanation of specific election results and political behaviour in East Central Europe and beyond:

History: In what way is history reflected in political behaviour, as in election results?

One of the assumptions of the heuristic concept of phantom borders is that historical borders are eventually (re)constructed. A specific political culture, certain norms and values, social and political practices continue to exist, re-emerge or are (re)constructed for various reasons which may lead towards (for instance) territorially specific election results. This historic interpretation contains a methodological, empirical and explanatory challenge concerning the interrelation of current results of elections and their motivations and of current political phenomena with historical narratives and the underlying socio-cultural structure. Not to forget the different layers of history which may (co)exist in social and political behaviour at the same time – as “post-communist”, “post-Habsburg”, “post-interwar”, etc. Case studies and presentations which address especially the interrelation between historic narratives and present political behaviour in an innovative way providing an in-depth explanation for the eventual (re)construction of historic borders via characteristics of political behaviour are welcome.

Scale: At which scales and in which way phantom borders appear?

Particularities of election results and political behaviour, as protest movements or the presence of certain parties, can be found on the local and neighbourhood level between and within cities, within regions, beyond regions and across nation states. We invite papers which look at political behaviour and election results based on different criteria and examining phenomena on different scales. Apart from the different scales and levels of political behaviour, studies about the individual voters / local actors in their localities and places are appreciated.

National and Regional Governance: How does the national and regional governance context affect political behaviour?

Some characteristics of territorial systems of political organisation affect election results. The way elections take place, the political system, laws of election, designs of electoral processes and party system may have an impact on election results and their territorial distribution. The most obvious examples are attempts to structure electoral constituencies in order to influence election results. Studies which address the spatial context of the political system in relation to the interpretation of territorially specific political behaviour and election results are welcome. This may include national politics but also regional and local politics regarding elections and other policy fields, as language politics, education, but also specific local and regional interest networks or former institutional political / administrative networks still being active and influential.

External Governance / Foreign Affairs / Transnational Networks: How does the external governance / foreign affairs context / transnational networks affect political behaviour?

External politics and foreign affairs are relevant for regional and national politics as for instance the involvement in greater political strategic networks as with the Russian Federation and / or the European Union, NATO or other global networks as well as with neighbouring countries, as for example the Eastern European Partnership. Those networks may have an impact on (re)constructing or deconstructing borders applying structural policies (e.g. EU structural funds), defining economic relations (e.g. energy relations) that affect structures and the individual. Transnational migration may also affect migrants, theirs families and places of origin on behalf of (geo)political orientations and political behaviour. Studies which deal with the intentions and/or impact of such politics and strategies on political behaviour, election results and the decision making process of the individual at different scales are welcome.

(Geo)Political Images: What role do (Geo)Political Images play in (re)constructing phantom borders?

The images given for example by electoral maps and their affiliation with historic borders and the discourse about special images, for instance historical narratives of Galicia apply geopolitical images and by this reproduce and (re)construct them. We thus invite to address the role of past and current geopolitical images in political processes and in the scientific discourse, as the latter seems particularly prone to use historic-geopolitical images and arguments in order to explain territorial political phenomena. The main issue here may be to address how such maps and discourses may influence the researcher, the politician, the voter, etc. in (un)consciously (re)constructing regions by selecting for instance colours and benchmarks to design an electoral map or by easily reasoning and arguing with historical arguments. But (geo)political images are also applied in discourses by politicians or scientists to assign specific norms and values to historical narratives. Which images are applied and what associations are produced, by whom, to what end, in which spatial contexts and with what kind of consequence, for instance in political behaviour, election results or political strategies?

Methods, scales, contexts (dynamics of internal and foreign politics) are important aspects for obtaining necessary data and explaining reasons for territorial and spatial particularities of political behaviour. But obviously West European models and concepts are not necessarily sufficient or valid for the East, South Eastern and East Central European contexts and may not be applied. We are interested in innovative ideas and concepts applying current approaches in social sciences and geography but also political sciences to offer explanations which shall surpass mere applications of West European concepts and consider the specific national or regional characteristics as well as the complex reasons for individual decisions.

In the past a number of studies have been using aggregated data to show and explain electoral results. In the earlier past also qualitative studies have been undertaken in order to explain different characteristics in political behaviour or election results at the individual, neighbourhood, local or regional level. So, one aspect of the conference shall be the methodological approach of researching and analysing political behaviour and election results discussing the advantages and disadvantages of each: Macro vs. Micro-sociological Studies / Quantitative vs. Qualitative Studies. For that reason studies that combine quantitative and qualitative approaches showing and explaining differences in political behaviour and election results are particularly welcome.
Submission guidelines

Please send an abstract (up to 500 words) and a short CV to Sabine v. Löwis (vonloewis@cmb.hu-berlin.de) and Thomas Serrier (serrier@europa-uni.de)
no later than March 30, 2013.

Travel expenses (up to a certain amount) and accommodation during the conference will be covered by the organizers.

Conference Language: English

A publication of selected papers from the conference is intended.

For more information concerning the project please look at www.phantomgrenzen.de

Cahiers du Monde russe

Communications and media in the USSR and Eastern Europe
Technologies, politics, cultures, social practices

Titles and abstracts submission deadline: 31 March 2013.

In the social sciences, communications are considered fundamental to the constitution of any society. The technologies and infrastructures for communications are also social institutions in their own right, with their own specific historical trajectories. With this in mind, we can assume that political regimes that abuse their control of communications engender social atomization, the rupture or weakening of social ties, in that attempts to maintain these ties via communications media may be met with repression. At the same time, however, it is social relations—“useful” connections – that allow individuals to engage in mutual assistance and to exchange goods and services in the economies of shortage typical of many authoritarian regimes.

The goal of this edition of Cahiers du Monde russe is to investigate this tension between the danger and the utility of communications in the USSR and in the people’s democracies of Eastern Europe in order to understand better how technologies, politics, and social and cultural practices in these regions determined the evolution of their communications and media systems.
We anticipate that contributions will offer partial answers to the following global question: to what extent can we speak of the countries of the socialist east as communications societies, that is, as societies of dialogue in which communications went beyond the delivery and circulation of information? To answer this question means to move beyond the idea of a public space unique to Soviet-style societies and to explore the relationship between the accessibility and the uses of communications media, as well as between control and individuals’ strategies to evade it . In this way, we understand the technologies and modes of information exchange not as passive factors in everyday life, but rather as historical actors with a role to play in decision-making processes, in building social ties, and in constructing networks of sociability and solidarity. They are revealed by the social practices that fuelled their development and diffusion. The traditional periodization of the history of the socialist east, we maintain, must be re-examined in light of technological developments with histories—social, political, cultural-of their own.

This edition thus proposes to trace the complex trajectory of communications and media in the USSR and Eastern Europe in order to explore the contradictory consequences of their development. In studying the political and social appropriation of various technologies of communication, our goal is to understand how access to these tools was distributed in socialist societies and how patterns of unequal distribution influenced social dynamics, including social cohesion. To what extent did technological progress in the communications sector entail an intensification of mediated exchanges, and what influence might this have had on ordinary, face-to-face interactions? An analysis of communications practices will enable us to understand how the functions of communications and media—“tools without instruction manuals” (Emmanuel Pedler)—are transformed by the people who use them in societies under surveillance and control.
Proposed themes
Collectivism, public and private communications

From 1917 through to the mid-1930s, low literacy rates and the relative underdevelopment of communications technologies in the USSR determined the collective nature of media practices: newspapers were read and explained to peasants en masse by instructors; radio programs were broadcast by loudspeakers mounted in public spaces. The pursuit of technological progress and competition with the West spurred the expansion of media infrastructures and, particularly in the second half of the century, the displacement of the media experience from public to private spaces. Moreover, as of the 1960s, with the distribution of transistor radio and television sets, individual consumers were able to exercise choice. Expanding and diversifying the cultural sphere brought audience segmentation and underlined existing inequalities. To what extent, and in what ways, can we speak of the mediatization of everyday life in the USSR and Eastern Europe, of cultural democratization—or, indeed, of individualization? How did the fact of living in an increasingly media-saturated world effect people’s sense of community, of belonging, and of identity (e.g. gender, generational, spatial, temporal)? We might also consider the telephone– a rarity in most (Soviet) homes until the 1960s and, at least in theory, a technology of sociability, facilitating personal contacts across distances great and small. How did these private, mediated, person-to-person communications and the experience of private, selective media consumption (particularly broadcasting) inscribe themselves in a collectivist social ideal? Which mechanisms did the authorities deploy to promote social cohesion, or its illusion, in this new context?
A fragmented communications sphere?

Despite their assertions that technological progress should serve societal needs, the Soviet authorities put the communications infrastructure in the service of the regime from the very beginning. Because centralization was essential for the consolidation of Soviet power in the civil war, their first task was to connect the capital to provincial centers. Under Stalin, constructing a ramified network in which the regions themselves would be interconnected by communications technologies was simply not priority, not only for political reasons but given the technological limitations of the day. Yet centralized, pyramidal communications systems such as that developed in the USSR impede the circulation of information: communications flow easily from top to bottom, but they struggle to move in the opposite direction. What impact did the inevitable delays, blockages, and distortions have on informational and communications systems and cultures in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe? Which spaces of autonomy did they open up? What role did alternative sources of information (foreign media, for example) play in these processes?

The rise of electronic media in the Soviet Union and the people’s democracies, particularly after the Second World War, provoked the fragmentation and diversification of the communications sphere. What was the role of mass media in the construction of new ethnic, national, and supra-national identities? The issue of centralization and regionalization, or nationalization (in the sense of socialist nation-building) in the media sector, and the tensions between them, is critical in this regard. By comparing the structures, cultures, and politics of communications in the USSR with those of the people’s democracies, we can move beyond a vision of the ‘bloc’ as a uniform entity and integrate difference and nuance.
Communications surveillance and strategies of evasion

The intensification of interpersonal contacts introduced by the growth of communications complicated the task of surveillance (phone tapping, postal censorship), demanding ever-greater human and technical resources. How did the authorities strive to meet this challenge? How did individuals seek to evade surveillance? Possible case studies in this field include: the study of samizdat and nonconformism/dissidence; the development of an underground postal network by Solidarity in Poland; the subversive activities of Solidarity members employed by Polish television.

These themes are not exhaustive. Proposals may relate to all aspects of communication practices and cultures and to the uses of communication tools in the USSR and the people’s democracies.
Titles and abstracts submission deadline: 31 March 2013.
Short project abstracts (500 words maximum) should be sent to: comsov@gmail.com.
Please include name, institutional affiliation, and email address in all correspondence.
We will notify authors of selected proposals by the end of July 2013.
Languages: French, English, Russian.
Final article submission date: 1 April 2014.
Maximum article length: 11,000 words (space characters and notes included)
Publication date: first half of 2015.

For additional information, please contact:
Editors: Kristin Roth-Ey (University College London, School of Slavonic and East European Studies, Larissa Zakharova (EHESS, CERCEC): comsov@gmail.com
Or Valérie Mélikian, secrétaire de rédaction des Cahiers du Monde russe.

Religion, Law and Policy Making: European Norms and National Practices in Eastern Europe and the Russian Federation

The complex interplay among European and national law, and law, policy and religion at the levels of nationand European Union is approached from jurisprudential, religious, sociological, cultural, historical, and political (comparative politics, political theory, IR) perspectives.
Eligible topics for the conference

Within the overall guidelines of the 2013 workshop, all proposals will be given serious consideration even if the topics are not explicitly included in theareas of special interest listed below.

How do the national (regional and sub‐national) policies related to ‘religion and law’ interact with supranational (European, international and universal) norms, ideas, discourses, principles and practices?;
Does the European Union advance a well defined position regarding religion in the spheres of law, cultural values and collective identity defining—in these realms—what it means to be ‘European’?;
Have the attempts at cultural, political and legal Europeanization resulted in increasing ‘divergence or convergence’ of national patterns of religion, policy making and law’? How have the outcomes of the processes of Europeanization differed in pre‐ and post‐accession periods, and in countries within and outside of EU?;
Have organized religious actors perceived the processes of Europeanization in positive or negative terms? Have they condoned or resisted the processes of cultural Europeanization? Are the secularist elements of the ‘Europeanness’ of the European Union being questioned by versions of ‘Europeanness’ as defined by transnational religious cultural traditions (such as Catholicism and Orthodoxy)? If so, how have the questions played out on the legal stage?;
At the level of nation‐states, how are the rights of traditional religious communities, their cultural and political status(es), balanced with the democratic rights of religious associations, cultural rights of minorities, and moral rights and freedoms of individuals? At what dimensions and policies have these ‘national patterns’ diverged from norms and practices of the European Union?;
How have the religious leaders and institutions conceptualized (European) law? How have religious actors and their secular allies reacted to the Europeanization of the national system of law?;
Have the states utilized law as a means of social control of religion and religious groups—under the banner of protecting national security and other purposes—in ways diverging from norms and practices condoned by the EU?;
How are religion and policy‐making affected by the layering of legal and other international codes? Are the stipulations of the UN (and its agencies), the OSCE, the Council of Europe, the EU (with its various specific programs and initiatives), NATO, CIS, and the like, working consistently with each other or are there contradictions and conflicts?;
The Centre for EU‐Russia Studies (ceurus.ut.ee) at the University of Tartu, Estonia, brings together scholars and experts who share an interest in the evolving relationship between the European Union and the Russian Federation. CEURUS coordinates and sponsors a variety of activities relating to research, teaching and public outreach in the area of EU‐Russia relations. CEURUS provides stipends to Ph.D. students, enrolled in a doctoral programme at the University of Tartu, who conduct research relevant to EU‐Russia relations. The University of Tartu (the Faculties and the Centre for EU‐Russia Studies) acts as a host institution for externally funded post‐doctoral fellowships. CEURUS maintains a visiting scholar scheme and welcomes applications from individual researchers based outside of Estonia who wish to visit the University of Tartu for purposes of research, teaching, or institutional collaboration;
Are there effects of general globalization on legal and policy development vis‐a‐vis religion? What are they and how important are they?;
Empirical, methodological, and theoretical, as well as inter‐disciplinary, comparative and case studies are welcomed. Case studies have to be analytical, empirical data‐based analyses and must relate the case study to international norms or broader theoretical frameworks. Descriptive case‐studies will not be considered;

Papers must have the following structural components: introduction, where the scientific problem is formulated; a well‐defined research object, the subject, aim and tasks as well as the methodology of the research; and the results of the research and conclusions. Papers are invited from established scholars as well as from PhD students and scholars at the early stages of their careers.
Scholars from CIS and post‐communist member states of the EU are particularly welcome.
Guidelines for submission

11 February 2013: potential participants should contact Alar Kilp (alar.kilp@ut.ee) to indicate their interest in participating in the Workshop by providing a preliminary paper title, an abstract of 300‐600 words and a short bio of up to 100 words.

28 February 2013: the workshop committee has considered all the abstracts and notifies the applicants about the status of their paper proposals.

30 April 2013: the participants will be required to submit full papers to alar.kilp@ut.ee.

7 May 2013: participants whose full papers are accepted to the program will be notified. The program of the Workshop will be released including only those who have presented a qualifying full paper at the required time. All accepted papers will be made accessible to all the participants.

31 May 2013: participants are expected to provide an outline of reactions and comments on the other papers of their panel in a written form to , who will gather the feedback and relay it to the paper‐givers.

13‐14 June 2013: workshop.

10 July 2013: final submission of revised drafts to the editors of the Special issue. Papers are expected to be copy‐edited for appropriate English‐language usage. Submissions with poor English will not be considered. All papers must conform to the style guide of the journal, which will be given to all participants.

Papers will go through a refereeing process .
Organizer

Center for EU-Russia Studies (CEURUS), Universityof Tartu, Estonia
Wittenberg University, United States
University of Tartu

Information & contacts

Dr. Alar Kilp (University of Tartu)
e-mail: alar.kilp@ut.ee

Prof. Jerry G. Pankhurst (Wittenberg University, USA)
e-mail: jpankhurst@wittenberg.edu

Prof. William B. Simons (University of Tartu)
e-mail: william.simons@ut.ee

avant le 31 janvier 2013.

La rédaction de « Slavica Bruxellensia » vous invite à contribuer à la constitution du dixième numéro qui sera consacré au thème : « Rencontres, cohabitations et confrontations des mondes slave et germanique » au travers des siècles et des genres littéraires et artistiques. En effet, depuis le XIIIe siècle, suite à la rapide croissance démographique dans la partie occidentale de l’Europe, l’arrivée des colons germaniques en Europe centrale et orientale contribue à un dialogue fructueux, quoique complexe et non exempt de tensions multiples, entre les mondes slave et germanique. De nombreux travaux proposant un regard neuf furent effectués surtout dès les années 1990 (à la fois par les historiens et les chercheurs en littérature) sur les aspects littéraires et historiques de la fin de cette cohabitation, qui a culminé après la seconde guerre mondiale et l’expulsion des populations germanophones des parties orientales de l’Europe. Les questions résultant de ces bouleversements géopolitiques, largement tabouisées par les régimes autoritaires, resurgissent avec force à partir des années 1990 dans les travaux scientifiques et les œuvres artistiques.

Argumentaire

La spécificité de Slavica Bruxellensia tient à son approche transculturelle et transdisciplinaire des littératures, cultures et histoires slaves. Privilégiant une perspective comparative, elle se propose d’étudier les contacts culturels entre les peuples slaves dans leur espace géographique comme dans leur rapport au reste du monde.

La rédaction de Slavica Bruxellensia vous invite à contribuer à la constitution du dixième numéro qui sera consacré aux rencontres, cohabitations et confrontations des mondes slave et germanique au travers des siècles et des genres littéraires et artistiques. La thématique est très large. En effet, depuis le XIIIe siècle, suite à la rapide croissance démographique dans la partie occidentale de l’Europe, l’arrivée des colons germaniques en Europe centrale et orientale contribue à un dialogue fructueux, quoique complexe et non exempt de tensions multiples, entre les mondes slave et germanique. Les nombreux travaux proposant un regard neuf furent effectués surtout dès les années 1990 (à la fois par les historiens et les chercheurs en littérature) sur les aspects littéraires et historiques de la fin de cette cohabitation, qui a culminé après la Seconde Guerre mondiale et l’expulsion des populations germanophones des parties orientales de l’Europe. Dans le contexte francophone, mentionnons notamment l’ouvrage Transmission de la mémoire allemande en Europe centrale et orientale depuis 1945, édité par Dorle Merchiers et Gérard Siary et publié en 2011. Les questions résultant de ces bouleversements géopolitiques, largement tabouisées par les régimes autoritaires d’Europe centrale et orientale, resurgissent avec force à partir des années 1990 dans les travaux scientifiques et les œuvres artistiques. Les bouleversements des frontières et les déplacements forcés dans la région se trouvent aujourd’hui au centre de l’attention des artistes de la région de diverses générations. L’attribution du prix Nobel de littérature en 2009 à Herta Müller, originaire du la région de Timisoara du Banat roumain et représentante de la minorité allemade du pays, contribue certainement à la visibilité de cette thématique dans la culture européenne d’aujourd’hui.

Ainsi, les œuvres d’écrivains tels que Franz Kafka, Paul Celan, Horst Bienek, Tadeusz Różewicz, Bohumil Hrabal, Vladimír Körner, Jiří Kratochvil, Paweł Huelle, Ewa Lipska, Andrzej Stasiuk, pour n’en mentionner que quelques uns, se prêteront aux analyses des contributions proposées pour ce numéro de Slavica  Bruxellensia : se partageant entre espaces slave et germanique via leur langue, la construction de leurs personnages ou les recherches identitaires se trouvant au cœur de leures créations, ils offrent un point de départ parfait dans l’exploration de la problématique qui nous intéresse ici.

Nous accueillons volontiers des articles qui marient les différentes disciplines et les différents espaces géographiques, qui tentent de décrire leurs spécificités dans le contexte comparé avec les littératures et les langues slaves. Les perspectives utilisées peuvent être historiques, culturelles, littéraires ou linguistiques.

La revue publiera des articles scientifiques en français ainsi que des recensions de livres publiés en 2011 et 2012. L’appel à contribution pour l’envoi d’articles scientifiques s’adresse exclusivement aux doctorants et aux titulaires d’un doctorat. Par contre, il n’y a aucune restriction concernant les recensions. Pour plus d’informations sur les consignes d’écriture, voir les « Recommandations aux auteurs » sur http://slavica.revues.org/456. Les questions de traduction peuvent être discutées avec le Comité scientifique.

Ce dixième numéro sera publié sur le site Internet : http://slavica.revues.org

Modalités de soumission et de sélection

Les propositions d’articles (environ 500 mots) et de recensions (références du livre) sont à envoyer à slavica.bruxellensia@ulb.ac.be

avant le 31 janvier 2013.

Les auteurs des articles sélectionnés seront prévenus dans la semaine qui suivra. Les articles et les recensions seront à envoyer pour le 1 avril 2013.

Critères de sélection

Comparaison, hybridité, et pluralité se trouvent inscrites dans le trait caractéristique de la  revue. Une attention particulière sera accordée aux articles qui  remplissent ces critères. Le sujet de l’exil étant un poncif des études  slaves, la revue insiste sur l’originalité des papiers remis, la subtilité  des théories émises et l’actualité des débats.

Les perspectives utilisées peuvent être historiques, culturelles, littéraires ou  linguistiques.

La revue publie des articles scientifiques en français.

L’appel à contribution pour l’envoi d’articles scientifiques s’adresse exclusivement aux doctorants et aux titulaires d’un doctorat.

Pour plus d’informations sur les consignes d’écriture, voir les « Recommandations  aux auteurs » sur http://slavica.revues.org/456

Les questions de traduction peuvent être discutées avec le Comité scientifique.

courriel : slavica.bruxellensia@ulb.ac.be

Url de référence Slavica Bruxellensia

Comité scientifique et conseillers •Cécile Bocianowski, Université de Paris IV-Sorbonne (France) •Sarah Flock, Université Libre de Bruxelles (Belgique) •Petra James, Université  Libre de Bruxelles (Belgique) •Jeremy Lambert, Université Charles-de-Gaulle Lille3 (Belgique), Université Libre de  Bruxelles •Nicolas Litvine, Université Libre de Bruxelles (Belgique) •Eric Metz, Haute Ecole Artesis (Anvers, Belgique), Université d’Amsterdam (Pays-Bas) •Jan Rubeš, Université Libre de Bruxelles (Belgique) •Dana Slabochová, Université Charles de Prague (République tchèque) •Marek Tomaszewski, INALCO (France) •Katia Vandenborre, Université Libre de Bruxelles (Belgique) •Dorota Walczak, Université Libre de Bruxelles (Belgique) •Nadia Zhirovova, Université Libre de Bruxelles (Belgique), Haute Ecole Artesis (Anvers,  Belgique)