Recueil De Textes
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
French Opening Ceremony of International Associated Laboratory (LIA) CNRS/Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) POST-WESTERN SOCIOLOGIES AND FIELDWORK IN FRANCE AND IN CHINA 2014 January the 22, 23 and the 24th IFE, Ecole Normale Supérieure de Lyon salle des conférences Host-Organizer Triangle, CNRS, ENS Lyon Partners Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Institute of Sociology, Beijing with Shanghai University, Beijing University and Nanjing University With the support of Lyon 2 University, IEP Lyon, Jean Monnet University ARC Rhône-Alpes, IMU Université de Lyon 1 Table des matières Laurence Roulleau-Berger Post-Western Sociologies and Methodological Cosmopolitism 0 Xie Lizhong “Postsociology” (or “Pluralistic Discourse Analysis”): An new exploration of Social Research 19 Shen Yuan The Chinese Public Sociology 35 Luc Boltanski Critical Sociology and Sociology of Critique 42 Chen GuangJin Chinese Society: Change and Transformation. A Perspective of Social Structure 58 Ahmed Boubeker Post-Colonial Ruptures and New Boundaries of French Society 98 Zhou Xiaohong Chinese Feelings: Research of Social Mentalities under China’s Transition 110 Bernard Lahire Thinking about social differentiation: a contextualist and dispositionalist point of view 114 François Dubet Inequalities and solidarity 122 Yang Yiyin Guanxi, self construal, and public participation in China 132 Liu Yuzhao, Wang Ping, Ying Kewei Guanxi, self construal, and public participation in China 139 Agnès Deboulet Global cities, inequalities and urban democracy 142 Samadia Sadouni Somalis in Johannesburg: Muslim transformations of the city 150 Liu Neng Institutional Vulnerability, Situational Ethics, and Waves of Chinese Industrial Collective Actions 162 Djaouida Séhili Gender and ethnic discriminations on labor markets 166 Sophie Béroud Workers, conflicts and Mobilizations in France 172 2 Post-Western Sociologies and Methodological Cosmopolitanism Laurence Roulleau-Berger We are in the midst of a “global change” which is distinct from previous changes and their ephemeral nature and which appears to be a turning point in the history of the social sciences (Caillé, Dufoix, 2013). We have entered a period of de-Westernization of knowledge and co- production of the construction of situated knowledge. This is a “global change” in sociology which imposes theoretical and methodological detours, displacements, reversals and conversions. After Post-Colonial Studies, we could develop a transnational intermediate space that is both local and global to draw conjunctive and disjunctive theoretical spaces where the Post-Western sociology could emerge in this context of globalization and circulation of ideas, concepts and paradigms (Roulleau-Berger, 2011). Through the confrontation of new tendencies of French sociology and Chinese sociology (Roulleau- Berger, Li Peilin, 2012) and of the symmetries and dissymmetries between different sociological fields, we will investigate the ways in which dialogues, exchanges, connections and disjunctions are formed between seats of sociological knowledge located in France and in China. Post-Western Sociology is first and foremost rhizomatous in that it is constructed from connections between points located in knowledge spaces governed by very different regimes of signs and the non-correspondence of different types of situated knowledge. Instead of conceiving the plurality of provinces of knowledge and considering methodological cosmopolitanism, continuities and discontinuities between European and Chinese sociologies have to be taken into account so that transnational knowledge may emerge in social sciences, free from all forms of Orientalism. Sociological thinking, like all thinking in the social sciences, is linked to the evolution of the Western society from which it emerged [Kilani, 2009]. While the growing pluralization of contemporary societies calls into question the very idea of society as a narrative linked to the narrative of modernity, particularly European modernity, Western thought has continued to perceive itself as the universal mediator for all other histories (Chinese, Indian, Arab, African, Brazilian, etc.) (Laplantine, 2009). 1. Post-Western Sociology and Global Knowledge The boundaries between the former centres of knowledge production and the former peripheries are fading, a phenomenon which favours the appearance of a plurality of centres. Post-Western Sociology means working towards displacement and the construction of planes of epistemic equivalence between the conjunctive and disjunctive borders of knowledge to struggle against any form of “epistemic injustice” to quote Rajev Bhargava (2013) who considers that there are three forms of epistemic injustice: 1)The imposition of a change affecting the content of the epistemic frameworks 2)The alteration of fundamental epistemic frameworks 3) The damaging or loss of the capacity of individuals to maintain or develop their own epistemic frameworks. Most Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Indian sociologists consider that the imposition of Western epistemic frameworks has prevented them from accessing their own systems of meaning and interpretation and from understanding their own societies (Nishihara, 2010). An epistemic autonomy is asserted today, one which has been constructed differently according to societal contexts (Xie Lizhong, 2013). In China, the assertion of an epistemic autonomy among sociologists means the re-establishment of continuities with epistemic frameworks which had been constructed before 1949, then forgotten and which are completely unknown in the West. It also means, however, the creation of specific paradigms freed from Western presuppositions. Today, certain Chinese intellectuals think that their categories are still over- derived from Western theories. So new centres of knowledge production are born out of: 1) the refusal to imitate Western epistemic frameworks; 2) a concern to control hybridizations of Western and non-Western knowledge based on the dynamics of the de-territorialization and re-territorialization of non indigenous knowledge; 3) the recognition and validation of places of conjunction and disjunction between Western and non-Western knowledge; and 4) the existence of “epistemic white zones”, that is, zones in which the epistemic frameworks constructed in different societal contexts cannot come into contact. The most pressing task, however, is to investigate the ways in which continuities and discontinuities, connections and disjunctions are formed between seats of knowledge located at different places in the world and potentially capable of bringing to light a transnational intermediate space that is both local and global. If, in the 1960s, the “Post-Colonial” discourse expressed struggles for the recognition of non- Western human and social sciences within the international space, here we are talking of a “Post-Western” era which comes after the “Post-Colonial” and recognizes the end of the hegemony of the principal intellectual traditions of the West in order to apprehend the plurality of hegemonies of different intellectual traditions between which relationships of exchange, conflict, competition, accommodation and indifference are developed. Before precisely stating what we mean by “Post-Western” it is worth devoting a few words to Post- Colonialism. Post-Colonial studies continue to produce a binary vision of the world experienced whereas Post-Westernism can produce a plural and dynamic vision of the world experienced. Talking of Post-Western Sociology means producing a space for thinking which is based upon European, Chinese, Japanese, Indian, Brazilian… sociologies and which has them exchange and influence each other. Whereas Post-Colonialism has been widely criticized for its ambivalence in the way it blurs the distinction between the colonized and the colonizer, its universalizing displacements and its “depoliticizing implications” (Shohat, 2002), Post-Westernism relies on “vernacular cosmopolitanisms” (Homi Bhabha, 1994) and intellectual, moral and political resources which produce new knowledge. We define Post-Western Sociology as first and foremost rhizomatous in that it is constructed from connections between points located in knowledge spaces governed by very different regimes of signs and the non-correspondence of different types of situated knowledge. The knowledge produced in each context is conceived for its intrinsic value, but the eye is focused on lines of segmentation, stratification, escape or de-territorialization (Deleuze, 1980). This is the unmaking of these pairs – East-West, centre-periphery, local-global – in order to no longer conceive relationships between entities, worlds, pre-constituted cultures, nor a clear and 1 contrasted heterogeneity between them but rather to work on the variations of degree and intensity, the continuities and discontinuities. Post-Western Sociology is constructed from similarities and differences which cannot be conceived according to a binary mode. It relies on different knowledge processes: - “Knowledge niches” which appear to be specifically European or Asian and do not signify a transferability of knowledge - Intermediary epistemological processes which encourage the partial transfer of sociological knowledge from Europe to Asia and from Asia to Europe - Transnational epistemological spaces in which European knowledge and Asian knowledge are placed in equivalence 2. Pluralization of societies and methodological cosmopolitanism In Post-Western Sociology, that one should combat