Publications of Fabiani, J-L.
Disputes, controverses et polémiques dans les mondes intellectuels. Vers une sociologie historique des formes de débat agonistique
This contribution has two goals. First, it proposes an analytical framework devoted to the study of controversies that takes into account recent changes in intellectual history and sociology. Drawing upon the innovations brought about by science studies, it describes the main characteristics of situations of controversy. Second, it seeks to test this analytical framework in order to account for a singular and famous controversy, the one that opposed Michel Foucault to Jacques Derrida about the interpretation of Descartes’first Meditation.
A quoi sert la notion de discipline?
Special issue: Qu’est-ce qu’une discipline?
Should the sociological analysis of art festivals be Neo-Durkheimian?
Durkheim's Aesthetics: A Neglected Argument? For quite some time now, Durkheimian sociology has been viewed as paying scant attention to art. Indeed, one can imagine that Durkheim was too busy establishing the fundamentals of his discipline to indulge in the more recreational aspects of social life. Sociologists build theories and consider serious topics (e.g. capital, division of labour, rationality and so on) and do not give extra-time to what's happening after the working day. If we look at indices and textbooks, this lack of interest is obvious. The upgrading of culture as a central feature of sociological investigation is a rather recent phenomenon (Alexander 2003, Fabiani 1993). In many ways this has to do with the emergence of cultural industries, which forced sociologists to analyze, first in a very critical manner, social changes brought about by the mass consumption of symbolic commodities. Today the sociology of art and culture has moved from the periphery to the centre. In France in particular, these topics have been taken up so as to renew theories and build intellectual reputations. Durkheim, of course, never planned to draw up any sociological aesthetics, as Bourdieu attempted to do in Distinction (1979). Although from today's perspective Bourdieu's book may be considered as a partial failure, one cannot deny the panache and inventiveness it involved, largely based as it was upon the recognition of the high sociological significance of cultural and artistic matters. Bourdieu's interest in art and literature was central from the very beginning of his career, and one of his first attempts to define the concept of field (champ) appeared in a paper devoted to literature (Bourdieu 1967). Things are obviously very different with Durkheim.
Les philosophes de la République
Propos de synthèse
Propos de synthèse », Le(s) public(s) de la culture, sous la direction d’Olivier Donnat et de Paul Tolila, Paris, Presses de Sciences-Po, 2003, vol. 2, p. 309-311.
O que resta de agente social?
This paper examines two questions conjointly. The first refers to the uses of biography in social sciences. The second deals with the sociological determination of the notion of actor. On the one hand, it is a question of the statute of the unique experience in history or sociology, and on the other of the statute of the actor in an analytical context, characterized by the plurality of social scenes.
Le Goût de l'enquête : Pour Jean-Claude Passeron
Enjeux et usages de la "crise" dans la philosophie universitaire en France au tournant du siÃ¨cle
Taking as its starting point the paradoxical nature of the persistence with which the French academic philosophers evoked the critical situation in which they found themselves between 1880 and 1914, this study attempts to bring to light the social stakes involved in the debates over Philosophy at the turn of the century. It begins first by evaluating the strategies of the legitimation and disqualification of individuals and groups and defining the limits of this crisis which fails to call into question the relative social optimism and group-cohesion of, philosophy professors. It then attempts to measure the relative decline of Philosophy within the context of the academic disciplines. The rally of support for the philosophy class and the status quo of the discipline itself appears then as a consequence of this relative decline in position. The rigour and success of this rally of supportaccounts for the fact that no real transformation in the teaching of philosophy took place during the Third Republic. Nevertheless, behind this unmoving faÃ§ade, the proliferation of references to the crisis of the discipline can be taken as an index of the changes which determine its position within the educational system and the image which the professors have of their activity.