Thematic areas
The laboratory is organized into 4 thematic areas, as described below.
Discover the projects carried out by our researchers.
Social theories and epistemology theme
Epistemology aims to question the way in which science constructs its criteria of veracity in relation to what is considered to be "non-scientific". What makes a theory a scientific theory? Why and how can we distinguish a scientific controversy from a political one? What is a scientific fact? And does a scientific fact exist independently of the gaze that constructs it as a fact ?
These questions have permeated the construction of the social sciences since their birth in the 19thth century. All the major currents of thought have sought to provide their own specific answers: positivism, determinism, interactionism, hermeneutics, phenomenology, ethnomethodology, structuralism, constructivism, pragmatism, gender studies... PragmApolis reinterrogates all these sociological perspectives in order to grasp how they are combined in the present and how they enable us to engage with the world. Today's world is ripe for the revival of many of the controversies that have marked the history of sociological theory. Today, some are calling into question the great division between nature and culture, between an inert and (scientifically) exploitable world on the one hand, and human rationality on the other. And knowledge in the social sciences is no longer built solely on an epistemological break with what is assumed to be common sense, but also on the construction of a common world with all those who accept its methods and rigor.
For all that, PragmApolis intends to distance itself from all relativism. Empirical approaches in the social sciences, whatever the field of investigation or the subject concerned, never claim to be "all things are equal". They remain more robust than theories that challenge them without using their methods (such as conspiracy theories, creationism, etc.).
The preponderance of "expertise" (particularly economic expertise) in public debate tends to impose a certain conception of science as being what should systematically motivate political decision-making, at the risk of relegating democratic debate to the background. Conversely, ideological and even religious biases seek to blur the boundary that traditionally separates science and non-science by dressing up in the garb of scientific discourse.
The social theories studied at PragmApolis have all contributed to qualifying and requalifying the specificity of scientific methods by indicating what, in their view, enables them to claim a more solid validity, without ever claiming to be absolute. Aware that politics is not an activity foreign to science, in that it is built on debates, aggregations, interactions, victories and defeats, our research group intends to raise the question of how the scientific approach can contribute to the development of collective life.
Gender, the body and biopolitics theme
Rooted in the second wave of feminism (1970s), gender studies is now an essential, recognized, albeit still disturbing and contested, branch of research. Their contributions have had a major impact on social science research, whether or not the latter explicitly claims to be part of it. Indeed, gender studies have been the source of major epistemological, theoretical and methodological innovations. Not only have they produced new knowledge about women and gender inequalities (long neglected subjects of study), but they have also rethought the very meaning of these categories. This research has made it possible to denaturalize the differences and hierarchies between men and women (and between the masculine and feminine), viewing them as social constructs that vary over time and space. They have also been at the forefront of a wider movement to redefine scientific objectivity, proposing a critical analysis of the androcentrism of the social sciences, and of the illusion of a neutral scientific point of view. This trend has led, in particular, to a project of "stronger objectivity" (Sandra Harding), because it is reflexive, assumes its situated point of view, and is aware of its own limits.
This axis of gender analysis is also at the root of investigations into care which, in the tradition of Joan Tronto, is mobilized as a political concept: this concept enables us to rethink human and non-human vulnerabilities. By recognizing the interdependent relationships that bind us to one another, we are able to take action-e-s to each other, these works have developed a critical approach to the notion of autonomy at the heart of our contemporary societies, in the fields of gender, disability and the environment.
Gender issues have also contributed to renewing the field of research on biopolitics and the government of bodies and behaviours, originally inspired by Michel Foucault. This field of research provides tools for thinking about forms of power over lives that are not limited to discipline (prohibitions and obligations), but rather shape fields of action (incitement, dissuasion and normalization). These biopolitical interventions can be approached from above (legislation and public policy) as well as from below (from the point of view of the governed)-e-s), not forgetting the intermediate level (professions, such as the medical professions, which shape everyday behavior).
PragmApolis is in line with these perspectives, and is interested in gender not as a thematic field of research, but as a concept capable of providing crucial insights, whatever the object of study. It is envisaged as an axis of analysis of inequalities and relations of domination, to be crossed with other axes (social classes, racialization, age, sexuality, disability, speciesism). PragmApolis' research focuses on how bodies and behaviors are governed and experienced, particularly in the fields of work, health, sexuality and procreation. They analyze how biopolitics normalize (or fail to normalize) behaviors, reconfigure inequalities, and provoke inevitable resistance. As the primary locus of the social, the body is apprehended not only in its political dimensions, but also in its materiality and everyday experience.
Politics and social movements theme
Public and political commitment plays a decisive role in the transformation of contemporary societies. Because of their collective dimension and their power to challenge, they influence the agenda of political parties and the choice of public policies implemented. At a deeper level, they are helping to redefine the realms of the political and the non-political, by challenging elected representatives and the state's monopoly on public affairs. PragmApolis looks beyond collective, protesting forms of public action, to the everyday, grassroots and associative dimensions of engagement, which convey a subaltern practice of politics that does not assert itself as such.
The mobilizations studied by PragmApolis researchers concern a wide range of issues (social and solidarity economy, anti-capitalism, ecology, feminism, LGBTQI, anti-racism, anti-speciesism) and employ a variety of repertoires of action: trade unionism, alternative food systems, civil disobedience, degrowth, occupations of public squares, community experimentation, artivism, demonstrations. Some of these mobilizations take place in so-called democratic regimes (Belgium, South Korea, Spain, France, Greece, Italy, United States, South Africa, etc.), while others take place in authoritarian contexts (China, Russia, etc.).
The qualitative methods - particularly ethnographic - used at PragmApolis enable us to take seriously the critical capacities of the actors. The challenge is to restore the meaning of collective action by getting as close as possible to those who implement it, without substituting the scientists' word for theirs. But we mustn't lose sight of the contribution of the social sciences and, in particular, their own critical vocation.
In this sense, the sociology of social and political movements leads us to question our own categories of analysis. The positivist and utilitarian imaginary that still predominates in the social sciences needs to be questioned, otherwise we won't be able to understand the meaning of the mobilizations we study. Conceptual reflection and empirical investigation go hand in hand. Thus, beyond its descriptive function, the study of social mobilizations and public commitments leads to the fundamental political questions of our time: is a post-capitalist society possible and desirable? If so, what is the best way to achieve it? How can we organize without reproducing the hierarchies and quarrels that undermine most militant collectives? How can we institutionalize a democratic experiment without freezing its initial energy? How can we share power without denying its existence? Is it imperative to bring the various struggles together, and if so, around what slogan or imaginary?
Finally, while social movements often point towards an emancipatory horizon, critical of the established order, they can also convey various forms of oppression. The challenge for PragmApolis is to articulate a description of the ways in which people go about making society without lending itself to a confirmation of the world order as it is. Indeed, the research questions that inform the researcher's reflections in the field often point to the sharing, if not of an imaginary emancipation, at least of a certain common world. But what epistemic posture should be adopted when investigating groups that claim to be part of the established order, or even of a reactionary conception of collective life?
The Politics of Work
The approach that unites research in this area is to grasp work as a political object in its own right. The aim is to examine work not only as an activity and a social organization, but also from the angle of relations of power and domination. The aims of this axis are to analyze work in its historical depth and its contemporary transformations, including digital, ecological and geopolitical issues. To do so, we adopt a broad definition of work that is neither reduced to employment nor to the fact of being paid, but involves questioning struggles over the boundaries of work, the recomposition of employment regimes and their institutions and regulations, while exploring the militant or even utopian work of social movements. This axis proposes analyses situated in various sectors - public, private, market, non-market - wherever the definition and boundaries of work are the subject of struggle.
The notion of work is far from referring solely to paid productive activity. Indeed, while remunerated work, whether salaried or self-employed, is at the heart of the analyses carried out by members of the laboratory, it does not exclude a broader perspective of work, including, for example, emotional work, or even gratuitous work. Analyses of reproductive or domestic work are also central here, enabling us to question the boundaries of what work is, to think of work in terms of non-work and questions of the articulation of social times.
We also place employment regimes at the heart of our analyses. These refer to the links between socio-economic configurations and between more or less formal modalities of recruitment, organization and reproduction of the workforce. - whether in political-institutional, legal or ideological-cultural terms. This focus on employment regimes enables us to be attentive both to the multiple forms of domination internal and external to production sites, and to the agentive capacities of social actors.
In addition to the law, which regulates relations between employers and employees (collective bargaining, staff representation, collective disputes, etc.), labor institutions also regulate the labor and employment market (wages, unemployment, training, discrimination, etc.). This axis considers these institutions as political objects in their own right. In the same way, labor institutions are at the heart of struggles to define work, since they sanction what is socially legitimate to be considered, or not, as work.
By broadening the notion of work, we are also interested in the different forms that "militant work" can take, whether paid or voluntary, within associations, social movements or political parties. Like other organizations, activism is marked by norms, social relations of power and domination, divisions of labor, more or less formalized evaluation procedures, emotional and affective charges, and socialization mechanisms. It gives rise to forms of recognition... but also to suffering.
These questions are addressed from a theoretical standpoint, but also empirically, through quantitative, qualitative and ethnographic surveys. They can be rooted in historical approaches, through militant or professional careers, and highlight the day-to-day work in progress.
