Social and Labour History News

Paris, 7-8 November 2024

The aim of this international conference is to explore ways to research and conceptualize the social experience of occupation beyond this post-1945 framework, through interdisciplinary discussion between historians, sociologists, and other social scientists working on contemporary European societies, within a comparative conversation including different occupations in all regions of Europe during different conflicts.

The international conference will take place in Paris in November 2024. Submissions until 3, May 2024.

Wartime Occupations in Europe (20th-21st centuries)

The Russian occupation of Ukrainian territory since 2014 has brought into stark focus 20th century experiences and legacies of occupation in Europe. They are central in national memory cultures while generating polemics and conflicts up to this day, which are not resolved, but often enflamed, by the large body of historical research that has explored all the nuances and “greyness” of these difficult pasts. Beyond discrete case studies, we lack a clear understanding of the specificities of modern occupations, of the ways that people experience them, how they transform social, economic, political relations.
What happens when a territory “is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army” during on-going international military conflict, when authority is split between the “legitimate power” and its exercise “in fact” by that power’s military enemy, as defined by the Hague and Geneva Conventions?
Much of the discourse and expectations surrounding this question continue to be shaped by the post-1945 diptych of “collaboration” and “resistance” as the two emblematic responses to foreign occupation and consequently the measure of all social behavior under occupation. Both terms became loaded not just with political, but with moral meaning, providing the bedrock of European post-war memory and mythmaking. Both come with expectations of legal retribution/recognition. This framework has become so entrenched in European memory and political culture as to seem natural, although it is reductive and historically situated. It also largely ignores the dynamic and fluid aspects of occupation, which is defined by much of the same uncertainty and risk as the war experience itself. It thus has limited value as either guide for empirical research or as conceptual framework to understand the complexity of social experiences of wartime occupation. Historical research has highlighted many of these aspects, turning to “attentism”, “grey areas”, forms of “passive resistance” and “cooperation”, without succeeding in providing an alternative conceptual framework for understanding this foundational experience of modern European societies.

The aim of this international conference is to explore ways to research and conceptualize the social experience of occupation beyond this post-1945 framework, through interdisciplinary discussion between historians, sociologists, and other social scientists working on contemporary European societies, within a comparative conversation including different occupations in all regions of Europe during different conflicts. We aim to shed light on the structural conditions, shifting dynamics, social actors, and orders, as well as lived experiences of wartime occupation as a social phenomenon. We welcome submissions that address the conceptual and methodological challenges of scientific research on past and present situations of wartime occupation.

We define wartime occupations as social situations, where a belligerent exercises authority over the territory and population of a country with which it is actively at war. These situations are also marked by the primacy of military actors and objectives, the presence of violence, a high degree of unsettledness, as well as the war-induced uncertainty over future outcomes.
Among the topics we would offer for consideration are: social actors; temporalities and lived experiences; spaces; competing social orders and norms; economic dimensions; wars; mass violence, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

We welcome submissions (max. 700 words) by all social scientists, including historians, on any wartime occupation in 20th and 21st century in Europe. The conference will include a half-day workshop specifically dedicated to an interdisciplinary discussion of sources and methods; submissions should point to these as well.

All applications should be sent by May 3, 2024, to: wartimeoccupations.conference@gmail.com.

The language of the conference will be English. Applications can be sent in most European languages, including Ukrainian, and fluency in English is not required to take part, although correct understanding is welcome. Organizers can help participants with weak English skills but strong scientific proposals during the conference.

The conference will take place on 7-8 November 2024 in Paris. The organizers will try to cover all the costs for participants who are not funded by their home institutions. Costs for all Ukrainian participants (currently in Ukraine or displaced abroad) will be entirely covered.

Kontakt

wartimeoccupations.conference@gmail.com

https://cercec.ehess.fr/en/appel/wartime-occupations-europe-20th-21st-centuries

Münster, 16-17 May 2024

Der Arbeitskreis „Demokratie und Geschlecht“ des Instituts für Zeitgeschichte München–Berlin lädt in Kooperation mit dem LWL-Institut für westfälische Regionalgeschichte (Münster), der Universität Bayreuth, der Forschungsstelle für Zeitgeschichte Hamburg (FZH) und der Université Rennes 2 am 16./17. Mai 2024 zu einem zweitägigen Workshop nach Münster ein. Im Fokus dieses Workshops sollen Frauenbiografien und Demokratiegeschichte(n) in Europa im 20. Jahrhundert stehen.

Frauenleben in europäischen Demokratien des 20. Jahrhunderts

Ausgangspunkt der Veranstaltung ist die Feststellung, dass Demokratiegeschichte(n) bis heute überwiegend über ‚männlich‘ markierte Protagonisten erzählt werden. Demgegenüber fragt dieser Workshop dezidiert nach den Erfahrungen, Partizipationsvorstellungen und selbst erlebten Handlungsmöglichkeiten von Frauen∗ in den europäischen Demokratien des 20. Jahrhunderts sowie danach, wie deren Zeugnisse heute gelesen und biografisch erzählt werden (können).

Zentral sind dabei neben den Biografien herausragender Persönlichkeiten auch Lebenserzählungen sogenannter „ordinary people“, die dabei helfen sollen, die Verflechtungen zwischen Geschlechter- und Demokratiegeschichte(n) im europäischen Raum neu zu beleuchten: Was verstehen wir unter "Frauen∗biographien" und wie lassen sich jene in demokratischen Kontexten oder systemischen Umbruchsphasen analysieren? Wir wirken sich soziale und kulturelle Veränderungen im Geschlechterverhältnis auf demokratische Prozesse aus? Wie transformiert die "Demokratie" wiederum tradierte Geschlechterverhältnisse? So setzt sich die Tagung zum Ziel, aktuelle Forschungen zu Biografien von Frauen∗ zusammenzutragen und die Relevanz von biographischen Ansätzen für die Demokratie- und Geschlechtergeschichte(n) zu diskutieren.

Programm

Do., 16.05.2024

09.00h – 09.30h: Begrüßung und Einführung

09.30h – 11.00h: Panel I - Transformationsgeschichte(n) und Geschlechtergeschichte
Mod. Julia Paulus

Karin Aleksander, Heike Schimkat: Das (internationale) Interviewprojekt „Frauengedächtnis“ mit Frauenbiografien aus der DDR

Uta C. Schmidt, Susanne Abeck: Biografisch bezogene Geschichtsschreibung am Beispiel des Projektes ‚frauenruhrgeschichte‘

11.00h – 11.30h: Kaffeepause

11.30h – 13.00h: Panel II - (Selbst-)Ermächtigungen
Mod. Valérie Dubslaff

Monica Fioravanzo: Lina Merlin (1887-1979) – Eine italienische Sozialistin und Antifaschistin

Theresa Hornischer: Durch die Brille einer weiblichen Intellektuellen: Interventionsstrategien der „eingreifenden Denkerin“ - Léo Wanner in der Zwischenkriegszeit in Frankreich

13.00h – 14.00h: Mittagessen

14.00h – 15.30h: Panel III - Vor-Bilder und Ikonisierungen
Mod. Bernhard Gotto

Kerstin Wolff: Die Biografie von Elisabeth Selbert als Beispiel einer frühen Frauengeschichte. Chancen und Risiken eines neuen Blickwinkels

Johannes Kelting: Ein „typisches inneres Frauenleben“? Else Lüders (1872-1948) zwischen Kaiserreich, Weimarer Republik und Nationalsozialismus

15.30h – 16.00h: Kaffeepause

16.00h – 17.30h: Panel IV - ‚Frauen‘-Geschichten? Sozial- und Friedensarbeit
Mod. Isabel Heinemann

Volker Walpuski: Biographie der katholischen Niederländerin Cora Baltussen (1912-2007)

Anna Leyrer: „Frauenaufbruch” für den Frieden nach 1945? Der Fall Anna Haag

Freitag, 17.05.2023

09.00h: Begrüßung und kurze Zusammenfassung der bisherigen Ergebnisse

09.30h – 11.00h: Panel V - Verzögerungen: Systemische Marginalisierung
Mod. Kirsten Heinsohn

Bianka Trötsche-Daniels: Wer ist sie? Kreistagsabgeordnete in den Landkreisen Erfurt-Land und Münster 1948–1965

Nikolai Wehrs: Das Geschlecht der Staatsverwaltung – Frauen in der höheren Ministerialbürokratie Großbritanniens im 20. Jahrhundert

11.00h – 11.30h: Kaffeepause

11.30h – 13.00h: Panel VI - ‚Radikale‘ Frauen: Selbst- und Fremdverortung
Mod. Mirjam Höfner

Moritz Fischer: „Emanzen links liegen“ lassen. Johanna Grund (1934–2017) und die vielschichtige Bedeutung von Weiblichkeit innerhalb der politischen Rechten

Paula Lange: „Um 1910 herum glaubten wir, in Deutschland demokratische Ideen in die Wirklichkeit umsetzen zu können.“ – Die Sozialdemokratin Tony Breitscheid und das Reichsvereinsgesetz 1908

13.00h – 14.00h: Mittagessen

14.00h – 15.30h: Panel VII - Vermeintlich „apolitisch“: das Private wird politisch
Mod. Christian Rau

Lukas Moll, Matthias Berg: Weibliche Agency in Männerwelten? Politische Handlungsräume der Ehefrauen von Reichstagsabgeordneten zum Beginn des 20. Jahrhunderts

Ruth Oeler: Die unpolitische Künstlerin? Politisches Erleben in Künstlerinnenbiografien

15.30h – 16.00h: Fazit und Ausblick

ANMELDUNGEN zur Tagung bitte per Email bis zum 1. April 2024 unter: Dr. Julia Paulus, LWL-Institut für Regionalgeschichte, Karlstr. 33, 48147 Münster (0251 / 591-5880), julia.paulus(at)lwl.org.

Kontakt

julia.paulus(at)lwl.org

Marburg (Germany), 9-10 October 2024

The discursive construct of “Soviet Jewry," defined as a homogeneous unit, was shaped to a significant extent by the Soviet regime’s centralistic features, including its nationalities policies. The concept of a “Soviet Jewry” was also widely adopted in the West during the Cold War era. It persisted as a trope in scholarship and public discourse, both in East and West, as long as the Soviet Union existed, and it continues to retain retrospective currency even today.

Thinking Beyond the ‘Soviet Jewry’ Narrative. Localism, Diversity, and Subjective Experiences of Jews in the Soviet Republics under Late Socialism

The discursive construct of “Soviet Jewry," defined as a homogeneous unit, was shaped to a significant extent by the Soviet regime’s centralistic features, including its nationalities policies. The concept of a “Soviet Jewry” was also widely adopted in the West during the Cold War era. It persisted as a trope in scholarship and public discourse, both in East and West, as long as the Soviet Union existed, and it continues to retain retrospective currency even today. Yet, seen subjectively from within the Jewish perspective, the Soviet environment was diverse and heterogeneous, and so were the experiences of Soviet Jews. Other populations, residing in the various (sometimes remote) parts of the Soviet state, similarly experienced life under the Soviet regime in ways fundamentally distinct from the dominant, “central,” Soviet normativity.

The spectrum of Jewish behaviors and experiences, spanning the broad middle ground between conformity to Soviet norms and values, at one end, and the heroic struggle for emigration, at the other end, has yet to receive serious attention. Thinking beyond the familiar narratives of assimilation, state oppression, and radical dissent, we aim to spotlight and examine the ethnic, cultural, and social diversity of Soviet Jews. We also seek to redirect our attention from the center to the Jewish communities at the Soviet “periphery,” in the so-called Soviet “national republics”.

The continuity of Jewish traditions, whether of pre-Soviet origin or having arisen in the wake of Sovietization, was palpable in many places outside Moscow and Leningrad – including Belarus, Ukraine, and Moldova, as well as the Baltic, Caucasus, and Central Asian republics. Scholars have, for instance, pointed to the persistence of the Yiddish-speaking culture. Paramount also, was the vivid (whether explicit or tacit) memory of the Holocaust, associated exactly with these places.

We are interested in exploring the porous borders of Soviet (non)Jewishness, and the character and intensity of Jewish-non-Jewish encounters in the Soviet peripheries. Soviet Jews, who were simultaneous ‘insiders and outsiders’, were an integral part of Soviet society that, on the one hand, contributed to its construction and development and, on the other, as some scholars suggest, helped to expedite its unanticipated dissolution.

This pericentral and decentralized gaze should facilitate the illumination of oft-overlooked themes and methodological issues in Jewish and Soviet history: everyday living and its effect on the identity of Soviet Jewry; Jewish subjectivity as it evolved under the severe objectivization imposed by the regime; social contacts and networks; gender and age; relationships with others, at the group-level and the micro level; and the convergence as well as divergence of Jewish narratives with the (late)Soviet national narratives. Shifting the focal paradigm by foregrounding multiple local Jewish experiences is also intended to highlight center-periphery relations as they were established in Soviet, East European and Jewish Studies.

The decision of the Soviet authorities to permit Jewish emigration from the USSR, which started again in 1968, was correlated with changes that took place in late socialist society and brought renewed attention to ‘Soviet Jewishness’. In the Soviet Union, the question of emigration was framed not only by domestic concerns, but also by external security issues, and these came to be expressed via the accustomed enemy-searching rhetoric of the Cold War. Security and threat formed a central axis in the Soviet worldview and they determined the Soviet state’s relationship with the rest of the world. When security was factored into the emigration discourse, as this applied to Jewish (and other) citizens, it compounded and exacerbated other underlying problems. While the Jewish population was in the process of emigrating in large numbers, antisemitism and the question of security reappeared with renewed force. Though the intention to leave the Soviet Union was not treated as a criminal offense anymore, it elicited public denunciations and was often condemned as treason. Ironically enough, those who stayed were likewise treated with suspicion.

The economic and political turbulence of Mikhail Gorbachev’s perestroika, as well as the looming public health catastrophe caused by the Chernobyl (Chornobyl) Nuclear Power Plant disaster, magnified the sense of impending threat and, by extension, may have triggered or augmented the mass emigration movement. How did this continued securitization affect the life of Soviet Jews on the peripheries, beyond the interested gaze of Western embassies and international correspondents? What kind of effect did it have? Did it manifest itself more intensely in some spheres of life, perhaps, and more diffusely in others?

The reality of violence and threats to personal security during the last several years, affecting Jews, Ukrainians, and others, underscores the relevance of treating these issues as historically rooted phenomena.

Topics for discussion:
- Historicizing the discursive construct of ‘Soviet Jewry’ and ‘Soviet Jewishness’
- The cultural and social diversity of Jewish experiences under late Socialism
- The gendered experience of life in Soviet-periphery communities
- The relationships between Jewish “Soviet-ness” and cultural “Russian-ness” in local/ regional contexts: where and how did these clash or converge?
- The rise of antisemitism in formerly allegedly tolerant areas, such as Soviet Belarus, and its possible grounds
- Jewish reactions, responses, and protests against the rise of antisemitism in Soviet society in ‘national’ and ‘autonomous’ republics
- The relationship between Jewish culture and traditions and the homogenizing projects of national culture that arose during late socialism in the milieu of the national intelligentsia in the corresponding national republics
- Jews and Jewishness in local Jewish and non-Jewish Art and Culture
- Revival of Jewish life in the Soviet republics under late Socialism and during Perestroika
- Encounters between local Jewish and non-Jewish cultures and everyday experiences
- Mixed ethnonational families in the Soviet periphery
- Jewish Religion and religious institutions around the Soviet periphery
- Appropriation of local Jewish heritage into national cultures and cases in which, on the contrary, the Jews’ heritage was denied inclusion
- The variety of Jewish experiences of emigration from the Soviet peripheries
- Emigration, risks, and threats of the Perestroika period

To participate, please, send the abstract of your paper (up to 500 words) and your short bio (up to 300 words) to forum@herder-institut.de by April 15th, 2024. Organizers can cover accommodation (up to two nights) and travel costs for the accepted participants (due to budget limitations the latter applies only to the travels from Europe and Israel).

Organizational Committee

Tatsiana Astrouskaya (HI, Marburg)
Thomas Bohn (JLU Giessen)
Juliane Fürst (ZZF, Potsdam)
Semyon Goldin (Hebrew University Jerusalem)
Heidi Hein-Kircher (HI, Marburg)
Jannis Panagiotidis (RECET, Vienna)
Jakob Stürmann (Dubnow Institute, Leipzig)

Kontakt

Tatsiana Astrouskaya, Herder Institute for Historical Research on East Central Europe (tatsiana.astrouskaya@herder-institut.de), Semyon Goldin, Hebrew University Jerusalem (semyon.goldin@mail.huji.ac.il)

Paris, 3 April 2024

L’objectif de cette journée d’étude est d’offrir une analyse des subtilités historiographiques liées à l’étude des marginalités et des formes de criminalités dans la France et l’Italie du XIXe siècle, en mettant particulièrement l’accent sur les phénomènes du vagabondage, de la mendicité et du brigandage. Grâce à plusieurs recherches récentes, nous conjuguons l’étude de parcours vécus par différents acteurs – ouvriers mobiles, migrants économiques, vagabonds, mendiants, brigands, sans domiciles ou sans abris – avec une analyse attentive des imaginaires sociaux et des figures qui ont façonné leurs perceptions collectives, afin de mettre en lumière comment les sociétés françaises et italiennes du XIXe siècle ont structuré et perpétué ces trajectoires et ces imaginaires.

Présentation

L’objectif de cette journée d’étude est d’offrir une analyse des subtilités historiographiques liées à l’étude des marginalités et des formes de criminalité entre la France et l’Italie du XIXe siècle, en mettant particulièrement l’accent sur les phénomènes du vagabondage, de la mendicité et du brigandage.

La compréhension des marginalités et de la criminalité errante au XIXe siècle nécessite un examen de divers facteurs socioéconomiques, politiques et culturels qui ont contribué à sa complexité. Pour approfondir, voire définir, un phénomène qui semble relever de l’exclusion ou de la déviance, de sa répression ou de ses représentations, il convient alors de varier les approches méthodologiques et les sources mobilisées.

En croisant plusieurs expériences de recherche, cette journée conjuguera l’étude de parcours vécus par différents acteurs — ouvriers mobiles, migrants économiques, vagabonds, mendiants, brigands, sans domiciles ou sans abris — avec une analyse attentive des imaginaires sociaux et des figures qui ont façonné leurs perceptions collectives. À travers l’étude des sources administratives de leur assistance ou de leur répression, et des productions littéraires et iconographiques les concernant, il s’agira donc de mettre en lumière comment les sociétés françaises et italiennes du XIXe siècle ont structuré et perpétué ces trajectoires et ces imaginaires.

Pour appréhender ce chapitre complexe de l’histoire du XIXe siècle, imprégné de nuances sociologiques, culturelles et politiques, l’articulation et le dialogue entre cinq recherches récentes permettront ainsi une réflexion critique sur la construction de ces catégories sociales.

Programme Matin

10h - Introduction

Expériences

• 10h30 - Pierre Gaume (IRIS, EHESS). Les chemins incertains du vagabondage : retour sur la pluralité des expériences vagabondes en France au XIXe siècle.
• 11h - Florian Julien (IDHE.S, Université Paris 8 Vincennes – Saint-Denis). Vivre en ville sans feu ni lieu : approche géographique de la mendicité et du vagabondage à Amiens au XIXe siècle.
• 11h30 - Lucia Katz (Centre d’histoire du XIXe siècle, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne). Quand tous les vagabonds ne sont pas vagabonds : expériences de l’hospitalité de nuit et figures du pauvre digne d’intérêt (Paris, fin XIXe siècle).

12h – Discussions

Discutant : Jean-François Wagniart (Cahiers d’histoire. Revue d’histoire critique)

Après-midi

14h - Introduction

Figures

• 14h15 - Cesare Esposito (CR Centre d’histoire du XIXe siècle, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne – Scuola Normale Superiore Pisa). Pitié ou Méfiance : le vagabond entre crime et misère.

• 14h45 - Giulio Tatasciore (Scuola Normale Superiore Pisa - Università degli studi di Salerno). Le brigand italien : une figure des imaginaires du crime au XIXe siècle.

15h15 - Discussions

Discutante : Inès Anrich (Centre d’histoire du XIXe siècle, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne)

Comité d’organisation

• Cesare Esposito (Centre d’histoire du XIXe siècle, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne)
• Florian Julien (IDHE.S, Université Paris 8 Vincennes – Saint-Denis)

 

Labor and Democracy, at Home and Abroad

October 10-12, 2024, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan USA

The North American Labor History Conference, held annually since 1979 and now biennial, is holding its forty-first meeting, October 10-12, 2024, on the theme of Labor and Democracy. 

There will be a presidential election in the United States in 2024. As labor scholars, historians, activists, archivists, and union members, we meet to consider the relationship of the labor movement and of working people to democratic governance and the contribution of workers and their institutions to the constitution of a democratic society. Across the globe, other states and societies are asking the same question. 

The year 2024 comes at a crucial juncture for workers and labor organizations in the United States and throughout the world. We have been celebrating anniversaries of democratic movements globally, movements for empowerment and political rights as causes embraced by many working-class radicals and labor organizers, both men and women. The rise of Christian nationalist and other authoritarian movements threaten political rights in American and beyond. The working class, racialized people, ethnic minorities, women and LGBTQ+ people are organizing against voting restrictions while struggling against indifference, apathy, and fear.

In 2024, NALHC issues a call inviting panels, workshops, roundtable sessions, and papers discussing the experience of workers in democracies and the impact on democracies of organized labor and social movements of working people. We hope to see proposals that discuss labor and the struggle for democracy both within national or local states and within the labor movement; labor in emerging democracies or emerging authoritarian states; the connections between feminism and/or anti-racism and labor; the impact of alternative forms of worker organizations on labor in democratic states; democracy in the workplace and in the contemporary gig economy; and labor and current political activism. Other topics are welcome. 

Proposals for complete sessions should include a 1-2 page session description, including paper summaries, and a one-page cv for each participant. Proposals for individual presentations should include a one-paragraph abstract and a one-page cv.

Submissions should be sent as a single PDF file by April 10, 2024, to NALHC@wayne.edu

For inquiries, write Professor Elizabeth Faue, Director, Labor@Wayne, Wayne State University, at ad5247@wayne.edu

Publication Guidelines

Submission of articles and book reviews to Cadernos do Arquivo Municipal are temporarily made through the journal's e-mail: am.cadernos@cm-lisboa.pt

Cadernos do Arquivo Municipal does not charge any fees for the submission process, peer review, publication and availability of texts.

CONDITIONS FOR SUBMISSION

As part of the process, authors are required to check that the submission complies with all the items listed below. Submissions that do not comply with these standards will be returned to the authors.

• The paper is original, unpublished and the parts that come from other works are duly referenced. It is not under review or for publication in another journal. Otherwise, the author(s) should inform the journal editors.

• Authorship is subject to a grace period of four issues.

• Only one proposal per author and/or co-author will be accepted for a single issue and must be submitted using the submission template.

• The section for which the text is intended must be indicated: Thematic Dossier, Articles or Book Reviews.

• Authors' names, ORCIDs, affiliations (R&D centres, faculties and universities) and email addresses.

• Language of the text: Portuguese (according to the new spelling agreement), Spanish, French or English. Title, abstract and keywords in the language of the text, in English and in Portuguese.

• Limit of 10,000 words for articles and 2,000 for book reviews, including footnotes and bibliographical references.

• Maximum of 10 images, although this limit may be altered by the editors. All images, tables and charts must be numbered sequentially and their position in the text must be indicated. Images must have an associated caption and tables and graphs must have a title (and caption, if applicable). Images must be referenced in the text. Images that belong to the collection of the Lisbon Municipal Archive can be used as available on the respective website. Those that are not part of this collection must be delivered as separate files, in jpeg or tiff format.

• Authors are solely responsible for obtaining publication rights for images used in the articles, or for any other copyrighted material (property, etc.) that is not part of the Lisbon Municipal Archive's collection and will only be published on presentation of proof of publication authorisation.

• The declaration of  Authorisation and Transfer of Rights for Publication must be completed, signed and submitted together with the article.

 

CITATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES

All studies and printed sources cited in the text must be included in a final list of bibliographical references, presented in accordance with APA guidelines (7th edition). This list can only contain the studies and printed sources cited in the text. Examples can be found in the submission template.

If handwritten sources are cited in the text, they should be footnoted.

 

SELECTION, REVISION AND PUBLICATION

1. Desk Review
The submitted text is examined by the editors and scientific coordinators of the respective issue, considering its originality, relevance and quality, as well as fulfilment of the formal (stage 1) and thematic (stage 2) requirements.

Stage 1
• Confirmation that the article submission template has been used and full details of the author(s) have been provided.

• Identification of plagiarism and recycled text. If detected, the paper is returned to the author(s). Works published in other journals or translations are not accepted.

Stage 2
• The editors make a preliminary assessment of the scientific quality of the text and forward it for the opinion of the scientific coordinator, who observes the following elements: introduction, objectives, theoretical and methodological approach, and final considerations, among others; structure of the article; clarity of the writing; appropriate scientific language; contribution to the scientific field in which the work is situated.

• Any text that does not fulfil the requirements identified above will be returned to the author(s) at the end of the desk review for reformulation. If it is reformulated, the author may submit it again, one last  time. Texts that do not fulfil these criteria will be definitively rejected.

2. Scientific Review
Each article is sent to two external referees for peer review on a double-blind basis for both authors and reviewers. If necessary, additional referees are asked for their opinions.

The following elements are taken into consideration in the scientific review: originality of the article; relevance, coherence and depth of the topic; suitability of the title, abstract and keywords as well as the introduction and conclusion; clarity of language and quality of the writing; logic and consistency of the argumentation; adequacy of the research methods; adequacy and rigour of the analysis and interpretation of sources; appropriateness of the bibliography used.

According to these criteria, the reviewers provide an opinion with one of the following recommendations: accept the text as is, reject the text, or suggest rewriting it. The decision to publish the article is the sole responsibility of the editors, who will communicate it to the author(s) along with the respective opinions. When a reformulation is proposed, the new version sent by the author will be re-evaluated in a double-blind peer review. At the very least, the article may be rejected.

The editors may request opinions from the reviewers as many times as necessary in order to substantiate their final decision.

The review process is scheduled to last three months and its outcome, which is unappealable in all cases, is communicated to the author(s) within a maximum of six months.

3. Copy Desk
Once the article has been approved, the editing process for publication begins.

The editors reserve the right to make any necessary formal changes, such as correcting citations and bibliographical references, as long as the meaning of the text remains unchanged.

During the Copy Desk, the author may be asked to make adjustments or add missing elements.

4. Publication
Each article is assigned a Digital Object Identifier (DOI). Once the above steps have been completed, the article is published in continuous publication mode. The author(s) are notified by the editors of the publication of their article. Articles are expected to be published within 12 months.

Cadernos do Arquivo Municipal recommends consulting the Ethics and Good Practices in Publishing.

Dortmund, Museum für Kunst und Kulturgeschichte, Hansastraße 3, 13.–15.11.2024

 

3. Tagung der German Labour History Association (GLHA)

 

Veranstaltet von der German Labour History Association (GLHA) in Kooperation mit dem Fritz-Hüser-Institut für Literatur und Kultur der Arbeitswelt, der FernUniversität in Hagen, der Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung, der Hans-Böckler-Stiftung, der Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung und der Fritz Hüser-Gesellschaft

 

Mittwoch, 13.11.2024

15:00 Uhr: Ankunft

15:30 Uhr: Einführung und Begrüßung

Panel I, Moderation: Vanessa Höving (Hagen)

16:00–16:45 Uhr: Yasemin Ece Örmeci (Dresden): Senses in Cleaning Practices and the Search for Visibility – A Case Study of Turkish Cleaners in Germany

16:45–17:30 Uhr: Aatika Singh (Delhi): Framing Filth. Sudharak Olwe’s Photography of Dalit Manual Scavengers

17:30–18:00 Uhr: Pause

18:00–19:30 Uhr: Podiumsdiskussion: Dirty work. Interdisziplinäre Perspektiven auf ‚Drecksarbeit‘. Mit Andreas Gehrlach (Wien), Heike Geißler (Leipzig), Nicole Mayer-Ahuja (Göttingen) und Sebastian Moser (Tübingen)

Moderation: Iuditha Balint (Dortmund)

ab 19:30 Uhr: Umtrunk

 

Donnerstag, 14.11.2024

Panel II, Moderation: Anna Strommenger (Bielefeld)

9:00–9:45 Uhr: Tim Preuß (Münster): Das deutsche Volk bei seiner Drecksarbeit zeigen. Zur literarischen Darstellung unterbürgerlicher Arbeitsverhältnisse bei Wilhelm Raabe

9:45–10:30 Uhr: Ulrich Prehn (Berlin): Schmutzige Arbeit – „Schönheit der Arbeit“: Fotografien von Arbeitswelten im Nationalsozialismus

10:30–11:00 Uhr: Pause

Panel III, Moderation: Knud Andresen (Hamburg)

11:00–11:45 Uhr: Henning Podulski (Berlin): „Komm mal buckeln!“ – Arbeiterkörper und die gegenseitige Erfahrungsbestätigung unter Tage, in der Waschkoje und auf der Straße

11:45–12:30 Uhr: Lukas Doil (Potsdam): „Ausländer sucht Drecksarbeit“. Günter Wallraffs „Ganz unten“ und die Migrantisierung prekärer Arbeit in der Bundesrepublik

12:30–14:00 Uhr: Mittagspause

Panel IV, Moderation: Stefan Müller (Bonn)

14:00–14:45 Uhr: Anda Nicolae-Vladu (Bochum): ‚Osteuropäer/innen‘ – besonders anspruchslos und an harte Arbeit gewöhnt? Eine Diskussion über anti-osteuropäischen Rassismus, Antislawismus, Sexismus und ‚Drecksarbeit‘

14:45–15:30 Uhr: Jana Stöxen (Regensburg): Ein einziger Abstieg? Moldauische Migration nach Deutschland und ihre transnationale Dimension der Ungleichheit

15:30–16:00 Uhr: Pause

Panel V, Moderation: Mareen Heying (Münster)

16:00–16:45 Uhr: Ronja Oltmanns (Oldenburg): ‚Drecksarbeit‘ beim Hafenbau in Wilhelmshaven, 1857–1873

16:45–17:30 Uhr: Vincent Paul Musebrink (Münster): Historical Perspectives on Janitorial Work as a Racialized and Gendered Occupation in the United States

17:30–18:00 Uhr: Pause

18:00–19:00 Uhr: Verleihung des Thomas-Welskopp-Dissertationspreis der GLHA 2024

19:30 Uhr: Abendessen

 

Freitag, 15.11.2024

Panel VI, Moderation: Sibylle Marti (Bern)

9:30–10:15 Uhr: Renate Liebold & Irmgard Steckdaub-Müller (Erlangen): Krähenfüße, Schuppen und unreine Haut. Die Arbeit am Körper anderer

10:15–11:00 Uhr: Tanja Prokic (München): Clicking & Cleaning – Netzarbeit und Prekarität im Plattformkapitalismus

11:00–11:45 Uhr: Philip Kortling (Bochum): Der Schlachthof: ein ambivalenter Ort zwischen rein und unrein aus Sicht der Metzger

11:45–12:30 Uhr: Mittagspause

Panel VII, Moderation: Iuditha Balint (Dortmund)

12:30–13:15 Uhr: Melanie Heiland (Wien): Die Care-Seite der Medaille: Zur Feminisierung von ‚Drecksarbeit‘ bei Elena Ferrante

13:15–14:00 Uhr: Jacqueline Neumann (Jena): ‚Drecksarbeit‘ als Nährboden der Poesie – die Romane Kruso und Stern 111 von Lutz Seiler

14:00 Uhr: Abschlussdiskussion

15:00 Uhr: Tagungsende

 

Anmeldungen bis zum 15. Oktober 2024 über Bernd Hüttner: Bernd.Huettner@rosalux.org

 

L’actualité sociale de ces dernières années a été marquée par de nombreux conflits
sociaux de grande ampleur. Ces luttes se sont déployées aussi bien à l’échelle
interprofessionnelle (grèves contre la Loi Travail en 2016 et contre la réforme des retraites en
2019 et 2023) qu’à celle des entreprises (grève des cheminot·e·s en 2018, grèves de
postier·e·s, grèves pour les salaires face à l’inflation). Elles ne sont pas cantonnées à la France
puisqu’on les retrouve dans des pays aussi variés que les États-Unis, le Bangladesh ou
l’Argentine, où le droit du travail et/ou l’organisation de la défense des salarié·e·s connaissent
ou ont connu des politiques intenses de répression ou de domestication. À l’image du dernier
mouvement de protestation contre la réforme des retraites, les grèves suscitent aussi de grands
élans de solidarité, réactivant l’idée de « grèves par procuration ». De plus, ces mobilisations
se sont parfois déployées en dehors des « bastions traditionnels » du mouvement ouvrier, à
l’image des grèves des femmes de chambre, des ouvrier·e·s du secteur logistique, des
livreurs·euses « ubérisé·e·s », des travailleurs·euses sans-papiers de la restauration ou de la
construction. Enfin, la mobilisation de l’imaginaire de la grève autour d’objets hétérogènes et
de plus en plus éloignés du champ des relations professionnelles instituées, par les
mouvements féministes (grève des femmes contre les inégalités de salaires ou le travail
domestique) et écologiques (grèves contre l’inaction climatique des gouvernements),
témoigne a minima d’une certaine revitalisation politique et symbolique de cette modalité
d’action. Ces réappropriations questionnent d’autant plus ce qui « fait grève » que, dans le
même temps, certains syndicats ont au contraire tendance à recourir à des formes
d’euphémisation ou de périphrase (« mettre le pays à l’arrêt », « tout bloquer »...).

Si elle n’a pas disparu, la grève apparaît cependant moins au coeur du répertoire
d’action syndical qu’elle ne l’était auparavant. Les possibilités de recours à la grève et les
modalités de ses usages se reconfigurent tout d’abord sous l’effet de l’institutionnalisation
croissante du syndicalisme et de l’évolution du profil militant de ses représentants. Dans le
même temps, elles se transforment à l’épreuve des nouvelles contraintes économiques, légales
et idéologiques qui caractérisent le capitalisme contemporain. La diffusion du crédit à la
consommation, la diminution du « reste à vivre » et plus récemment la poussée inflationniste,
reposent par exemple la question du coût matériel et financier de la pratique gréviste pour un
salariat précarisé. Dans le même temps, les restructurations du système productif, l’éclatement
des collectifs de travail, l’affaiblissement des organisations syndicales et le durcissement des
dispositifs légaux (restriction du droit de grève dans le privé, « service minimum » dans le
public) ont contribué à la diminution de l’intensité des grèves dans les économies
occidentales. En France, par exemple, les grèves sont tendanciellement moins massives, plus
souvent défensives et concentrées sur quelques secteurs (la fonction publique, les anciennes
entreprises publiques de transport, quelques grandes entreprises de l’industrie). Si le grand
conflit social contre la réforme des retraites en 2023 a témoigné du maintien d’une réelle
capacité de mobilisation des organisations syndicales, il a cependant illustré leurs difficultés à
faire de la grève la modalité centrale de la protestation. À cette occasion, des modalités
d’action traditionnelles, comme les piquets de grève ou les assemblées générales, ont aussi
semblé montrer une forme (temporaire ?) d’épuisement.

Cette double dynamique est donc paradoxale. Elle nous invite à étudier conjointement
la continuité du répertoire d’action syndicale et le renouvellement des possibilités de la grève
et de ses pratiques. Dans cette perspective, ce dossier se propose d’étudier les modalités
d’ancrage social de la pratique de la grève. Son objectif est d’analyser ensemble celles et ceux
qui font grève dans un contexte où ils et elles sont de plus en plus minoritaires à le faire, les
soutiens que les grèves coalisent comme les contre-mobilisations qu’elles peuvent susciter,
avec l’ambition de contribuer à mieux rendre compte des obstacles à la grève, de ses
conditions de possibilité et des modalités renouvelées d’appropriation de la pratique gréviste.
Pour cela, trois angles seront privilégiés.

1. Les conditions d’(im)possibilité des grèves
Ce dossier a d’abord pour ambition d’explorer les contextes sociaux de la grève.

Les données statistiques relatives aux grèves mettent en évidence leur distribution très
inégale dans le monde salarial. Celle-ci est à mettre évidemment en perspective avec la variété
des modalités de la présence syndicale, des configurations de rapports salariaux et des modes
de structuration des collectifs de travail, plus souvent disloqués que par le passé
(diversification des statuts d'emploi, dispersion des lieux de travail, développement des
horaires atypiques et du télétravail, etc.). Elle nécessite néanmoins de mieux documenter les
stratégies patronales d’évitement des grèves ou de contournement des tentatives de
mobilisation syndicale, allant parfois jusqu’à susciter des contre-mobilisations. Dans une
perspective complémentaire, il est nécessaire de mieux analyser les frontières sociales et
politiques de la pratique de la grève, en lien avec la transformation de la morphologie du
salariat et de ses modes de politisation. Que nous dit en effet la pratique socialement située de
la grève sur l’évolution et la diversité du rapport des salarié·es à ce mode emblématique de
mobilisation professionnelle ? Dans un contexte marqué par la tertiarisation de l’économie, on
pourra tout autant se demander dans quelle mesure et de quelle manière les organisations
syndicales adaptent en conséquence leurs façons de faire usage de la grève, que les salarié·es
soient empêché·es de cesser le travail (par exemple dans le secteur de la santé), qu’ils et elles
se l’interdisent (notamment pour ne pas pénaliser des usagers), ou que la grève leur apparaisse
trop coûteuse, voire inutile. Ce dossier invite ce faisant à penser ensemble les obstacles à la
diffusion de la pratique gréviste et la diversité de ses modalités d’appropriation possibles,
notamment dans des contextes où elle est rare. Il propose également de mettre en perspective
le déclin de l’intensité des grèves, observé dans le contexte occidental, avec le redéploiement
des grèves dans les Suds, que les nouvelles formes de division internationale du travail ont
rendu possible.

2. Faire grève
Ce dossier entend ensuite explorer les pratiques contemporaines de la grève.

La dislocation des grandes concentrations ouvrières, qui facilitaient le recours à la
grève et la rendaient visible par son caractère massif, n’a pas seulement remis en cause
l’importance stratégique généralement attribuée aux grèves dans la conflictualité salariale. Les
transformations du mode de production capitaliste ont aussi contribué à l’atomisation des
conflits du travail et à modifier les modalités possibles de leur organisation et de leur
déroulement. Dans le même temps, des débrayages ont lieu dans les nouveaux « goulots
d’étranglement » du capitalisme que sont les entrepôts logistiques, et des mouvements
collectifs de déconnexion volontaire s’organisent parmi les travailleur·euses ubérisé·es.
Comment se réinventent donc les stratégies de la grève et les modalités du répertoire d’action
gréviste en dehors des « bastions traditionnels » ? Assiste-t-on à l’émergence de nouveaux
« foyers » grévistes, porteurs d’un renouvellement des pratiques ? À l’image des grèves de
l’hôtel Ibis ou de l’usine Verbaudet, certains conflits récents interrogent également
l’articulation des identités de classe, de genre et de race. Plus largement, comment se
différencient les manières de faire grève selon que l’on est cadre, ouvrier·e métallurgiste,
cheminot·e, femme de chambre ou livreur·euse ? Quelles acceptions la pratique de la grève
prend-t-elle dans un contexte d’institutionnalisation du syndicalisme et d’autonomisation par
rapport au champ politique ? Pour en rendre compte, l’analyse de son ancrage dans d’autres
contextes nationaux que la France, héritiers de modèles syndicaux différents ou en leur
absence totale, apparaît particulièrement bienvenue. Des mises en perspective historiques des
pratiques grévistes pourraient également se révéler éclairantes pour mieux comprendre les
appropriations différenciées de la grève qu’on observe aujourd’hui.

3. La grève : un prolongement des solidarités extérieures aux entreprises ?
En sciences sociales, la pratique gréviste a le plus souvent été abordée comme une
relation triangulaire impliquant les salarié·es, leurs organisations syndicales et les directions
d’entreprise, comme si les relations professionnelles étaient un champ autonome et
entièrement désencastré des autres rapports sociaux. Les grèves et le soutien dont elles
peuvent bénéficier sont pourtant fortement déterminés par leur inscription dans des
configurations sociales qui débordent le lieu de travail : c’est pourquoi il est nécessaire de les
aborder de manière décloisonnée. Il s’agira donc ici de se pencher sur les différents soutiens
extérieurs à la grève, en interrogeant les pratiques et le sens de la solidarité ouvrière, mais
aussi des solidarités familiales, communautaires ou organisationnelles. En mobilisant les
apports de la sociologie urbaine et de la géographie sociale, il serait intéressant d’éclairer les
ancrages territoriaux de la pratique gréviste. Enfin, si ces solidarités diverses peuvent
contribuer à rendre la grève possible ou lui permettre de durer, elles peuvent également
conduire à certaines pratiques délégataires de l’arrêt de travail. Ainsi, les soutiens extérieurs
ont parfois permis le succès de certaines luttes selon une logique de « grève par procuration »,
mais ils ont aussi pu marquer une délimitation entre les salarié·es encore en capacité de faire
grève et ceux qui ne pourraient que les soutenir, et conduire alors à isoler les « bastions » des
grèves. D’ailleurs, certains blocages récents (d’incinérateurs ou de dépôts d’éboueurs)
questionnent aussi la manière dont l’action de ces soutiens extérieurs s’articule à celle des
salariés mobilisés : vient-elle en renfort à la grève des salariés ou tend-elle à s’y substituer ?
Que nous disent ces différentes formes de « grève par procuration » sur le conflit social
aujourd’hui ? De quelle manière la solidarité avec les grévistes refaçonne-t-elle la division du
travail militant ? Contribue-t-elle à l’élargissement des pratiques canoniques de la grève, ou
manifeste-t-elle au contraire une autre forme de son épuisement ?

Ce dossier réunira des articles empiriques originaux de sciences sociales (sociologie,
science politique, histoire, géographie, sciences de gestion, économie, etc.). Les études de cas
internationaux seront aussi les bienvenues.

Les articles, de 50 000 signes maximum (espaces, notes et bibliographie compris), doivent
être accompagnés de 5 mots-clés et d’un résumé de 150 mots (en français et en anglais).
Ils devront parvenir aux coordinateur·rices du numéro avant le 31 janvier 2025 aux adresses
suivantes :

Pauline Grimaud : pauline.grimaud@sciencespo.fr
Gabriel Rosenman :gabriel.rosenman@gmail.com
Baptiste Giraud : baptiste.giraud@univ-amu.fr
Maxime Quijoux : maxime.quijoux@lecnam.net

Les consignes relatives à la mise en forme des manuscrits sont consultables sur le site de la
revue : http://tt.hypotheses.org/consignes-aux-contributeurs/mise-en-forme

terrains & travaux accueille par ailleurs des articles varia, hors dossier thématique (50 000
signes maximum), qui doivent être envoyés à :

Jean-Noël Jouzel : jeannoel.jouzel@sciencespo.fr
Maxime Quijoux : maxime.quijoux@lecnam.net

Pour plus de détails, merci de consulter le site de la revue : http://tt.hypotheses.org

Collegium Hungaricum Vienna, 10-11 November 2024

This call for papers aims to promote scholarly collaboration, resulting in a large-scale international research project on women’s activism in the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy and the successor states between 1848 and 1945. Contributions, which have to be based on original research with primary and secondary sources, should transgress state borders which historically cut different activists and activisms apart from each other.
We invite abstract submissions for 20-minutes presentations from scholars at all stages of their careers and from a range of disciplines, addressing any of the topics outlined in the Call for Papers.

Women’s Activism and Mobility in the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy and the Successor States 1848–1945

This call for papers aims to promote scholarly collaboration, resulting in a large-scale international research project on women’s activism in the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy and the successor states between 1848 and 1945. The primary aim of the planned project is to reconstruct the history and the international network of contacts of Austrian-German, Hungarian, Slovakian, Czech and Moravian, Polish, Italian, Slovenian, Croatian, Serbian, Ruthenian, and Romanian women’s associations of different profiles as well as to study the activism of their leaders through a longer period of time and over different political regimes. The territory of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy would be considered as a transnational laboratory. Thus, within the frames of this workshop we aim to provide a forum for conversation and to connect researchers to facilitate closer cooperation and further research in this field.

Contributions, which have to be based on original research with primary and secondary sources, should transgress state borders which historically cut different activists and activisms apart from each other. They have to adopt an interdisciplinary approach with examining the relationship between local, national, and transnational/international dynamics of women’s activism in the territory of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy and in its successor states. Proposals might explore questions/subject-matters such as the followings:

- In what terms can the 1840s be interpreted as the genesis of women’s activism in the different regions of the Monarchy? How did the first groups of women accommodate their traditional roles as wives and mothers and became active as organizers and raised their voices for the emancipation of women? How did they connect with each other?
- How did the women of the next generations made efforts to change the existing social relations? Who were exactly these women with progressive and sometimes radical ideas? How were they involved in the women’s movements?
- What type of network systems were formed among women’s organizations in different regions over the decades and over several political, economic, social, and cultural transformations?
- How did international women’s organizations, such as the International Council of Women (Washington D.C. 1888–), International Woman Suffrage Alliance (Berlin, 1904–, since 1926 International Alliance of Women) and Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (The Hague, 1915–) influence this process? What kind of structural inequalities can be observed between the national and international associations?
- How did activism alter women’s citizenship status? Why is it important in this process that certain activists could afford to travel regularly? On the other hand, how did the activism of those women formulated, who could not travel?
- How women’s associations in the territories inhabited by ethnic minorities were related to Austrian and Hungarian associations until 1918 and how this relationship altered afterwards? What kind of conflict patterns can be detected between the associations/activists?
- How were women’s movements in the different regions of the Monarchy connected with national awakening and liberation movements? How did the discourse of nation building play an important role in certain regions’ women’s movements?
- To what extent did the activists coming from different nations contribute to the political socialization of women before/after they received the right to vote?
- How did the relation between national associations altered through the time across the borders? What was the language of communication among them? How did the numerous changes of regimes influence the activism of these women in their home countries and across the borders? What kind of shifting positions can be observed related to this issue?

By discussing these issues, we will be able to receive a more comprehensive picture on women’s activism in the Monarchy and in the successor states. Furthermore, the relation of women’s movements to nation-building in the multi-ethnical setting of the Monarchy will also become more visible.

The workshop, which plans to bring together contributions by senior and junior researchers, will feature panel presentations and discussions and keynote lectures, providing opportunities for an intensive dialogue and to synthetize the latest research and scholarship in the field.

We invite abstract submissions for 20-minutes presentations from scholars at all stages of their careers and from a range of disciplines, addressing any of the topics outlined above. Abstracts for presentations (300-500 words) and short bios (100-150 words) should be submitted in English by 30 April, 2024 to the following e-mail address: geschichte@chwien.at. Abstracts and presentations must be based on original research with the usage of primary and secondary sources.

Notification of acceptance of abstracts: 1 June, 2024.

Deadline for submitting draft papers (in English, approximately 6000-7000 words): 30 September, 2024. The draft papers will be pre-circulated with all participants.

The workshop will take place on 10–11 November, 2024 in the Collegium Hungaricum Wien (1020 Wien, Hollandstraße 4). Travel expenses will be partly covered (with the exception of flight tickets). Accommodation costs are covered by the organizers.

Organizers:
Dr. Iván Bertényi, Jr., Institut für Ungarische Geschichtsforschung in Wien, Collegium Hungaricum Wien
Dr. Dóra Fedeles-Czeferner, HUN REN Research Centre for the Humanities, Institute of History