Aggregator

Organiser: Jewish Theological Seminary - University of Jewish Studies, Hungary Postcode: 1074 City: Budapest Country: Hungary Takes place: In attendance Dates: 13.10.2026 - 14.10.2026 Deadline: 31.03.2026  

This international conference examines Jewish experiences of 1956 and its aftermath from personal, communal, institutional, and transnational angles. We invite contributions that analyse how Jews navigated political power during and immediately after the revolution in Hungary, and in exile, and how these experiences were later remembered, documented, or forgotten.

 

Hungarian Jews and the 1956 Revolution

The year 2026 marks the seventieth anniversary of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution, one of the turning points in Hungarian and specifically Hungarian-Jewish history. For Jewish individuals and communities, the Revolution and its aftermath shaped everyday choices about decisions on staying, leaving, silence, adaptation, and survival.

This international conference examines Jewish experiences of 1956 and its aftermath from personal, communal, institutional, and transnational angles. We invite contributions that analyse how Jews navigated political power during and immediately after the revolution in Hungary, and in exile, and how these experiences were later remembered, documented, or forgotten.

Possible themes include (but are not limited to):
- Jews who remained in Hungary after 1956: forms of adaptation, withdrawal, or accommodation; participation in communal, cultural, and religious life; changing meanings of Jewish identity under socialist rule.
- Jews who left the country: routes (of flight), refugee experiences, and the role of the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee (JDC), Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS), and other organisations in relief, resettlement, short and long-term support.
- Jews in relation to state power: employment in, or proximity to state institutions, including the State Protection Authority (Államvédelmi Hatóság, ÁVH); moral, professional, and political dilemmas of conformity, loyalty, and dissent.
- Antisemitic attacks on Jews in wake of the revolution: verbal and physical assaults against Jewish individuals and communities; their social and political contexts; and the manifestations of antisemitism during the revolution and in its immediate aftermath.
- Rabbis, rabbinical training, and Jewish leadership after 1956: disrupted careers, emigration, surveillance, and the reorganisation of religious authority.
- Archival and documentary perspectives: new readings of sources from the JDC Archives, Hungarian and international archives, and oral-history collections.
- Cultural memory and commemoration: representations of 1956 in Jewish literature, visual culture, and family narratives; the transmission of the memories across generations.

We particularly welcome proposals based on unpublished archival material, contemporary press coverage, oral testimony, or institutional collections, including those held by the JDC Archives, YIVO, USHMM, and Hungarian repositories.

The conference aims to deepen scholarly exchange and to encourage cooperation between academic institutions, archives, and other Jewish historical and documentation projects. Selected papers will be considered for inclusion in a peer-reviewed edited volume, with special attention to sources from the JDC Archives and related collections.

We are currently seeking funding to contribute to the accommodation and travel (airfare) costs of international speakers, covering up to two nights of accommodation.

Practical information
Date: October 13–14, 2026
Location: Budapest
Languages: English and Hungarian
Abstract deadline: March 31, 2026
Notification of acceptance: April 30, 2026
Submission: Please send a 250–300-word abstract and a short bio (max. 150 words) to conference1956@or-zse.hu.

Summer School | 18–20 June 2026 | University of Tübingen

The “Political Economy of Natural Resources and Environmental Change in History” summer school will take place at the University of Tübingen from 18 to 20 June 2026. It brings together scholars working on the historical relationships between natural resources, institutions, and socio-environmental change in an explicitly interdisciplinary setting.

From a Lockean perspective, natural resources possess value independent of human action and therefore have no natural owner. Rights over resources are thus often politically contested, and the workshop welcomes scholarly analysis of this process, particularly how governance, conflict, labour, and technological change have shaped the extraction, use, and transformation of natural resources across time and space. Recent scholarship has highlighted how political and institutional contexts shape access to and control over natural resources, from sea-floor minerals and forests to fossil fuels. At the same time, historians have emphasized the role of conflict and coercion in enabling extraction, particularly in colonial and wartime settings. Studies of energy transitions and common-pool resources further demonstrate the feedback between resource regimes and socio-environmental change. These historical processes continue to inform contemporary debates on environmental justice, inequality, and sustainability.

The program combines two and a half days of academic paper sessions and keynote lectures with two hands-on workshops. One workshop introduces participants to machine learning and natural language processing tools for analysing historical data on resource conflict and institutional change. The second focuses on communicating research to broader audiences, with a particular emphasis on Science Slams and public engagement. Together, these sessions aim to equip participants with both conceptual and practical tools for studying and communicating the political economy of natural resources over time.

The summer school welcomes contributions from economic and social historians, environmental historians, political economists, and scholars of institutions and development. While each of these perspectives has yielded important insights, none alone provides a complete picture. In the context of rapid environmental change, a fuller historical understanding of these dynamics is increasingly urgent. The event therefore seeks to bring together complementary approaches in an interdisciplinary forum.

Themes and Topics

We invite paper proposals that examine the political economy of natural resources across different periods and regions. Topics of interest include, but are not limited to:

• Governance, property rights, and institutions of resource management
• Conflict, coercion, and extraction
• Labour, technology, and resource regimes
• Colonialism, slavery, war, and natural resources
• Indigenous peoples’ rights, sovereignty, and systems of resource governance
• Energy transitions and environmental change
• Common-pool resources and sustainability
• Historical perspectives on environmental justice and inequality

Contributions engaging with global and underrepresented geographies, alongside diverse sources and methodologies, are particularly encouraged.

Keynote Speakers

• Ann Carlos (University of Colorado Boulder)
• Stefania Galli (University of Gothenburg)

Submissions and Funding

We invite submissions from PhD students, early career and senior scholars. Approximately 20 participants will be selected.

Please submit a 500-word abstract and a two-page CV to ehtuebingen@gmail.com by the 23rd of February.

There are no registration fees. Lunch will be provided on all days, and one conference dinner is included. Limited funding for travel and accommodation is available. Funding will be reserved for PhD students and non-permanent academics who are within 6 years of receiving their PhD. If receipt of funding is essential for your participation, please note this when applying, along with a short justification.

Organising Committee

• Thomas Benfey (University of Tübingen)
• Sarah Ferber (FAU Erlangen-Nürnberg)
• Louis Henderson (London School of Economics)
• Moritz Kaiser (University of Tübingen)
• Urvi Khaitan (Harvard University)

University of Oxford, Friday 12 June 2025

This interdisciplinary conference seeks to investigate and draw lessons from moments, both contemporary and historical, in which workers navigated through, organized in, demonstrated against, and at times, successfully transformed the political orders in which they lived. While workers and other non-elite groups operate in circumstances that limit their range of possible action, there are moments and arenas in which the political space is more or less hostile to collective action. Put briefly, we seek papers on how labour related to politics in democratic, colonial, and authoritarian contexts in any time period and space. We are particularly interested in how workers interact and interacted with political authorities in conditions of increased hostility. We invite papers that place the investigations of workers and their relationship to state and non-state actors, particularly police and party-political actors in authoritarian, semi-democratic, and democratic political, social, and economic conditions. Papers that analyse the interaction between workers and political parties, military, police, and courts, (inter-)national and local public officials, planners, and administrators, and rural and urban authorities are especially welcome. Studies of workers’ experience of the stabilisation strategies of various forms of public and political authority are encouraged. We ask that papers concern themselves with a case within one (or more) countries in the following spatial arenas: Western Europe, Eastern Europe, North America, South America, the Middle East, Africa, East Asia, South Asia, and Australasia. Papers from across all humanities disciplines and the social and political sciences are gladly received.

If you would like to participate, please submit a paper abstract of 300 words (maximum) and a short note about yourself by 31 March to labournetwork@torch.ox.ac.uk. Pre-circulated papers are to be submitted to the organisers by 1 June 2025. There are no conference fees. National and international travel and accommodation support can be provided on request.

University of Oxford, Monday 21st September 2025

This conference aims to rethink the global history of the Left and its unrealized trajectories during the global crises of the long 1970s. The perspective is comparative and multidisciplinary and incorporates history, political economy, sociology, and international relations approaches. Contributions will address the strategy of mass political organizations, attempts at planning on the scale of ‘really existing’ socialist states, and various forms of oppositional movement across all inhabited continents from the mid-1960s to the mid-1980s. It will pose the question of the scalar strategy at national, regional, international levels through the narratives, strategies, and contexts of party, state, and movement actors. The primary political parties and political movements associated with the Left and/or with organised labour, subaltern groups, and popular forces in their respective regions, territories, and states is the primary focus of the conference. It will address opportunities—real, imagined, and unrealized—and highlight contexts and choices of the major socialist, communist, and social democratic parties and movements in the interlocking crises of the ‘long’ 1970s, where conditions of possibility were dialectically articulated at the social, economic, and cultural levels. We ask that papers concern themselves with a case within one (or more) countries within the following spatial arenas: Western Europe, Eastern Europe, North America, South America, the Middle East, Africa, East Asia, South Asia, and Australasia.

If you would like to participate, please submit a paper abstract of 300 words and a short note about yourself by 31 March to labournetwork@torch.ox.ac.uk. Pre-circulated papers are to be submitted to the organisers by 1 September 2025. This is primarily an in-person conference; if you would need to participate via video link, please specify with your abstract. There are no conference fees. Travel and accommodation support can be provided on request.

Paris/France

Argumentario
A comienzos de la década de 1990, la historia social atravesó un proceso de redefinición que llevó a replantear la manera de entender la relación entre estructuras y actores. Este giro favoreció la incorporación de enfoques procedentes de la historia cultural, la antropología histórica o la sociología, permitiendo examinar con mayor atención cómo se construyen las experiencias, las prácticas y los significados de los actores históricos en sus contextos. [i]
La reformulación de conceptos como subalternidad, [ii] género, [iii] memoria [iv] o identidad, [v] la problematización de los criterios de validación empírica y de la definición de “fuente”, los debates sobre las formas de narrar, así como el desarrollo de perspectivas transnacionales y globales, [vi] han contribuido a renovar — de manera diversa — la reflexión sobre la agencia y la reflexividad individual de los actores.
El estudio histórico de los movimientos sociales se ha beneficiado especialmente de estas transformaciones. Las prácticas, representaciones, experiencias y actitudes de actores y comunidades han cobrado un lugar central en numerosas investigaciones recientes, en un panorama historiográfico que sigue expandiéndose. [vii] Esto se aprecia en la historiografía sobre el comunismo en España, que en los últimos años ha incorporado aportes alineados con debates internacionales y con una perspectiva
sociocultural más amplia. [viii] Dentro de este impulso, pueden señalarse algunos ejemplos destacados, como los estudios sobre el comunismo en Cataluña —y en particular sobre el Partit Socialista Unificat de Catalunya (PSUC)—, que han actuado como un campo dinámico e inspirador para otros casos al poner el acento en el anclaje territorial, las prácticas militantes y la dimensión social del compromiso político. [ix] A ello se suma la aparición de nuevas investigaciones — tesis doctorales, trabajos en curso y primeras publicaciones — que reflejan una renovación generacional en marcha. [x]
En este marco, el interés por los individuos — sus trayectorias, experiencias y formas de participación — ha adquirido un peso creciente. La atención al papel de los actores, a sus prácticas cotidianas y a sus modos de militancia y sociabilidad constituye hoy una vía central para comprender los procesos históricos, especialmente en aquellos movimientos donde la dimensión organizativa y la vivencia personal se entrecruzan de manera decisiva.
Con el propósito de contribuir a esta discusión colectiva, esta llamada a comunicaciones invita a jóvenes investigadoras e investigadores a presentar trabajos sobre los comunismos en España —o sobre su proyección y conexiones internacionales— a lo largo del siglo XX, focalizados en las trayectorias, experiencias, militancias, biografías y formas de agencia de sus actores, desde una concepción plural de los “comunismos” que insiste en la multiplicidad de formas de compromiso político que emanan de una misma matriz ideológica y política, como se viene haciendo desde hace varias décadas en los estudios sobre la izquierda radical. [xi]
Se buscan contribuciones que aborden estas cuestiones desde distintas definiciones históricas del comunismo y desde enfoques teóricos o metodológicos variados, especialmente en los siguientes ejes de investigación:
Eje 1 – Militancias compartidas: antifascismos, compañeros de viaje y solidaridades transversales.
Eje 2 – Relaciones de género, experiencias de la intimidad y perspectivas generacionales.
Eje 3 – Subjetividades en conflicto: trayectorias, represiones, clandestinidades, disidencias y memorias.
Eje 4 – Sociabilidades en movimiento: circulaciones transnacionales y conexiones globales.

[i] Juliá, Santos. “La Historia Social y La Historiografía Española.” Ayer, no. 10, 1993, pp. 29–46 ; Revel, J. Jeux d’échelles. La micro-analyse à l’expérience. Paris: Gallimard / Seuil, 1996.
[ii] Cerutti, S. Who is below? Annales. Histoire, sciences sociales, Vol. 70, No. 4, Éditions de l’EHESS, pp. 931-956, 2015.
[iii] Tilly, L. A., Yvon-Deyme, B., & Deyme, M. Genre, histoire des femmes et histoire sociale. Genèses, (2), 148-167, 1990
[iv] Magnússon, S. G. Social History as “Sites of Memory”? The Institutionalizaton of History: Microhistory and the Grand Narrative. Journal of Social History, 39(3), 891-913, 2006.
[v] Tilly, C. “Citizenship, identity and social history”. International review of social history, 40(S3), 1-17, 1995.
[vi] Charle, C. “Histoire sociale, histoire globale?”. Vingtième Siècle. Revue d’histoire, (23), 124-129, 1989.
[vii] Véase, por ejemplo: Revista Ayer, La Alltagsgeschichte y el estudio de las dictaduras europeas. 2024, Vol 133, No 1.
[viii] Ver Cruz Chamizo, Laura. “Un silencio multitudinario: La matanza de Atocha y la contención emocional comunista.” Ayer, 124(4), 307–329, 2021; Fernández Rincón, Javier. Maoístas en Euskadi. La Agrupación de Trabajadores Marxistas-Leninistas de Euskadi. Madrid: Cisma, 2021; Rueda Laffond, José Carlos. “El peso de la historia: Memoria colectiva y repertorios simbólicos en un siglo de comunismo” en F. Erice Sebares y D. Ginard Féron (eds.), Un siglo de comunismo en España II. Presencia social y experiencias militantes. Madrid: Ediciones Akal, pp. 39–60, 2022 ; Hernández Sánchez, Fernando. El torbellino rojo. Auge y caída del Partido Comunista de España. Barcelona: Pasado y Presente, 2022; Rosano, Mario. “Cultura política, historiografía y comunismo en España”. Ayer, no. 130, pp. 329-341, 2023; Ginard i Féron, David. “La historiografía española sobre el comunismo. De los orígenes a la actualidad (1920-2020)” en Erice, Francisco (dir.). Un siglo de comunismo en España II, Madrid, Akal, pp.11-37, 2022; Bueno Lluch, Manuel y Gálvez Biesca, Sergio (eds.). Nosotros los comunistas. Memoria, identidad e historia social, Sevilla: Fundación de Investigaciones Marxistas-Atrapasueños, 2004; Valobra, Adriana y Yusta, Mercedes. Queridas camaradas. Historias iberoamericanas de mujeres comunistas, Buenos Aires: Miño & Dávila, 2017.
[ix] Cebrián, Carme. Estimat PSUC. Editorial Empúries, 1997; Ferrer González, Cristian. “La fase expansiva del antifranquismo, 1962-1976: presencia, espacios y redes del PSUC en comarcas”. Nuestra Historia, 3, 18-38, 2017; Molinero i Ruiz, Carme y Ysàs, Pere. Els anys del PSUC: El partit de l’antifranquisme (1954-1981, L’Avenç, 2010. Pala, Giaime. “El militante total. Identidad, trabajo y moral de los comunistas catalanes bajo el franquismo”. Cahiers de civilisation espagnole contemporaine, no. 10, 2013; Sancho Galán, Jordi. El antifranquismo en la universidad. Catarata, 2024.
[x] Uría, Jorge. “La historia social hoy.” Historia Social, no. 60, 2008, 233–248.
[xi] Laíz, Consuelo. La izquierda radical en España durante la transición a la democracia. Madrid: Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 2003.

Comité organizador:

•  Diego de la Calle y Díaz (CRH, École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales)
• Pablo Gil Valero (Lycée Simone Weil, Paris)
• David Marcilhacy (CRIMIC, Sorbonne Université)
• Françoise Martinez (CRIMIC, Sorbonne Université)
• Michel Martínez Pérez (CRIMIC, Sorbonne Université)
• Mercedes Yusta Rodrigo (LER, Université Paris 8 Vincennes – Saint-Denis)

Esta jornada está coorganizada por los ejes Études Catalanes e IBERHIS del CRIMIC.

Modalidades de envío:
Las comunicaciones podrán realizarse en catalán, español o francés. Las propuestas de comunicación deberán incluir una presentación del tema, la metodología y las fuentes, así como exponer brevemente el carácter innovador del enfoque. Los resúmenes de las propuestas no deberán exceder las 350 palabras. Se podrá añadir una breve bibliografía (máximo 10 referencias).
Las propuestas deben enviarse antes del 15 de marzo de 2026 a la dirección
siguiente: jornada.comesp@gmail.com
Esta jornada de estudios está dedicada principalmente a jóvenes investigadores/as cuyos trabajos estén relacionados con la historia del comunismo en España, independientemente de su disciplina y especialidad.

Calendario:
15 de marzo 2026: Fecha límite para el envío de propuestas
Finales de marzo 2026: Notificación de selección o de rechazo de las propuestas
28 de mayo 2026: Celebración de la jornada en el Centre d’Études Catalanes (9 Rue de la Sainte-Croix de la Bretonnerie, 75004 Paris)

Marseille/France

Ce colloque pluridisciplinaire vise à explorer les affinités électives entre anarchisme(s) et écologie(s) depuis le XIXe siècle jusqu’au nos jours. Il vise à combler un angle mort historiographique en interrogeant la richesse des « réflexivités environnementales » anarchistes, des précurseurs comme Kropotkine et Reclus à leurs reconfigurations contemporaines. Le rejet historique par l’anarchisme des structures de pouvoir centralisées et du productivisme de l’« Âge des machines » en fait l’une des traditions politiques les plus en phase avec les impératifs écologiques actuels. En revisitant ces affinités et ces tensions, le colloque offrira de nouvelles clés de lecture pour comprendre les mouvements sociaux qui luttent pour la justice environnementale.

Argumentaire

À une époque où les urgences écologiques sont souvent reléguées au second plan par des régimes autoritaires aux tendances écocidaires — voire réinterprétées au prisme d’une rhétorique fascisante — ce colloque international et pluridisciplinaire propose de revisiter les relations historiques et contemporaines entre anarchisme(s) et écologie(s).

Depuis la seconde moitié du XXe siècle, l’anarchisme semble s’être imposé comme l’une des traditions politiques les plus en affinité avec les enjeux écologiques actuels. Son rejet des structures de pouvoir centralisées, sa vision décentralisatrice de l’organisation socio-économique et son approche préfigurative ont nourri cette réputation (Toro, 2021 ; Grillet, 2026). Mais bien en amont, dès la fin du XIXe siècle, des penseurs comme Pierre Kropotkine ou Élisée Reclus, ainsi que les expériences communautaires des milieux libres, ont esquissé des formes précoces d’écologie politique (Linse, 1986, Gould, 1988, Maitron, 1992 ; Masjuan, 2000). À contre-courant de l’industrialisme dominant de « l’âge des machines », l’anarchisme s’est ainsi différencié tant du libéralisme que d’autres variantes du socialisme, en proposant une modernité alternative, portée par des imaginaires romantiques et des pratiques enracinées dans des cultures paysannes et artisanales (Probst, 2024). Ces héritages libertaires semblent inspirer ou imprégner, souvent de façon implicite et diffuse, certaines luttes écologistes, des années 1960 à aujourd’hui.

Ce colloque transdisciplinaire vise à explorer les affinités électives entre anarchisme(s) et écologie(s), en interrogeant les contextes socio-intellectuels ayant permis leur articulation, de leurs prémices au XIXe siècle jusqu’à leurs reconfigurations contemporaines. Nous porterons une attention particulière à la diversité des courants écologistes anarchistes ayant coexisté, ou coexistant encore — tels que l’écologie sociale, le primitivisme, ou le biorégionalisme —, à leurs ancrages scientifiques et militants, ainsi qu’à leurs relectures récentes dans des champs de lutte variés : antinucléaire, féministe, animaliste, antispéciste, décolonial, etc. (Zerzan, 1994 ; Sale, 2000 ; Bookchin, 2019).

L’anarchisme, mouvement hétérogène et souvent conflictuel, difficile à circonscrire du fait de son faible degré de centralisation, sera ici abordé à partir de deux critères principaux : la densité des réseaux et sociabilités militants et intellectuels qui le composent (Bantman et Altena, 2015), et la nature des pratiques sociales qui le caractérisent comme les grèves, milieux libres, pédagogie libertaire, syndicalisme, mutuellisme (Manfredonia, 2007). Loin de se limiter à son « Âge d’or » européen (1871–1914), l’anarchisme prend des formes multiples selon les périodes (communalisme, squats, ZAD) et les contextes géographiques (anarchismes non européens et non occidentaux), et s’hybride fréquemment avec d’autres courants critiques (féminismes, anticolonialismes, primitivismes). Nous privilégierons donc les contributions portant sur des auteurs ou expériences se réclamant explicitement du mouvement anarchiste.

Afin d’éviter toute lecture anachronique, l’écologie sera ici entendue dans un sens large, mais toujours inscrit historiquement, au-delà de sa définition actuelle centrée sur le dérèglement climatique ou les limites planétaires. Dès le XIXe siècle, des préoccupations environnementales comme la santé ouvrière, la pollution de l’air et des sols, la déforestation, la protection des paysages ou le machinisme traversent les mouvements sociaux et investissent certains milieux socialistes (Audier, 2017 ; Lowy et Sayre, 2020). Nous proposons d’interroger, dans cette perspective, les « réflexivités environnementales » entendues comme « les manières complexes, historiquement situées et souvent éloignées des nôtres, de penser les conséquences de l’agir humain sur l’environnement » (Fressoz et Locher, 2010).

Le colloque, résolument transdisciplinaire et transhistorique, se veut être un espace de convergence pour des contributions issues de champs variés — histoire, science politique, sociologie, histoire de l’art, anthropologie, géographie, philosophie, entre autres — autour du dialogue entre anarchisme(s) et écologie(s). Les interventions pourront porter aussi bien sur la période dite de l’« âge d’or » de l’anarchisme (1871–1914) et l’entre-deux-guerres, que sur l’émergence et l’essor de l’écologie politique (années 1960–1990), ou encore sur ses reconfigurations contemporaines (des années 1990 à aujourd’hui).

C’est à la lumière de cette compréhension élargie que les contributions pourront s’articuler autour de quatre grands axes de réflexion, visant à mieux saisir, depuis une perspective écologique, les pratiques et les pensées anarchistes, y compris lorsqu’elles embrassent des idéaux industrialistes ou technophiles.

1. Nature(s), sciences et savoirs populaires

L’anarchisme, tel qu’il émerge au XIXe siècle, se développe dans un contexte scientifique en pleine mutation, où la “nature” devient progressivement un objet de science et d’intervention. Tandis que l’écologie naissante propose une nouvelle approche du vivant, et que se développent parallèlement des mobilisations environnementales portées par des savoirs populaires ou vernaculaires (Ambroise-Rendu et al., 2021), certains savants alertent déjà sur les dégradations environnementales — déforestation, épuisement des sols. Plutôt que de reproduire une stricte opposition nature/culture, de nouvelles manières de penser le politique et le social s’articulent alors à la question du milieu naturel, notamment au sein des courants socialistes et anarchistes. Ces derniers, à l’instar de Reclus ou Kropotkine, développent des visions organicistes ou naturalistes de la société, valorisant l’épanouissement de l’individu dans son environnement (Taylan, 2018).

Au XXe siècle, les alertes écologiques et les luttes environnementales s’entrelacent de plus en plus étroitement avec la production et la diffusion de savoirs scientifiques et populaires, accentuant les convergences entre pensées anarchistes et écologies politiques — comme en témoigne, entre autres, l’influence de Murray Bookchin dès les années 1960.

Une attention particulière pourra être portée sur la dimension artistique de l’anarchisme, envisagée comme un espace d’expression écopolitique. Art social, poésie, chansons, peinture etc. pourront être étudiés pour mettre en lumière la manière dont ces formes artistiques articulent idéaux libertaires et préoccupations environnementales, en proposant une critique sensible de l’industrialisation et une autre relation au monde naturel.

i. Les théories anarchistes, historiques et contemporaines, dessinent-elles un nouveau régime ontologique ? Comment articulent-elles la “nature” avec leur projet politique d’émancipation ? Quels débats ou controverses suscitent-elles au sein des courants anarchistes ?

ii. Comment les anarchistes intègrent-iels, politisent-iels et diffusent-iels (ou non) les alertes environnementales scientifiques ou portées par des savoirs populaires ?

iii. Comment les écologistes reçoivent-iels et s’approprient-iels les théories anarchistes de la nature, notamment à travers la valorisation conjointe des savoirs scientifiques et des savoirs ou pratiques vernaculaires ?

2. L’économie politique et la technique chez les anarchistes

Né au cœur du siècle industriel, l’anarchisme a très tôt été confronté à la question du progrès technique. Si certains courants ont vu dans les machines et les innovations un levier possible d’émancipation et d’égalitarisation des conditions socioéconomiques, d’autres ont formulé des critiques radicales de la technicisation du monde. Chez William Morris et Edward Carpenter cette critique est notamment abordée d’un point de vue esthétique et résonne parfois avec celles contemporaines du productivisme (Jarrige, 2014). Cet axe entend explorer ces tensions internes à l’anarchisme autour de son économie politique, en interrogeant la diversité des positions face à l’industrialisation, au machinisme, au commerce international, aux infrastructures énergétiques, à la marchandisation du vivant ou à l’organisation des territoires (ville/campagne, centralisation/décentralisation). Cela engage à repenser la place de la technique dans tout projet politique libertaire : peut-on penser une technologie anarchiste ? Quelles formes de techniques et de productions sont compatibles avec une société égalitaire et écologiquement soutenable ?

L’attention sera portée aux pratiques concrètes (consommation, coopératives, autogestion, autoproduction), à la culture matérielle, et aux ancrages socioprofessionnels des militant·es (ouvrier·es, paysan·nes, ingénieur·es, artisan·es, etc.), afin de mieux comprendre comment les rapports à la nature, à la technique et à l’économie se traduisent dans leurs théories, modes de vie et d’organisation. Cet axe invite donc à réinterroger la manière dont les anarchistes problématisent la notion de besoins “naturels” et “artificiels”.

i. Quelles sont les évolutions de leurs conceptions du progrès technique ou du machinisme ? Comment peut-on imaginer le développement de technologies, machines ou infrastructures économiques compatibles avec l’anarchisme ?

ii. Au-delà des procès de production, quels sont les modes ou pratiques de consommation promus par les anarchistes ? Que consomment les anarchistes concrètement ? Et comment saisir leurs tentatives de redéfinir, notamment, la notion de besoin ?

iii. Comment les expériences professionnelles (paysan, artisan, ouvrier, ingénieur, artiste…) et/ou les propriétés socioprofessionnelles anarchistes influencent-elles les modes de politisation de la nature et leurs pratiques économiques ?

3. Théories du changement social et pratiques des mouvements sociaux

Théoricien·nes et militant·es anarchistes et écologistes développent des stratégies politiques variées en vue d’une transformation sociale et écologique radicale. Ces stratégies donnent lieu à de nombreux débats, notamment sur l’attitude à adopter face à l’État et aux institutions, sur le recours à la violence, ou encore sur les figures sociales (paysans, syndicalistes, etc.) perçues comme moteurs du changement (Manfredonia, 2007 ; Bookchin, 2019).

Cet axe propose également de s'intéresser à la dimension préfigurative des pratiques anarchistes et écologistes : dans une critique du mythe du Grand Soir, ces mouvements cherchent à incarner dès le présent les formes de vie qu’ils souhaitent voir advenir. Cela passe par des efforts d'(auto-)éducation populaire, par l’expérimentation de modes de vie alternatifs, mais aussi par des pratiques de réforme de soi — souvent corporelles — telles que l’hygiénisme, l’ascétisme, la grève des ventres ou encore les formes d’autodiscipline quotidiennes (Baubérot, 2014 ; Coste, 2023).

Enfin, cet axe entend explorer les formes de cohabitation, de tensions ou de synergies entre militant·es anarchistes et écologistes dans les espaces de lutte communs. Il s’agira notamment d’interroger la circulation des pratiques, les transferts idéologiques ou les critiques mutuelles qui peuvent émerger au sein de ces convergences.

i. Quelles sont les stratégies (parfois concurrentes) qu’élaborent anarchistes et écologistes pour changer et écologiser le monde social ? Quels types de mobilisations sont privilégiés ? Quel·les sont les acteur·ices ou sujets moteurs du changement social (paysan·nes, ingénieur·es…) ? Quel rôle peut y jouer la violence politique ? Ces débats autour des stratégies politiques de mobilisation suscitent-ils des controverses avec les stratégies écologistes ?

ii. Quel est le statut accordé aux pratiques préfiguratives au sein de ces mobilisations (éducation populaire, professionnelle, réforme de soi, ascétisme, végétarisme...) ?

iii. Comment les militant·es anarchistes participent-iels, critiquent-iels et marquent-iels les mobilisations écologistes d’hier et d’aujourd’hui (Rio Tinto, Larzac, Notre-Dame-Des-Landes…) ?

4. Convergences et divergences : circulations, hybridations et débats

Si les écologistes et les anarchistes partagent de nombreuses références historiques, théoriques, pratiques militantes et modalités d’action, ces deux mouvements restent parfois traversés par des divergences marquées. Les espaces d’hybridation – qu’ils soient historiques ou contemporains – ne manquent pourtant pas (antimilitarisme, luttes antinucléaires, antispécisme, lutte contre les grands projets inutiles, etc.), mais ne suffisent pas à effacer les tensions persistantes autour de questions centrales : la place des pensées du vivant, le rôle de la lutte des classes ou la question de l’échelle (localisme/internationalisme). Cet axe souhaite ainsi étudier ces hybridations et tensions.

De plus, cette partie veut creuser et approfondir deux zones de tension majeures qui suscitent aujourd’hui des reconfigurations ou des controverses dans les milieux anarchistes comme écologistes : les rapports de genre et les questions raciales.

L’essor des pensées écoféministes et éco-queers renouvelle profondément la critique de la naturalisation des rapports sociaux, et entre en résonance – parfois de manière conflictuelle – avec certaines traditions anarchistes. Mais déjà, au tournant du XXe siècle, des figures comme Edward Carpenter défendaient une conception libertaire de l’amour libre, de l’égalité entre les sexes et une dépathologisation de l’homosexualité (Alicia, 2019 ; Cleminson, 2019 ; Lecerf Maulpoix, 2021). Aujourd’hui, écoféministes et éco-queers interrogent à nouveaux frais les rapports au corps, au désir, à la subsistance, au travail reproductif et à l’écologie du soin (Pruvost, 2021 ; Rimlinger, 2024).

De manière complémentaire, il s’agira aussi d’interroger la façon dont les mouvements anarchistes et écologistes s’attaquent – ou non – à la matrice coloniale et raciale du capitalisme fossile (Dupuis-Déri et Pillet, 2019). Ce dernier est à l’origine d’une longue histoire de dépossession coloniale et d’exploitation des ressources naturelles (Moore, 2020). Pourtant, ces dimensions ont longtemps constitué des angles morts dans nombre de traditions militantes (Merchant, 2003 ; Ferdinand, 2019). Le colloque propose ainsi de réfléchir aux notions contemporaines d’écologie décoloniale, de justice environnementale, de dette écologique, de colonialisme vert, de malthusianisme, de formes de localisme (bio)déterministe ou encore à la question des réfugié·es climatiques.

i. Comment procèdent les circulations militantes ou théoriques entre anarchisme et écologie politique ? Par quels biais se diffusent et s’hybrident les théories ou pratiques anarchistes au sein des mouvements écologistes, et inversement ?

ii. Comment les enjeux de genre et d’identités sexuelles, notamment autour de la naturalisation de l’ordre sexuel, de la place du corps ou des modes de subsistance, sont-ils intégrés (ou non) dans les espaces anarchistes et écologistes ? Quels sont les débats qui en émergent ?

iii. Comment les enjeux de race et de colonialité, comme ceux de la justice environnementale globale, les réfugiés ou la dette écologiquement inégale, traversent-ils les débats militants anarchistes et écologistes ?

Modalités de soumission

Nous sollicitons les contributions de la communauté scientifique et militante. Aussi, une attention particulière sera accordée aux travaux des doctorant·es et jeunes docteur·es, tout en ouvrant volontiers l'appel aux étudiant·es en master.

Les propositions de communication devront indiquer :

• Un titre,
• l’axe de l’appel dans lequel elles s’inscrivent,
• la discipline ou la forme d’engagement dans laquelle elles s’inscrivent,
• cinq mots clefs,
• une bibliographie.
• ne pas excéder 500 mots de résumé, incluant une présentation des matériaux, de la méthodologie, un positionnement par rapport à la littérature, une problématique et des axes.

Elles devront être envoyées au format .doc ou .docx à l’adresse ecologiesanarchistes@proton.me avant le 30 mars 2026 à minuit.

Calendrier

• 30 mars 2026 : Date limite d’envoi des propositions de communication
• Juin 2026 : Notification d’acceptation ou de refus des propositions
• 5-6 novembre 2026 : Tenue du colloque

Lieu du colloque

Beaux-Arts de Marseille, Campus Luminy

Comité scientifique

• Emeline Fourment (Université de Rouen-Normandie/CUREJ)
• Florian Gaité (École supérieure d'art d'Aix-en-Provence/ACTE)
• Emilie Hache (Université Paris-Nanterre/Sophiapol)
• Samuel Hayat (CNRS/Cevipof)
• François Jarrige (Université Bourgogne-Europe/LIR3S)
• Anna Trespeuch-Berthelot (Université Caen Normandie/HisTéMé)
• Alexis Vrignon (Université d’Orléans/POLEN)

Comité d’organisation

• Thomas Coste (Université d’Évry/IDHES)
• Léo Grillet (Sciences Po/CEE)
• Cy Lecerf Maulpoix (EHESS/CEMS)

Bibliographie

Ambroise-Rendu Anne-Claude, Hagimont Steve, Mathis Charles-François, Vrignon Alexis, Une histoire des luttes pour l’environnement, Paris, Éditions textuel, 2021.

Ardillo José, La Liberté dans un monde fragile. Écologie et pensée libertaire, Paris, L'Échappée, 2018.

Audier Serge, La société écologique et ses ennemis, Paris, La Découverte, 2017.

Bantman Constance, Altina Bert, Reassessing the Transnational Turn: Scales of Analysis in Anarchist and Syndicalist Studies, Oakland, PM Press, 2015.

Baubérot Arnaud, « Aux sources de l’écologisme anarchiste Louis Rimbault et les communautés végétaliennes en France dans la première moitié du XXe siècle », Le Mouvement Social, 2014, no 246, p. 63‑74.

Beaudet Céline, Les milieux libres : vivre en anarchiste à la Belle époque en France, Saint-Georges-d’Oléron, Les éditions libertaires, 2011.

Berlan Aurélien, Terre et liberté : la quête d’autonomie contre le fantasme de délivrance, Saint-Michel-de-Vax, Éditions La lenteur, 2021.

Biehl Janet, The Politics of Social Ecology: Libertarian Municipalism, Montréal, Black Rose Books, 1998.

Bonneuil Christophe et Fressoz Jean-Baptiste, L'événement anthropocène : la Terre, l'histoire et nous, Paris, Éditions Points, 2016.

Bookchin Murray, Une société à refaire : vers une écologie de la liberté, Montréal, Écosociété, 2011.

Bookchin Murray, Notre environnement synthétique : la naissance de l’écologie politique, Lyon, Atelier de création libertaire, 2017.

Bookchin Murray, Changer sa vie sans changer le monde : l’anarchisme contemporain entre émancipation individuelle et révolution sociale, Agone, Marseille, 2019.

Carpenter Edward, Des jours et des rêves, Paris, Le Pommier, 2025.

Carroll Alicia, New woman ecologies: from arts and crafts to the Great War and beyond, Charlottesville, University of Virginia Press, 2019.

Carter Alan, A Radical Green Political Theory, New York, Routledge, 1999.

Clark John P., Martin Camille (eds), Anarchy, Geography and Modernity: The Radical Social Thought of Élisée Reclus, Lanham, Lexington Books, 2004.

Cleminson Richard, Anarchism and eugenics: an unlikely convergence, 1890-1940, Manchester, Manchester University Press, 2019.

Coste Thomas, « Vivre en Robinson. Georges Butaud et Sophie Zaïkowska, anarchistes et végétaliens (1898-1929) », 2023, Mil neuf cent, no 41, p. 95‑116.

Dupuis-Déri Francis et Pillet Benjamin, L'anarcho-indigénisme, Montréal, Lux, 2019.

Ferdinand Malcom, Une écologie décoloniale: Penser l’écologie depuis le monde caribéen, Paris, Le Seuil, 2019.

Fourment Emeline, Théories en action : appropriations des théories féministes en milieu libertaire à Berlin et Montréal, Doctorat réalisé à Sciences Po Paris, soutenu en 2021.

Fressoz Jean-Baptiste et Locher Fabien Locher, « Le climat fragile de la modernité », La Vie des Idées, en ligne en 2010.

Gould Peter C., Early green politics: back to nature, back to the land, and socialism in Britain, 1880-1900, Brighton, Harvester press & St. Martin's press, 1988.

Grillet Léo « (Over)Greening Anarchism. Toward An Environmental and Contextualist History of Anarchist Ideology », in Faure Juliette, Humphreys Matthew, Laylock David, Handbook of Ideology Analysis, New York, Routledge, à paraître en 2026.

Jakobsen Ove Daniel, Anarchism and Ecological Economics. A Transformative Approach to a Sustainable Future, Londres, Routledge, 2019.

Jarrige François, Technocritiques: Du refus des machines à la contestation des technosciences, Paris, La Découverte, 2014.

Kossof Gideon, White Damian F., “Anarchism, Libertarianism and Environmentalism: Anti-Authoritarian Thought and the Search for Self-Organizing Societies”, dans Pretty Jules et al. (ed.), The SAGE handbook of environment and society, 2007, p. 50-65.

Lecerf Maulpoix Cy, Écologies déviantes. Voyage en terres queers, Paris, Cambourakis, 2021.

Linse Ulrich, Ökopax und Anarchie: eine Geschichte der ökologischen Bewegungen in Deutschland, Orig.-Ausg., München, Dt. Taschenbuch-Verl, 1986.

Lowy Michael sayre Robert, Romantic Anti-capitalism and Nature: The Enchanted Garden, Londres, Routledge, 2020.

Maitron Jean, Le mouvement anarchiste en France, Paris, Gallimard, 1992.

Marshall Peter, Nature's Web: An Exploration of Ecological Thinking, Londres, Simon and Schuster, 1992.

Manfredonia Gaetano, Anarchisme et changement social, Lyon, Atelier de création libertaire, 2007.

Masjuan Eduard, La ecología humana en el anarquismo ibérico, Barcelone, Icaria, 2000.

Merchant Carolyn, « Shades of Darkness: Race and Environmental History », Environmental History, Vol. 8, No. 3, 2003, p. 380-394.

Morris Brian, «Anarchism and Environmental Philosophy», dans Jun Nathan (ed.). Brill's Companion to Anarchism and Philosophy, Leiden, Brill, 2017, p. 369–400.

Moore Jason W., Le capitalisme dans la toile de la vie: écologie et accumulation du capital, Toulouse, L’Asymétrie, 2020.

Peirera Irène, « Pierre Kropotkine et Élisée Reclus, aux sources des théories anarcho-communistes de la nature » dans Bourdeau Vincent et Macé Arnaud, La Nature du socialisme, Besançon, Presses universitaires de Franche-Comté, 2017, p. 393-407.

Pelletier Philippe, Noir & vert: anarchie et écologie, une histoire croisée, Paris, Le Cavalier Bleu, 2021.

Price Andy, «Green anarchism», dans Levy Carl, and Adams Matthew (eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Anarchism, Londres, Palgrave, 2019, p. 281-291.

Probst Milo, Anarchistische Ökologien. Eine Umweltgeschichte der Emanzipation, Berlin, Matthes & Seitz Berlin, 2024.

Pruvost Geneviève, Quotidien politique : Féminisme, écologie, subsistance, Paris, La Découverte, 2021.

Purchase Graham, Anarchism and Ecology, Montréal, Black Rose Books, 1993.

Rimlinger Constance, Féministes des champs. Du retour à la terre à l’écologie queer, Paris, Presses universitaires de France, 2024.

Ryley Peter, Making Another World Possible. Anarchism, Anti-Capitalism and Ecology in Late 19th and Early 20th Century Britain, New York, Bloomsbury, 2013.

Sale Kirkpatrick, Dwellers in the Land: The Bioregional Vision, London, University of Georgia Press, 2000.

Sauvêtre Pierre, Murray Bookchin ou L’objectif communocène : écologie sociale et libération planétaire, Ivry-sur-Seine, Éditions de l’Atelier, 2024.

Siegrist Pascale, «Historicizing Anarchist Geography. Six Issues for Debate from a Historian’s ‘Point of View’», in Della torre Gerónimo Barrera, Ferretti Federico, Ince Anthony and Toro Francisco (eds.), Historical Geographies of Anarchism. Early Critical Geographers and Present-Day Scientific Challenges, Routledge, Londres, 2017, 129-150.

Springer Simon, The Anarchists Roots of Geography: Towards Spatial Emancipation, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 2016.

Taylan Ferhat, Mésopolitique. Connaître, théoriser et gouverner les milieux de vie (1750-1900), Paris, Éditions de la Sorbonne, 2018.

Toro Francisco, «Stateless Environmentalism: The Criticism of State by Eco-Anarchist Perspectives», ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies, 20(2), 2021, 189–205.

Verdier Margot, Le commun de l’autonomie. Une sociologie anarchiste de la ZAD de Notre-Dame-des-Landes, Vulaines-sur-Seine, Éditions du croquant, 2021.

Villalba Bruno, L’écologie politique en France, Paris, La Découverte, 2022.

Vrignon Alexis, La naissance de l’écologie politique en France : une nébuleuse au cœur des années 68, Rennes, Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2017.

Williams, Dana M. (2009), «Red vs. green: regional variation of anarchist ideology in the United States», Journal of Political Ideologies, 14/2, 2009, p. 189–210.

Zerzan John, Future Primitive and others Essays, New York, Autonomedia, 1994.

Lieux

• Campus Luminy - Beaux-Arts de Marseille
  Marseille, France (13)

Format de l'événement

Événement hybride sur site et en ligne

Dates

• lundi 30 mars 2026

Fichiers attachés

• AAC - la nature des anarchistes.pdf
• Call for papers - The nature of Anarchism.pdf

Mots-clés

• anarchisme, écologie, pluridisciplinaire

URLS de référence

• La nature des anarchistes

Contact

• Thomas Coste
  courriel : thomas [dot] coste [at] universite-paris-saclay [dot] fr

Call for Articles
Strikes and Social Conflicts in Hostile Environments

Invitation to Submit Articles to Workers of the World, online journal of the International Association of Strikes and Social Conflicts (IASSC)

Following a highly successful International Association of Strikes and Social Conflicts conference held in Washington, DC in September last year, we are now extending an invitation for submissions of articles on the conference’s broad theme of ‘Strikes and Social Conflicts in Hostile Environments’ (see below) for publication in our journal Workers of the World later in 2026.

While workers and other subordinate groups are always operating under conditions that limit their range of action—that is, circumscribing the kinds of protest demands or action repertoires that are considered normative or acceptable—there are historical periods and geographical spaces in which the environment is especially hostile to collective action from below.

Our premise is that we have entered one of these especially hostile periods on a global scale. As such, there is an urgent need to examine and draw lessons from instances (both contemporary and historical) in which subordinated groups navigated through, organised in, protested against, and at times, successfully transformed the ‘hostile environments’ in which they were embedded.

Historically, many would point to the labour repressive colonial regimes and the spread of fascist movements in the first half of the twentieth century as one example of a period of widening/deepening ‘hostility’ on a global scale. Likewise, the early-twenty-first century, with the current global resurgence of fascist and far right regimes and movements in new forms, can be understood as another period of widening/deepening hostility.

At the same time, spatial unevenness of hostile environments has been central to the functioning of historical capitalism in any given period. For example, in the decades after the Second World War, the apartheid regime in South Africa and military dictatorships in Latin America and East Asia existed at the same time that the right of workers to strike and form independent trade unions were at their height in many core countries. Equally important, workers in the same location (e.g., within the same country, city, workplace) are regularly divided between those who are ruled through consent and those who feel the brunt of the hostility—with distinctions drawn along the lines of gender, migration/citizenship, race/ethnicity, urban/rural, etc.

Finally, even in the darkest periods in world history, there have been local pockets of hope in which successful mobilisations around (and advances of) labour rights and social justice have prevailed. Here we might think of the settlements established by enslaved people who had escaped from bondage (marronage); or Rojava, the autonomous polyethnic socialist regime established in (12/16/2024) northeast Syria in the midst of the Syrian Civil War; or the experiences of other liberated areas in the midst of wars and revolutions.

Call for Articles

In line with the above discussion, we would especially welcome articles focused on:

• case studies of strikes and social conflicts under colonial, fascist, neofascist, far-right, and other hostile regimes, both past and present
• workers organising to break down internal class divides (within countries or between countries) and their lessons for working class solidarity and labour internationalism today
• the experiences—past and present—of the ‘rays of hope’ that shined through (even for a short time) in deeply hostile environments, and their lessons for today.

We also encourage the submission of articles that focus on the following specific aspects

• the contemporary university as hostile environment (for faculty, students and workers—not assuming these are mutually exclusive categories)
• strikes and social conflicts in wars and hostile geopolitical environments, past and present
• the role of ecology and climate crisis in contemporary hostile environments

We welcome articles that are contemporary or historical as well as papers that are single case, comparative or global in perspective. We encourage all articles to grapple with and make explicit the lessons of their analysis for our present-day hostile environment(s).

We would also be happy to consider other articles beyond the above themes on the subject of strikes and social conflicts

The deadline for submissions is Sunday 31 May 2026, and should be sent to the Executive Board at workersoftheworld1848@gmail.com

Details of the submission process can be found here.
Original call on the website of Workers of the World here

 

Milan/Italy and online

This second hybrid seminar of Work Package 2, Activating archives: a comparative transnational history, of the European Marie Skłodowska-Curie Staff Exchange project ACTIVATE focuses on the challenges archivists and researchers face when collaborating with and collecting archives from political and social movements, from the 19th century to the present day. The following themes will be prioritized in the case studies and challenges discussed: revolutionary movements; feminisms; environmental struggles; international solidarity.
Initial attempts to convince activists of the importance of their archives and the need to preserve them are not always successful. Beyond the well-known challenges associated with archiving documents and data, are there specific issues related to collaborating with these archive producers? We also wish to examine in a diachronic perspective the associated changing role of the archivist (curator, mediator, facilitator). From the activists' perspective, what is their position on the constitution and deposit of their archives? What developments can be observed here as well, and how do they fit into the wider context? It is a matter of examining the purpose of archiving documents and data produced by political and social activism: to preserve the memory of activists or of a social group; to strengthen their collective identity, record their activities, and enable them to establish their own narrative in opposition to the dominant official narrative? This is where researchers also act as participants in the process, bringing their scientific expectations and methodological specifics to it.
More fundamentally, questions arise about the identity and status of these three groups, archivists/researchers/activists which are distinct a priori: aren’t the boundaries between them shifting and porous? And if so, are there historical or national evolutions or specificities?
Three main themes will structure the discussions:
1) The process of establishing contact and dialogue
How does this collaboration come about? What role can the researcher play between the archivist and the activist? How can a relationship of trust be established, and the importance of archives conveyed? How can future archivists be trained for this work; what skills do they need in this respect? What lessons can be learned from past failures? What to do with different expectations? How to deal with institutions that are built on very informal organizational structures, who should you talk to?
2) Archival activists and activist archivists
What can we learn from the long-term practice of archiving about the blurring of the boundaries between archivists, researchers, and activists? Is it possible to speak of archival activists or activist archivists before the 1970’s and the debate around the neutrality of
archivists (Howard Zinn)? If so, what periodization can be outlined? Should archivists and activists share the same values, ideology? Should the archive bring in practice what it collects (restrict carbon footprint)?
3) New forms of activism and new archiving challenges
How have new archiving tools and ways of activism influenced collaboration between archivists and activists but also the purpose of archiving their documents and data? How can the archivists respond to the increased transnational dimension of political and social
mobilizations, born digital data, as well as critical approaches to archiving, including the postcolonial approach?

To apply
We encourage archivists, activists, and researchers to submit papers addressing these topics either from a theoretical and methodological perspective or by presenting specific case studies or experiences. A historical and comparative perspective is important to shed light on current issues. The hybrid seminar will take place in English.
Please submit your proposal, with a maximum of 300 words along with a brief CV, by 27 February 2026 to caroline.moine@uvsq.fr and edr@iisg.nl (Subject: "ACTIVATE Seminar WP2 May 2026")

Organizing Committee
-Caroline Moine (University of Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines)
-Serena Rubinelli (Giangiacomo Feltrinelli Foundation, Milan)
-Eric de Ruijter (International Institute of Social History, Amsterdam)

About the project ACTIVATE
This hybrid seminar is part of the project “ACTIVATE: The activist, the archivist and the researcher. Novel collaborative strategies of transnational research, archiving and exhibiting social and political dissent in Europe (19th-21st centuries)”. ACTIVATE receives funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2023 research and innovation program under the Marie-Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 101182859.
The project was launched in January 2025 and explores in a 4-year initiative practices of collecting, archiving, and promoting documents, objects, and data, contributing to a renewed European history of social and political dissent from the early 19th century to the present day. Further information about the project is available on the following websites: 

https://activate-horizon.eu/activate_events/call-for-participation-the-…

https://activate-horizon.eu/

Organizer: Sefika Kumral Matthew Norton Christy Thornton He Wenkai (Social Science History Association)
Host: Social Science History Association
Venue: Hilton Hotel, Atlanta
ZIP: -
Location: Atlanta
Country: United States
Takes place: In Attendance
From - Until: 19.11.2026 - 22.11.2026
Deadline: 01.03.2026
Website: https://ssha2026.ssha.org/

The coordinators of the Migration/Immigration Network for the Social Science History Association (SSHA)--Vibha Bhalla (vibhab@bgsu.edu), Madeline Hsu (myh96@umd.edu), and Paige Newhouse (panew@umich.edu)--encourage you to propose papers, panels, and book sessions for the 2026 conference in Atlanta, Nov. 19th-22nd. Over the past year, migration has gained urgency as a research and policy project. Through this conference, we hope to fortify our strategies for advocating on behalf of migrant rights and communities.

Conference: Migration/Immigration Network of the Social Science History Association

Decentering Modernity

Since the inception of social science disciplines in the nineteenth century, modernity has been viewed as a unique phenomenon originating in the West and radiating to the rest of the world. This understanding of modernity has served as the foundation of modern social sciences. It has also been embraced by both Western imperialists, who believed in their “civilizing mission,” and postcolonial nationalist elites striving to implement “modernizing programs” in their new nations.

Over the last three decades, social science history has witnessed a flourishing of works that challenge this Western-centric notion of world development. They demonstrate that modernizing processes that have long been assumed to be unique to early modern Europe – such as the rationalization and centralization of the state, marketization of the economy, the rise of new ideologies pursuing individual freedom and political representation, and the transition away from the demographic ancien régime – have been parallel processes across different civilizations in the post-Mongol world. Embedded in diverging cultural idioms and manifesting local variations, the multiple forms of early modernities interacted with one another in the integrated global economy from the sixteenth through the eighteenth century. As such, the rising domination of the Western form of modernity in the Age of Imperialism is far from a unidirectional imposition of Western institutions, but a constant process of power, resistance, hybridization, and negotiation.

In today’s world, we see the center of gravity of capitalist development moving away from traditional Western countries with the emergence of new centers of capital accumulation in the Global East and Global South. While the ongoing democratic backsliding does not spare many traditional Western democratic nations, many young democracies in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Eastern Europe have shown striking resilience. Amidst the current reconfiguration of the global political and economic order, we need new historical perspectives that avoid both the assumption of the universality of the Western form of modernity and the Orientalist gaze that essentializes non-Western civilizations as unchanging traditions antithetical to modernity.

In this Social Science History annual meeting, we invite interdisciplinary papers and panels that address social, political, economic, and cultural processes from a historical perspective, broadly defined. In particular, we welcome works that examine the convergence, divergence, and connections between multiple forms of modernity across the world, spanning long, medium, or short historical timeframes. We also encourage submissions that connect historical analyses to contemporary issues.

To submit a proposal visit: https://ssha2026.ssha.org/

Program Committee:
Sefika Kumral

Matthew Norton

Christy Thornton

He Wenkai

SSHA President:
Ho-fung Hung

Contact (announcement)

panew@umich.edu

Organiser: The Research Group "Protestantism as a Minority Religion" (Luiss University)
Host: Luiss University
Postcode: 00198
City: Rome
Country: Italy
Takes place: In presence
Dates: 30.06.2026 - 03.07.2026
Deadline: 13.03.2026
Website: https://minorityprotestants.wordpress.com/

The recognition of religious minorities by political regimes does not always equate with true equality. History shows that it often comes with impositions, covert persecution, or the loss of certain privileges. This event aims to explore such moments of recognition, showcasing contradictory experiences of Protestant religious minorities with the state and the equalities and inequalities that originate from this dynamic across specific contexts. Contemporary struggles faced by minority Christian groups, such as those in northern Nigeria under radical Islamist attacks, or in North Korea and China under communist regimes, demand a reassessment of those dynamics.

(Un)Equals in the State? Minority Protestants and Their Recognition by Political Regimes

After decades of persecution and mistreatment, Pentecostals in Romania were officially recognised by the communist government in 1950. Before that recognition, in the inter-war period, their religious beliefs were deemed a threat to the mental health of Romanians and their citizenship was questioned because of their perceived unworthiness to embody Romanian identity. The Romanian communist regime ultimately granted Romanian Pentecostals legal status; however, this recognition came at a high cost. Research showed that, from their legal recognition in 1950 until the fall of the regime in 1989, the Pentecostal leadership was closely linked to and served the feared Securitate, the secret police (Croitoru 2010). Securitatea, which created the most effective surveillance control system in Romanian history, successfully infiltrated the Pentecostals. Italian Pentecostals had the same problems as the Romanians from 1938 to 1953, under both fascism and Christian Democracy (Hollenweger 1972 and 1997).

Nearly a century earlier, the oldest Protestant group in Italy underwent a similar process regarding their legal recognition, but under a different political ideology and with different outcomes. The Waldensians were persecuted for centuries. Legally recognised in 1848, they embraced liberal ideas and participated in the Risorgimento movement, which aimed to unify Italy. Their active engagement in nation-building following Risorgimento was based on the promises of a liberal regime advocating for freedom, although they were only ‘tolerated’ in the newly formed Kingdom of Italy in 1861. In the twentieth century, Protestants in newly formed Catholic Ireland underwent another process of recognition after the Partition in 1921 and successfully contributed to the pluralisation of the nation “just by being there” (Biagini 2025: 104).

In the Romanian and Italian examples, both minority groups shared a similar persecution story, but their recognition was set in a totalitarian regime and the other in a liberalising one, albeit under a highly restricted electorate with high property qualifications. Conversely, in Ireland, Protestants experienced a new status, finding themselves a religious minority in a Catholic country in which the Roman Catholic Church held much unofficial power despite its separation between Church and State. This event aims to explore such moments of recognition and invites proposals that showcase the contradictory experiences of Protestant religious minorities in relation to state power. Proposals which place them within their local contexts are particularly welcomed.

The event asks several critical questions:

1. What strategies did religious minorities use to attain legal recognition from the state, and what were the costs associated with these strategies? Were these groups truly achieving equality?
2. How did different political ideologies, such as communism and liberalism, affect their experiences of attaining equality?
3. What does State recognition signify for Protestant minorities, historically?
4. What did minority Protestants gain or lose from state recognition, and what hidden forms of inequality were masked by this formal acknowledgement?
5. What did they sacrifice or gain regarding their religious beliefs when they obtained legal equality with majority groups? How did their spiritual practices change as a result?

By examining these issues, the event aims to understand how minority religious groups interact with the state in moments of legal recognition and to explore the equalities and inequalities that originate from this dynamic across specific contexts. For instance, historical examples can further demonstrate that official recognition often incites resistance, leading to the emergence of dissidents who prefer to remain outside the state’s formal recognition. Contemporary struggles faced by minority Christian groups, such as those in northern Nigeria under radical Islamist attacks, or in North Korea and China under communist regimes, demand a reassessment of those dynamics under states that recognise them formally but not in practice.

Please submit an abstract and a short biography to Laura.Popa@gcsc.uni-giessen.de by March 13.

Programme

Confirmed speakers
Eugenio F. Biagini (University of Cambridge), Ireland and the Persecution of Protestants in the Italo-Iberian World in the 1950s
Karina Bénazech Wendling (University of Lorraine), Between Empire and Majority: Protestant Missions and the Search for Cultural Recognition in Ireland
Laura Popa (Justus Liebig University Giessen/Cambridge Centre for Christianity Worldwide), The Politics of Waldensian Women Schoolteachers Amid Covert Persecution of Protestants in Italy, 1860–1915
David Maxwell (University of Cambridge), ‘In from the Wilderness’: African Independent Churches and the Post-Colonial State in Zimbabwe
Debora Spini (New York University in Florence), A Minority Church in a Transforming Democracy

This event is open to seven more proposals.

Contact

Laura.Popa@gcsc.uni-giessen.de

Organiser: Dr. Simon Dagenais
Postcode: 54296
City: Trier
Country: Deutschland
Event format: Hybrid event
Date: 06.03.2026
Website: https://papa.uni-trier.de/2026/01/12/court-society-public-sphere/

Workshop: Court Society, Public Sphere and Political Life before the French Revolution. Results of the ERC Project Pamphlets and Patrons, which will be held in Trier (Germany) and online on March 6th, from 14:00 to 18:00 CET (9:00 to 11:00 EDT).

Court Society, Public Sphere and Political Life before the French Revolution. Results of the ERC Project Pamphlets and Patrons

Workshop: Court Society, Public Sphere and Political Life before the French Revolution. Results of the ERC Project Pamphlets and Patrons, which will be held in Trier (Germany) and online on March 6th, from 14:00 to 18:00 CET (9:00 to 11:00 EDT).

Programme

14:00–14:10 Introduction: Pamphlets and Patrons: Aims and Stakes of a Pluriannual Research Project (Damien Tricoire)

14:10–14:20 Upcoming Monograph: Building the City of God. Rigorist-Augustinian Networks in Early Modern Languedoc (Nele Dentinger)

14:20–14:30 Upcoming Monograph: A French Oligarch: The Political Career of the Prince of Conti (1717–1776) (Simon Dagenais)

14:30–14:50 Upcoming Monograph: The Old Regime and the Revolution: A New Vision of the Political Origins of the French Revolution (Benoît Carré and Damien Tricoire)

14:50–15:10 Discussion

15:10–15:20 Break

15:20–15:30 Upcoming Monograph: Monsieur de Voltaire: Court Society and the Making of the French Enlightenment (Damien Tricoire)

15:30–15:40 Upcoming Special Issue of French History: The Court and the Politics of Print (Benoît Carré and Damien Tricoire)

15:40–15:50 Upcoming Special Issue of the Bulletin du Centre de Recherche du Château de Versailles (CRCV):The House of France: A Socio-Political Object to Reconsider the End of the French Monarchy (Benoît Carré)

15:50–16:20 Discussion

16:20–16:40 Break

16:40–16:50 Database: Power and the Public Sphere: A New Tool to Explore the Cultural History of Eighteenth-Century France (Benoît Carré and Simon Dagenais)

16:50–17:00 Article: Who Has Written the “Histoire des Deux Indes”? Questioning Diderot’s Authorship (Antonina Martynenko and Damien Tricoire)

17:00–17:10 DFG Project Proposal: A New Light on Patriot Writers and Anonymous Pamphlets before the French Revolution: The STAR DFG Project (Benoît Carré, Antonina Martynenko and Damien Tricoire)

17:10–17:20 DFG Project Proposal:The Insinuations du Châtelet as a Gateway to Analyzing Early Modern Society (Simon Dagenais and Damien Tricoire)

17:20–17:35 Conclusion: The Historiographical Impact of the Pamphlets and Patrons Project (Damien Tricoire)

17:35–18:00 General Discussion

Contact

dagenais@uni-trier.de

Organiser: Bastiaan Bouwman, Utrecht University, the Netherlands; Fabrice Langrognet, CNRS, France; Jeremy Adelman, University of Cambridge
Host: Darwin College
Funded by: Princeton Institute for International and Regional Studies (Fung Global Network Fund), Gates Cambridge Trust
Postcode: CB3 9EU
City: Cambridge
Country: United Kingdom
Takes place: In presence
Dates: 15.10.2026 - 16.10.2026
Deadline: 16.02.2026

The distinction between refugees and migrants is central to current law, policy, and public debate around asylum and migration - yet it is far from as self-evident or natural as is often suggested. Taking a primarily historical perspective, this conference aims to more fully elucidate the relational nature of the distinction between refugees and migrants, its function in the wider field of migration, and its genealogy. Though its scope includes the West, the conference also aims to expand our understanding of the refugee-migrant distinction’s role to the rest of the world, given the Eurocentric origins of the 1951 Refugee Convention and the field of refugee law.

The refugee-migrant distinction: toward a global history

The distinction between refugees and migrants is central to current law, policy, and public debate around asylum and migration. While the distinction between refugees and migrants is far from the only factor in shaping migration policies (Thiollet et al., 2024), states’ prerogative of granting refugee status serves as an important albeit unreliable carve-out from a generally restrictive mobility regime. Opponents and proponents of permissive immigration rules each tend to emphasize the binary nature of the distinction – and its close corollary, “forced” versus “voluntary” migration – to their own ends. Restrictionists argue that most people crossing borders in search of asylum, especially in irregular ways, are not “deserving” refugees, but are actually unwelcome “economic migrants.” Conversely, most refugee advocates, and especially the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) (Carling, 2023), insist that it is essential to defend the legally protected status and essential nature of “refugees” as distinct from “migrants.” Scholars have shown, however, that the empirical difference between refugees and migrants is often tenuous (Lucassen, Lucassen and Manning, 2010), even in good-faith attempts to adjudicate it, whereas the fraught politics of migration ensures that attempts to police the distinction in practice are often deeply arbitrary and capricious. Yet insistence on this binary allows liberal states to legitimize their exclusionary bordering practices, relegating “mere” migrants to a realm of virtually unrestrained state discretion (Long, 2013; Hamlin, 2021). Meanwhile, sweeping policies ostensibly aimed at deterring only migrants also impede access to asylum, hurting “genuine” refugees as well (Costello, 2018; FitzGerald, 2019). Hence, some leading refugee advocates have wondered whether refugee scholars should “hold the line” separating refugees from (other) migrants (Aleinikoff, 2021).

A view of refugees and migrants as ontologically distinct has permeated much scholarship, including recent work on “refugee history,” which has sought to redress forced migrants’ previous erasure from much of the historical record (Langrognet, 2023; Marfleet, 2025). Yet historians have, like social scientists, paid increasing attention to the construction and contestation of the “refugee” label, denaturalizing it by analyzing its contingent, situated manifestations over time. Most scholars now understand that “in writing the history of refugees, they need to be alive to the process of constructing refugees and not simply to take ‘refugee’ as a pre-existing category” (Stone, 2018: 103). By attending to this process, historians have begun to show how the uneven implementation of political and legal categories – (im)migrant, refugee, displaced person, etc. – has been produced by and influenced a range of social and political factors, and the ability of people to challenge or evade these (Reinisch and Frank, 2014; Gabaccia, 2022; Huhn and Rass, 2025; Struillou, Zehni and Manneh, 2025; Gatrell, 2025). In this manner, refugee history has made visible the wider ideological tensions at stake, including nationalism versus cosmopolitanism, mobility versus immobility, and pluralism versus essentialism.

The aim of this conference is to more fully elucidate the relational nature of the distinction between refugees and migrants, its function in the wider field of migration, and its genealogy. Much of the scholarship on the refugee-migrant distinction has been carried out by social scientists and legal scholars (Zetter, 1991; Crawley and Skleparis, 2018; Erdal and Oeppen, 2018; Atak and Crépeau, 2021; Abdelaaty and Hamlin, 2022; Bialas et al., 2025), whose work is focused on the present. While engaging in conversation with the narratives and arguments they advance, the conference will take a more historical perspective, which will also better inform contemporary debate. While historians have in recent years gone beyond methodological nationalism to trace the evolution of the “international refugee regime” and other transnational dimensions of twentieth-century forced displacement (e.g. Bresselau von Bressensdorf, 2019; Jansen and Lässig, 2020; Taylor et al., 2021; Schönhagen, 2023; Bouwman, 2026), there is no agreement on how, why, and where the refugee-migrant distinction surfaced, circulated, and functioned, be it in the interwar era, the postwar and Cold War periods, or the “restrictive turn” of the 1980s. Whereas the historiographies of forced displacement and migration have too often remained separate, answering these questions promises to productively chart overlaps between these fields (Gatrell, 2019).

The conference also aims to expand our understanding of the refugee-migrant distinction’s role beyond the West, given the Eurocentric origins of the 1951 Refugee Convention and the field of refugee law (Madokoro, 2016; Ballinger, 2025). Scholarship on flight and migration still centers heavily on Western countries that receive people on the move, especially their policies of admission or contributions to the international refugee regime’s stated goal of achieving “durable solutions.” This remains an important topic, especially since in the US and elsewhere, we are arguably witnessing the “end of asylum,” with indiscriminate anti-immigration policies casting the distinction between refugees and migrants in doubt (Ngai, 2025). But more work is needed on other world regions, which always knew migration and forced displacement but only gradually, partly, and sometimes not at all became subject to the institutions and categories that rose in the West – and even when they were, not without contestation. Non-Western states and regions also generated their own conceptions of the relationship between refugees and migrants, moreover, calling the historiographical centrality of Western-centric institutions into question (Abdelaaty, 2021; Kapoor, 2022; Moretti, 2022; Reed and Schenck, 2023; Hamed-Troyansky, 2024; Moon, 2025).

The conference will bring together both established and early-career scholars. While historical in focus, interdisciplinary approaches and reflection are welcomed. A form of joint publication following the conference is envisioned, such as a special issue in a leading journal.

We welcome proposals on any aspect of the above, including from such standpoints as:
- Agency of refugees and migrants
- Advocacy for migrants’ rights
- Labor/economic policy
- Socioeconomic rights, e.g. the right to work
- Differential functioning of the refugee-migrant distinction based on national origin, ethnicity, race, class, gender, sexual orientation, age, or religion
- Collaboration and competition in international governance, e.g. between UNHCR and IOM
- Externalization of border control
- Consequences for the refugee-migrant distinction of the recent erosion of the right of asylum (e.g. in the U.S. since 2020)
- Public attitudes toward refugees and migrants
- Knowledge production about (forced) migration and its governance

Proposals, including an abstract of ca. 300 words and a biographical note of ca. 100 words, should be sent by 16 February 2026 to fgnf.cambridge@gmail.com. Applicants will be notified in March 2026. Note that participants will be asked to submit papers for pre-circulation by the end of September 2026.

Early-career scholars are encouraged to apply. On a case-by-case basis, financial help can be provided to applicants upon request; please include such requests with your proposal, including explanation as to why support is required.

Kontakt

fgnf.cambridge@gmail.com

Aubervilliers/France

Le séminaire « Des statues pour mémoire ? » aborde la question des contestations de monuments liés à l’histoire coloniale dans l’espace public.

Présentation

Le séminaire propose de réunir et de faire dialoguer des chercheurs et des chercheuses de différentes disciplines (histoire, histoire de l’art, sociologie, droit, etc.), mais aussi des acteurs et des actrices du monde associatif ou de la société civile, pour engager la discussion sur la manière dont les monuments participent à produire et à inscrire des mémoires dans l’espace public. Le séminaire envisage pour cela les mémoires dans leurs dimensions processuelles, évolutives dans le temps et souvent conflictuelles. Pour cette seconde année, le séminaire continue de proposer des séances consacrées à des études de cas, à des travaux en cours, à des présentations d’ouvrages, ou à une réflexion théorique transversale.

Programme Lundi 9 février 2026

• Sophia Labadi | University of Kent Impacts des statues contestées en 2020. Le cas britannique

Lundi 9 mars 2026

• Eva Barois de Caevel | Centre Pompidou Ensemble, toutes les hypothèses : la lecture attentive, une manière collective, vivante et sociologique, de produire de la connaissance en histoire de l’art
• Emmanuelle Cadet | IDHE.S, Université Paris 8 Au cœur de l’exposition « Samba Sadio 1875 » : la place de jeunes enquêteurs pour désamorcer des conflits autour d’un butin de guerre colonial

Lundi 13 avril 2026

• Marie Cornu | CNRS, Institut des Sciences Sociales du Politique À propos du Dictionnaire comparé du droit du patrimoine culturel : les enjeux de patrimonialisation / dépatrimonialisation

Lundi 11 mai 2026

• Fabou Koulibaly | Centre d’Histoire Sociale du XXe siècle Les statues coloniales en Guinée : entre acceptation et contestations

Discutante : Marian Nur Goni, Université Paris 8

Lieu

• Bâtiment Recherche Nord, salle 2.001 - Campus Condorcet, 14 cours des Humanités
  Aubervilliers, France (59130)

Event attendance modalities

Hybrid event (on site and online)

Date(s)

• Lundi, février 09, 2026
• Lundi, mars 09, 2026
• Lundi, avril 13, 2026
• Lundi, mai 11, 2026

Mots-clés

• monument, colonialisme, patrimoine, mémoire, passé colonial

Contact

• Julie MARQUET
  courriel : julie [dot] marquet [at] univ-littoral [dot] fr

Source d'information

• Julie MARQUET
  courriel : julie [dot] marquet [at] univ-littoral [dot] fr

Organizer: Victoria Khiterer, Ph.D. Professor of History Department of History and Philosophy (58th Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies (ASEEES) Convention) Host: 58th Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies (ASEEES) Convention Venue: Palmer House Hilton, Chicago, USA ZIP: - Location: Chicago Country: United States Takes place: Hybrid From - Until: 12.11.2026 - 15.11.2026 Deadline: 01.03.2026 Website: https://millersville.academia.edu/VictoriaKhiterer   Panel on Antisemitism in the Soviet Union for the 58th Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies (ASEEES) Convention

The panel will examine how Jews and non-Jewish liberal intellectuals attempted to struggle with antisemitism in the Soviet Union. It will show how state antisemitism in the Soviet Union affected Soviet foreign relations during the Cold War. I plan to present at the panel my paper “How Kyiv Became the Capital of the Soviet Antisemitism.” I am looking for two paper presenters, the panel chair and discussant. If you would like to participate in the panel, please send me your name, affiliation, paper topic and brief description of your paper. Please contact me by email: victoria.khiterer@millersville.edu

The deadline for panel submission is March 1, 2026.

Contact (announcement)

victoria.khiterer@millersville.edu

Organizer: Bastiaan Bouwman, Utrecht University, the Netherlands; Fabrice Langrognet, CNRS, France; Jeremy Adelman, University of Cambridge Venue: Darwin College, Cambridge, UK Funded by: Princeton Institute for International and Regional Studies (Fung Global Network Fund), Gates Cambridge Trust ZIP: CB3 9EU Location: Cambridge Country: United Kingdom Takes place: In Attendance From - Until: 15.10.2026 - 16.10.2026 Deadline: 16.02.2026  

The aim of this conference is to more fully elucidate the relational nature of the distinction between refugees and migrants, its function in the wider field of migration, and its genealogy. Much of the scholarship on the refugee-migrant distinction has been carried out by social scientists and legal scholars, whose work is focused on the present. While engaging in conversation with the narratives and arguments they advance, the conference will take a more historical perspective, which will also better inform contemporary debate.

 

The Refugee-Migrant Distinction: Toward a Global History

The distinction between refugees and migrants is central to current law, policy, and public debate around asylum and migration. While the distinction between refugees and migrants is far from the only factor in shaping migration policies (Thiollet et al., 2024), states’ prerogative of granting refugee status serves as an important albeit unreliable carve-out from a generally restrictive mobility regime. Opponents and proponents of permissive immigration rules each tend to emphasize the binary nature of the distinction – and its close corollary, “forced” versus “voluntary” migration – to their own ends. Restrictionists argue that most people crossing borders in search of asylum, especially in irregular ways, are not “deserving” refugees, but are actually unwelcome “economic migrants.” Conversely, most refugee advocates, and especially the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) (Carling, 2023), insist that it is essential to defend the legally protected status and essential nature of “refugees” as distinct from “migrants.” Scholars have shown, however, that the empirical difference between refugees and migrants is often tenuous (Lucassen, Lucassen and Manning, 2010), even in good-faith attempts to adjudicate it, whereas the fraught politics of migration ensures that attempts to police the distinction in practice are often deeply arbitrary and capricious. Yet insistence on this binary allows liberal states to legitimize their exclusionary bordering practices, relegating “mere” migrants to a realm of virtually unrestrained state discretion (Long, 2013; Hamlin, 2021). Meanwhile, sweeping policies ostensibly aimed at deterring only migrants also impede access to asylum, hurting “genuine” refugees as well (Costello, 2018; FitzGerald, 2019). Hence, some leading refugee advocates have wondered whether refugee scholars should “hold the line” separating refugees from (other) migrants (Aleinikoff, 2021).

A view of refugees and migrants as ontologically distinct has permeated much scholarship, including recent work on “refugee history,” which has sought to redress forced migrants’ previous erasure from much of the historical record (Langrognet, 2023; Marfleet, 2025). Yet historians have, like social scientists, paid increasing attention to the construction and contestation of the “refugee” label, denaturalizing it by analyzing its contingent, situated manifestations over time. Most scholars now understand that “in writing the history of refugees, they need to be alive to the process of constructing refugees and not simply to take ‘refugee’ as a pre-existing category” (Stone, 2018: 103). By attending to this process, historians have begun to show how the uneven implementation of political and legal categories – (im)migrant, refugee, displaced person, etc. – has been produced by and influenced a range of social and political factors, and the ability of people to challenge or evade these (Reinisch and Frank, 2014; Gabaccia, 2022; Huhn and Rass, 2025; Struillou, Zehni and Manneh, 2025; Gatrell, 2025). In this manner, refugee history has made visible the wider ideological tensions at stake, including nationalism versus cosmopolitanism, mobility versus immobility, and pluralism versus essentialism.

The aim of this conference is to more fully elucidate the relational nature of the distinction between refugees and migrants, its function in the wider field of migration, and its genealogy. Much of the scholarship on the refugee-migrant distinction has been carried out by social scientists and legal scholars (Zetter, 1991; Crawley and Skleparis, 2018; Erdal and Oeppen, 2018; Atak and Crépeau, 2021; Abdelaaty and Hamlin, 2022; Bialas et al., 2025), whose work is focused on the present. While engaging in conversation with the narratives and arguments they advance, the conference will take a more historical perspective, which will also better inform contemporary debate. While historians have in recent years gone beyond methodological nationalism to trace the evolution of the “international refugee regime” and other transnational dimensions of twentieth-century forced displacement (e.g. Bresselau von Bressensdorf, 2019; Jansen and Lässig, 2020; Taylor et al., 2021; Schönhagen, 2023; Bouwman, 2026), there is no agreement on how, why, and where the refugee-migrant distinction surfaced, circulated, and functioned, be it in the interwar era, the postwar and Cold War periods, or the “restrictive turn” of the 1980s. Whereas the historiographies of forced displacement and migration have too often remained separate, answering these questions promises to productively chart overlaps between these fields (Gatrell, 2019).

The conference also aims to expand our understanding of the refugee-migrant distinction’s role beyond the West, given the Eurocentric origins of the 1951 Refugee Convention and the field of refugee law (Madokoro, 2016; Ballinger, 2025). Scholarship on flight and migration still centers heavily on Western countries that receive people on the move, especially their policies of admission or contributions to the international refugee regime’s stated goal of achieving “durable solutions.” This remains an important topic, especially since in the US and elsewhere, we are arguably witnessing the “end of asylum”, with indiscriminate anti-immigration policies casting the distinction between refugees and migrants in doubt (Ngai, 2025). But more work is needed on other world regions, which always knew migration and forced displacement but only gradually, partly, and sometimes not at all became subject to the institutions and categories that rose in the West – and even when they were, not without contestation. Non-Western states and regions also generated their own conceptions of the relationship between refugees and migrants, moreover, calling the historiographical centrality of Western-centric institutions into question (Abdelaaty, 2021; Kapoor, 2022; Moretti, 2022; Reed and Schenck, 2023; Hamed-Troyansky, 2024; Moon, 2025).

The conference will bring together both established and early-career scholars. While historical in focus, interdisciplinary approaches and reflection are welcomed. A form of joint publication following the conference is envisioned, such as a special issue in a leading journal.

We welcome proposals on any aspect of the above, including from such standpoints as:
- Agency of refugees and migrants
- Advocacy for migrants’ rights
- Labor/economic policy
- Socioeconomic rights, e.g. the right to work
- Differential functioning of the refugee-migrant distinction based on national origin, ethnicity, race, class, gender, sexual orientation, age, or religion
- Collaboration and competition in international governance, e.g. between UNHCR and IOM
- Externalization of border control
- Consequences for the refugee-migrant distinction of the recent erosion of the right of asylum (e.g. in the U.S. since 2020)
- Public attitudes toward refugees and migrants
- Knowledge production about (forced) migration and its governance

Proposals, including an abstract of ca. 300 words and a biographical note of ca. 100 words, should be sent by 16 February 2026 to fgnf.cambridge@gmail.com. Applicants will be notified in March 2026. Note that participants will be asked to submit papers for pre-circulation by the end of September 2026.

Early-career scholars are encouraged to apply. On a case-by-case basis, financial help can be provided to applicants upon request; please include such requests with your proposal, including explanation as to why support is required.

Contact (announcement)

fgnf.cambridge@gmail.com

Göttingen/Germany

Veranstalter: PD Dr. Benjamin Möckel, Professur für Europäische Kultur- und Zeitgeschichte, Universität Göttingen Dr. Hugo Bonin, Hannah-Arendt Fellow an der Universität Göttingen PLZ: 37073 Ort: Göttingen Land: Deutschland Findet statt: In Präsenz Vom - Bis: 07.05.2026 - 08.05.2026 Deadline: 28.02.2026   Am 7. und 8. Mai 2026 findet an der Georg-August-Universität Göttingen ein Workshop statt, der sich der praxisnahen Erschließung digitaler Methoden für die historische Demokratie- und Parlamentarismusforschung widmet. Im Zentrum stehen die gemeinsame Anwendung und kritische Diskussion quantitativer und qualitativer Ansätze für die Geschichte moderner Demokratien.  

Der Workshop „Digitale Methoden in der Demokratiegeschichte“ verfolgt das Ziel, digitale Methoden, Tools und Quellenbestände für die historische Demokratie- und Parlamentarismusforschung praxisnah und kollaborativ zu erschließen. Im Mittelpunkt stehen die gemeinsame Anwendung und kritische Diskussion digitaler Forschungsansätze mit dem Ziel, neue Themenfelder und Fragestellungen für die Geschichte moderner Demokratien zu identifizieren.

Die Demokratie- und Parlamentarismusgeschichte bietet ein besonderes Potenzial für digitale Forschungsfragen. Umfangreiche und gut zugängliche digitalisierte Quellenbestände – etwa Parlaments- und Fraktionsprotokolle, Wahlstatistiken, Parteiprogramme oder zeitgenössische Presseerzeugnisse – sowie strukturierte Datensätze ermöglichen es, klassische Fragestellungen der Demokratiegeschichte mit neuen methodischen Zugängen zu bearbeiten. Praktiken politischer Partizipation, institutionelle Entscheidungsprozesse und öffentliche Diskurse lassen sich dadurch in größerer systematischer Breite analysieren.

Im Zentrum des Workshops stehen methodische Ansätze, die quantifizierende Zugänge (Korpus- und Kollokationsanalysen, Distant Reading Methods, Large Language Models) mit qualitativen Fragestellungen verbinden. Ziel ist es, digitale Methoden stärker als bislang in die historische Demokratieforschung zu integrieren. Der Workshop kombiniert kurze Inputs, praktische Arbeitsphasen sowie Raum für Diskussion und Austausch über eigene Forschungsideen der Teilnehmenden.

Der Workshop wird von Dr. Hugo Bonin und PD Dr. Benjamin Möckel in Zusammenarbeit mit externen Expert:innen aus dem Bereich der Digital Humanities durchgeführt. Die Arbeitssprache des Workshops ist Deutsch und Englisch.

Ort und Zeit:

Der Workshop findet am 7. und 8. Mai 2026 an der Georg-August-Universität Göttingen statt.

Zielgruppe:

Der Workshop richtet sich an Studierende sowie Graduierte und Doktorand:innen in der Anfangsphase ihrer wissenschaftlichen Qualifikation. Für eine Teilnahme ist keine spezifische fachliche Expertise in der Demokratiegeschichte und/oder der Digital History erforderlich. Interessierte werden jedoch gebeten, ein kurzes Motivationsschreiben einzureichen, in dem das fachliche Interesse am Workshop sowie die persönliche Motivation für eine Teilnahme dargelegt werden.

Organisation und Finanzierung:

Die Kosten für Anreise und Übernachtung der ausgewählten Teilnehmenden werden übernommen. Zudem ist ein gemeinsames Workshop-Dinner vorgesehen.

Bewerbung:

Bitte senden Sie Ihre Kurzbewerbung bis zum 28. Februar per E-Mail an: benjamin.moeckel@uni-goettingen.de

Berlin/Germany   Veranstalter: Kommission für Geschichte des Parlamentarismus und der politischen Parteien e.V.; Leibniz-Zentrum für Zeithistorische Forschung Potsdam; Institut für Zeitgeschichte München–Berlin PLZ: 10117 Ort: Berlin Land: Deutschland Findet statt: In Präsenz Vom - Bis: 26.02.2026 - 27.02.2026 Deadline: 13.02.2026 Website: https://kgparl.de/symposium-das-personal-des-parlamentarischen-neuanfangs-nach-dem-nationalsozialismus/  

Das Symposium fragt nach den Abgeordneten der frühen Bundesrepublik und thematisiert das Mit-, Gegen- oder Nebeneinander von Verfolgten und Belasteten, Regimegegnern, »Mitläufern« und ehemaligen NSDAP-Mitgliedern im parlamentarischen Bereich. Zugleich nehmen die verschiedenen Beiträge die parlamentarische Praxis in den Blick und setzen sie in Beziehung zu Erfahrung und Verarbeitung von Diktatur und Völkermord.

 

Der frühe Bundestag. Personal und Praktiken nach dem Nationalsozialismus

Am 26./27. Februar veranstaltet die KGParl gemeinsam mit dem Leibniz-Zentrum für Zeithistorische Forschung Potsdam und dem Institut für Zeitgeschichte München–Berlin das Symposium »Der frühe Bundestag. Personal und Praktiken nach dem Nationalsozialismus«. In Zusammenarbeit mit dem Deutschen Bundestag findet die Veranstaltung im Marie-Elisabeth-Lüders Haus statt.

Programm

Donnerstag, 26. Februar 2026

9.00 Begrüßung und Einführung
Prof. Dr. Dominik Geppert (Potsdam)

9.30–11.00 Panel 1: Die Etablierung des Parlamentarismus nach 1945

Prof. Dr. Hélène Miard-Delacroix (Paris): Gespaltene Erfahrung. Zum schwierigen Übergang vom Weimarer Reichstag zum Bonner Bundestag

Prof. Dr. Marie-Luise Recker (Frankfurt am Main): Parteien unter Kuratel. Die Politik der Westmächte zur Restrukturierung des Parteiensystems in Deutschland 1945–1955

Moderation: Jun.-Prof. Dr. Fabian Michl (Leipzig)

11.30–13.00 Panel 2: Die Volksparteien im Bundestag

Prof. Dr. Frank Bösch (Potsdam): Neuanfang mit altem Personal? Die CDU/CSU-Fraktion in der Ära Adenauer

Dr. Kristina Meyer (Berlin): Beschwiegene Vergangenheiten. Die SPD-Fraktion in der frühen Bundesrepublik

Moderation: Dr. Holger Löttel (Bad Honnef-Rhöndorf)

14.00–16.30 Panel 3: Die Abgeordneten der kleinen Parteien

PD Dr. Ines Soldwisch (Aachen): Liberale Kontinuitäten und politische Neuerfindung. Zur biografischen Rekonfiguration politischer Eliten der frühen FDP zwischen Weimar, der NS-Zeit und dem parlamentarischen Neubeginn 1949

Dr. Dominik Rigoll (Potsdam): »Sind wir schon wieder so weit?« Die kleinen Rechtsparteien im ersten Deutschen Bundestag

Prof. Dr. Till Kössler (Köln): Verfassungsfeinde oder Demokraten der ersten Stunde? Die KPD-Abgeordneten im ersten Deutschen Bundestag

Prof. Dr. Michael Schwartz (München–Berlin): Partei der Kontroversen – Instrument der Integration? Die Fraktion der »Heimatvertriebenen und Entrechteten« (GB/BHE) im Deutschen Bundestag

Moderation: Prof. Dr. Sophie Schönberger (Berlin)

17.00 Kuratorenführung: An die Zukunft glauben. Jüdische Biografien in der parlamentarischen Gründergeneration

Die Führung durch die Ausstellung im Paul-Löbe-Haus ist ein Angebot des Fachbereichs Geschichte, Politik und Kultur der Wissenschaftlichen Dienste des Deutschen Bundestages

18.30 Abendvortrag: »Der frühe Bundestag in der (langen) Tradition des deutschen Parlamentarismus« von Prof. Dr. Andreas Wirsching (München) im Marie-Elisabeth-Lüders-Haus, Veranstaltungsfoyer

Freitag, 27. Februar 2026

9.00–10.30 Panel 4: Organisation und Verfahren

Prof. Dr. Frank Schorkopf (Göttingen): Bonns neu-altes Skript – »zur Geschäftsordnung« des Ersten Deutschen Bundestages

Dr. Benedikt Wintgens (Berlin): Hintergrund und Umfeld. Die Verwaltung des Deutschen Bundestages und Orte informeller Vergemeinschaftung

Moderation: Dr. Laila Schestag (Berlin)

10.45–12.30 Panel 5: Sprache und Repräsentation

Dr. Claudia C. Gatzka (Freiburg): Parlamentarische Repräsentation, Repräsentativität und die Konstruktion des postnationalsozialistischen Demos

Prof. Dr. Christoph Cornelißen / Dr. Muriel Favre (Frankfurt am Main): Auf dem Weg zur neuen Sachlichkeit? Zu den Klängen parlamentarischer Reden im ersten Deutschen Bundestag

Prof. Dr. Wolfram Pyta (Stuttgart): Der Bundestag als Hüter des Kompromisses 1949–1994

Moderation: Prof. Dr. Constantin Goschler (Bochum)

13.00–14.30 Panel 6: Parlamentarismus im Ost-West-Konflikt

Dr. Michael C. Bienert (Berlin): Im Wartesaal der Weltgeschichte. Parlamentarische Neuanfänge in (West-)Berlin, 1946–1959

Dr. Bettina Tüffers / Wilma Schütze, M.A. (Berlin): Die Abgeordneten der ersten Volkskammer der DDR (1950–1954). Beispiele aus der biografischen Datenbank

Moderation: Dr. Stefanie Palm (München–Berlin)

Anmeldung: Eine Teilnahme an der Tagung und/oder der Ausstellungsführung sowie dem Abendvortrag ist aufgrund der Sicherheitsbestimmungen im Deutschen Bundestag nur nach vorheriger Anmeldung möglich. Bitte melden Sie sich daher bis spätestens 13. Februar 2026 unter Angabe Ihres Namens und Geburtsdatums per E-Mail an info@kgparl.de an. Für die Einlasskontrolle am Tag der Veranstaltung halten Sie bitte Ihren Personalausweis bereit.

Veranstaltungsort:
Deutscher Bundestag, Marie-Elisabeth-Lüders-Haus, Raum 3.101 (Anhörungssaal), Adele-Schreiber-Krieger-Straße 1, 10117 Berlin

Kontakt

info@kgparl.de

Paris/France

Résumé

Souhaitant aller au-delà d’une historiographie très largement dominée par les violences en temps de guerre, sans les éluder, ce colloque envisage d’aborder disparitions et morts par le prisme de la catastrophe (naturelle, sanitaire, technologique…) en contexte colonial au Maghreb. Objet historique à la croisée des études sur la mort et de l’histoire environnementale, la catastrophe avait déjà suscité des réactions de nombreuses personnalités publiques et donné lieu à la réalisation d’œuvres littéraires ou picturales — comme La Famine de l’orientaliste Gustave Guillaumet.

Annonce

Souhaitant aller au-delà d’une historiographie très largement dominée par les violences en temps de guerre, sans les éluder, ce colloque dirigé par Jacques Frémeaux et Soraya Laribi envisage d’aborder disparitions et morts par le prisme de la catastrophe (naturelle, sanitaire, technologique…) en contexte colonial au Maghreb.

Objet historique à la croisée des études sur la mort et de l’histoire environnementale, la catastrophe avait déjà suscité des réactions de nombreuses personnalités publiques et donné lieu à la réalisation d’œuvres littéraires ou picturales — comme La Famine de l’orientaliste Gustave Guillaumet.

Accidents individuels ou collectifs (inondation, naufrage, crash d’avion…) ont bouleversé des vies ­— par exemple celle du peintre kabyle M’hamed Issiakhem amputé de l’avant-bras gauche des suites de l’explosion d’une grenade dérobée dans un camp militaire américain.

L’efficacité du personnel, la viabilité des infrastructures locales mais aussi la réactivité des autorités coloniales ou encore des organisations de secours pour obvier aux diverses calamités (sécheresse, invasion de criquets…) seront interrogés.

Méconnus ou mal connus, les essais (spatiaux et nucléaires) et expériences (bactériologiques et chimiques) qui se sont déroulés dans le Sahara algérien seront également examinés et ce, jusqu’à leur mémoire plus vive : revendications de l’Association des Vétérans des Essais Nucléaires (AVEN), limites de la loi Morin « relative à la reconnaissance et à l’indemnisation des victimes des essais nucléaires français » (5 janvier 2010) et question des déchets laissés par la France ­­— du « rapport Stora » (20 janvier 2021) à la loi votée en Algérie exigeant la décontamination des sites (13 février 2025) promulguée 65 ans après « Gerboise bleue ».

Aussi, ce colloque, sans prétendre à l’exhaustivité, réunira plusieurs historiens autour de quatre sessions :

• Disparaître, mourir en catastrophe environnementale
• Obvier aux catastrophes sanitaires ?
• Accidents individuels ou collectifs : études de cas
• Catastrophes bactériologiques, chimiques et nucléaires dans le Sahara algérien

Programme  Première journée : Lundi 9 février 2026

8h30 : Accueil des intervenants et du public

Allocution d’ouverture 

• 9h00 : L’impact économique et technologique des catastrophes en contexte colonial au Maghreb, Dominique BARJOT (Professeur émérite, Sorbonne Université)

Introduction générale

9h30 : À la croisée des études sur la mort et de l’histoire environnementale : typologie des catastrophes involontaires ou infligées dans le Maghreb colonial, Jacques FRÉMEAUX (Professeur émérite, Sorbonne Université) & Soraya LARIBI (Docteure en histoire, Sorbonne Université) 

 Première session : Disparaître, mourir en catastrophe environnementale

• 10h00 : Les tribulations du mérinos dans le Maghreb colonial : une histoire de l’impérialisme agraire, du progrès écologique et des calamités socio-environnementales (XIXe-XXe siècles), Raphaël DEVRED (Docteur en histoire, Université Paris-Saclay) 
• 10h30 : Une catastrophe, une plaie pour l’Afrique du nord : les invasions de criquets dans l’Algérie et la Tunisie coloniale, Laurent REFUVEILLE (Docteur en histoire, chercheur associé au Centre de Recherche Universitaire Lorrain d’Histoire)
• 11h00 : Catastrophe naturelle dans l’empire chérifien, une coopération franco-marocaine, Ronan BINET (Chercheur associé à la Fondation pour la Mémoire de la Guerre d’Algérie, des Combats du Maroc et de Tunisie)

Discussion : 11h30-12h00 

Pause déjeuner : 12h00-14h00

Deuxième session : Obvier aux catastrophes sanitaires ?

• 14h00 : Anticiper et gérer la sécheresse dans la Tunisie coloniale, 1881-1956, Nessim ZNAIEN (Professeur junior en histoire du Maghreb colonial et postcolonial, Université de Marbürg)
• 14h30 : Regards français sur les famines en Algérie au XIXe siècle, Alain RUSCIO (Docteur d’État en histoire, chercheur indépendant)
• 15h00 : Ports algériens et quarantaines. Contextes, enjeux, pratiques (1850-1940), Benoît POUGET (Maître de conférences, Sciences-Po Aix - Mesopolhis)
• 15h30 : La fin de la guerre d’Algérie dans une région relativement apaisée : l’hôpital militaire de Tizi-Ouzou en 1962 d’après la correspondance de l’étudiant en pharmacie Albert Faucher, Guy PERVILLÉ (Professeur émérite, Université de Toulouse-Le Mirail)

Discussion : 15h30-16h00 

Seconde journée : Mardi 10 février 2026

9h30 : Accueil des intervenants et du public

Troisième session : Accidents individuels ou collectifs : études de cas

• 10h00 : Les expéditions aériennes malheureuses du lieutenant-colonel Le Bœuf et du général Laperrine : deux exemples des dangers représentés par la conquête aérienne des étendues désertiques du Sahara, Jean-Baptiste MANCHON (Docteur en histoire, Sorbonne Université)
• 10h30 : Accidents ou disparitions forcées ? Les accidents militaires dans le dossier des disparus de la guerre d’Algérie, Cian COONEY (Associate Lecturer, University of Saint Andrews)
• 11h00 : Nuisances, incidents et accidents sur les champs de tir du Centre Interarmées d’Essais d’Engins Spéciaux entre 1948 et 1967, Philippe VARNOTEAUX (Docteur en histoire, Université de Reims. Membre de l’Institut Français d’Histoire de l’Espace et vice-président de l’association d’Histoires d’espace)

Discussion : 11h30-12h00 

Pause déjeuner : 12h00-14h00

Quatrième session : Catastrophes bactériologiques, chimiques et nucléaires dans le Sahara algérien

• 14h00 : Le long processus militaro-scientifique et industriel de 1929 à 1982 dans le Sahara algérien, Larbi BENCHIHA (Réalisateur et scénariste)
• 14h30 : La sécurisation des essais nucléaires français dans le Sahara : un bilan contrasté ?, Frédéric MÉDARD (Docteur en histoire – HDR)

Éclairage d’une association : l’AVEN 

• 15h00 : Le combat de l’AVEN pour faire reconnaître la dangerosité des effets des essais nucléaires sur les vétérans, Françoise GRELLIER (Présidente de l’Association des Vétérans des Essais Nucléaires)

Discussion : 15h30-16h00

Conclusion générale 

• 16h00 : Catastrophes en procès ? : entre mémoire et judiciarisation, Jacques FRÉMEAUX (Professeur émérite, Sorbonne Université) & Soraya LARIBI (Docteure en histoire, Sorbonne Université) 

Lieux

• Entrée gratuite, inscription obligatoire via le formulaire - 15, rue La Pérouse
  Paris, France (75016)

Format de l'événement

Événement hybride sur site et en ligne

Dates

• lundi 09 février 2026
• mardi 10 février 2026

Fichiers attachés

• ASOM_9 et 10-2.pdf

Mots-clés

• disparitions, morts, colonisation, maghreb, sahara

Source de l'information

• Soraya Laribi
  courriel : sorayalaribi [at] hotmail [dot] fr

Socialist History invites submissions for an upcoming special issue on resisting fascism.
The current rise of fascist movements is a central challenge to today’s working class movement. This issue seeks to look at episodes, initiatives, questions and disputes from the history of anti-fascism that may be of value to anti-fascists.

Suggested Themes and Topics
We welcome articles of up to 9,000 words. They could cover, but are not limited to, the
following:

• Case studies of anti-fascist organising including workplaces, schools, local
  communities, sport
• Debates on tactics, including the united front, mass action, electoral politics, anti-fascist organisation
• State intervention, including government, courts, police, in the anti-fascist movement
• Relationship between anti-fascist and anti-racist movements
• The role of art, poetry, music and other cultural forms in resisting fascism
• Race, gender, and sexuality in anti-fascist struggles
• The involvement of the media in helping / hindering anti-fascists
• Transnational and international experiences of resisting fascism

Guidelines

• Article Length: Full-length articles should be between 6,000 and 9,000 words,
  including endnotes.
• Format: Please follow the Socialist History Submissions Guidelines,
  https://journal.socialisthistorysociety.co.uk/?page_id=48

Dates

• Abstract Submission Deadline: 3 April 2026. Send a 300-word abstract and a short biographical note.
• Notification of Acceptance: 24 April 2026.
• Full Paper Submission Deadline: 3 July 2026.

Please direct all submissions and inquiries to the issue editors:
Geoff Brown – geoff.brown@gmail.com
Christian Høgsbjerg – c.hogsbjerg@brighton.ac.uk

by María Zozaya-Montes (dir.)

Focusing on leisure spaces, this second volume traces the major urban and social transformations in Évora since the advent of political liberalism. It explores advancements in decoration and sanitation, as well as changes resulting from the confiscation of church property and the adoption of new technologies. The narrative primarily centres on public squares and gardens, as well as the vibrant theatre scene. It uncovers the evolution from informal performances to the construction of the Garcia de Resende Theatre, the influence of Spanish theatrical repertoires and the systems of social representation used to project status. Despite these transformations, the city continued to be viewed through the lens of its illustrious past from a historicist perspective, with its identity often anchored in distant historical moments. The city’s profile was shaped by the symbolic demands of political liberalism, which coincided with the emergence of nation-states in Europe and Portugal. New symbols sought by the emerging bourgeoisie were incorporated, emphasising iconic historical events — exemplified by the Roman temple — and celebrating heroes such as Garcia de Resende and Giraldo Sem Pavor. This documentary delves into the intricate social and urban dynamics of Évora’s 19^(th)-century leisure scene.

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3De8uzh90w

Read more: https://sociabilidad.hypotheses.org/6604

  Link for the first documentary: Os Património da Sociabilidade I: As Associações em Évora   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CqgO2A4-7Y