[ecrea] Call for Papers - (Il)legitimacy of Discourses and Conflicts in Public Spheres

*Call for papers for the International Journal***

**

*/Études de communication/***

**

**

*Issue n°47:***

**

*(Il)legitimacy of Discourses and Conflicts in Public Spheres***

**

*/Coordination: Marion Dalibert (GERiiCO, University of Lille 3,
France), Aurélia Lamy (GERiiCO, University of Lille 1, France), Nelly
Quemener (CIM-MCPN, Sorbonne Nouvelle University, Paris, France)/***

Debates on LGB rights, euthanasia or “gender theory” have had a large
publicity these last years in France. They testify to the many
exchanges, diverging arguments and distinct positions of a variety of
actors, be they from the political, the scientific, the associative, the
cultural or the media world. According to Jürgen Habermas (1997 [1962]),
the “bourgeois public sphere” serves, on the one hand, as a mediator
between the civil society and the state and, on the other hand, as a
space where critical discourses can be formulated on an equal footing
and addressed to the political institutions. Such a configuration of
discussion is conceived as a condition of existence of democratic
regimes. However, this normative definition of public sphere has been
highly criticized: in addition to providing a description of a public
sphere that no longer exists, it reflects neither on the exclusions that
it may produce, nor on the plurality that currently characterizes it. In
response to Habermas, some scholars have theorized the public sphere as
fragmented (François, Neveu, 1999, Miège, 2010), that is to say as
constituted of a multiplicity of arenas where conflicts in the
production of meaning take place. This conception invites us to consider
the hierarchies between the different arenas insofar as they do not
receive the same social visibility. Thus, debates and “public issues”
are always the result of “struggles for meanings” (Hall, 2007), namely,
a series of oppositions between discourses, representations or
ideologies. However, the definition of each position, whether
hegemonic/counter-hegemonic, or majority/minority, dominant/alternative,
legitimate/illegitimate, and the configuration of struggles depend on
the public arena where the discussion takes place (protest march, the
press...).

Among the different arenas where discourses, individuals and social
groups may appear in front of the whole national community (Arendt, 1961
[1958], Anderson, 1996 [1983]), the most important is made of the
mainstream media. This specific public arena, called the “global public
sphere” by Nancy Fraser (2001 [1990]), the “national public sphere” by
Pierre Favre (1999) or the “dominant public sphere” by Peter Dahlgren
(2000), is a discursive battleground made of power relationships, that
may lead to the invisibilization and disqualification of not only
discourses but also of the identity of the people who speak (Voirol,
2005, Butler, 2005). In this respect, Nancy Fraser showed that some
groups, especially when they are associated with masculinity,
heterosexuality, upper classes and “whiteness” (Dyer, 1997, Cervulle,
2013), have a privileged access to mainstream media. Consequently,
minorities constitute “subaltern counter-publics”. They inhabit
micro-public spheres – spheres with limited audience – to interpret
their own identities and needs, make claims and formulate
counter-discourses. As such, nowadays, the Web 2.0 plays an important
role for subordinate groups’ access to public speech. Heavily invested
by activists who occupy dedicated spaces on forums, websites or social
networks, it is certainly an arena of conflicts but also a privileged
site for alternative worldviews and definitions.

The 47^th issue of the international journal /Études de communication/
aims at interrogating the semantic conflicts and struggles for hegemony
(in Gramsci’s sense) that occur in material, immaterial, media or online
public spheres (e.g. mainstream or alternative media, internet forums,
public meetings, spoken-word/slam scenes, TV shows, etc.). Its objective
is to question not only the (non) recognition (Honneth, 2000 [1995];
Voirol, 2005) and (non) legitimation processes of social discourses,
speeches, representations or ideologies that appear in one or many
public arenas, but also the relationship (including power relationships)
between the global/national/dominant public sphere and micro-public
spheres. It also intends to analyze the formation of public arenas based
on conflicting discourses, representations and/or ideologies as well as
on groups with divergent interests, and to examine the place these
coalitions have in hegemonization logics (Laclau, Mouffe, 2009 [1985]).

*We welcome contributions that emphasize (but are not limited to) some
of the following issues:***

/Characterisation and (dis)qualification of discourses. /Contributions
might question the ways discourses/representations/ideologies are
(dis)qualified and characterised in one or several public spheres: how a
discourse considered as “dissonant”, “alternative” or “minoritarian”
becomes legitimate or illegitimate? How is this (il)legitimacy built and
distributed in different arenas? Through which argumentative processes?
Which instances or actors (traditional/alternative medias, web and
social networks, public meetings) have a hold over these processes, and
how do they operate?

/Access of discourses and social groups to public spheres/. Particular
attention may be paid to the way discourses reach public spheres and to
the way the social identity of the speaker might influence this process:
how to understand the advent of certain political, militant, scientific
discourses in the media space? How might discourses operating in
micro-public spheres reach global/dominant/national public sphere and
vice-versa? In public spheres, to what extent do implicit or explicit
socio-discursive “frames” circumscribe or regulate emerging discourses
and identities? How does the articulation of gender, race, class or age
interfere with the process of reaching public spheres and organise
struggles for meanings?

//

/Circulation and reconfiguration of discourses in different spaces/.
Contributions may have a particular interest in analysing the ways
discourses, representations, ideologies are born, live, circulate and
are reconfigured according to different public spheres. How do
discourses circulate? To what extent are these discourses subject to
different re-appropriations according to spaces? Who is mobilised in
these logics of re-appropriation (associations, intellectuals, politics,
anonymous persons)? To what extent do micro-public spheres occupied by
illegitimate discourses become sites of structuration and formation of
community of interests and thoughts? How can a disqualification
operating in one arena become a factor of legitimation and publicity in
another?

/Bibliography/

Anderson Benedict (2002 [1996]), /L’imaginaire national. Réflexions sur
l’origine et l’essor du nationalisme/, trad. P.-E. Dauzat, Paris, La
Découverte.

Arendt Hannah, (1994 [1961]), /Condition de l’homme moderne/, Paris,
Calmann-Lévy.

Butler Judith (2005), /Vie précaire. Les pouvoirs du deuil et de la
violence après le 11 septembre 2001/, trad. J. Rosanvallon et J. Vidal,
Paris, Editions Amsterdam.

Cervulle Maxime (2013), /Dans le blanc des yeux. Diversité, racisme et
médias/, Paris, Éditions Amsterdam.

Dahlgren Peter (2000), « L'espace public et l'internet. Structure,
espace et communication », trad. Marc Relieu, in /Réseaux/ n°100, p.157-186.

Dyer Richard (1997), /White/, London, New-York, Routledge.

Favre Pierre (1999), « Les manifestations de rue entre espace privé et
espaces publics » in François Bastien et Neveu Érik (dir.), /Espaces
publics mosaïques : Acteurs, arènes et rhétoriques, des débats publics
contemporains/, Rennes : PUR, p. 135-152.

François Bastien et Neveu Érik (1999), « Introduction. Pour une
sociologie politique des espaces publics contemporains » in François
Bastien et Neveu Érik (dir.),/Espaces publics mosaïques : Acteurs,
arènes et rhétoriques, des débats publics contemporains/, Rennes, PUR,
p. 13-58.

Fraser Nancy (2001 [1990]), « Repenser la sphère publique : une
contribution à la critique de la démocratie telle qu’elle existe
réellement », trad. de M. Valenta, in /Hermès/ n° 31, p. 125-156.

Habermas Jürgen (1997 [1962]), /L’espace public/, trad. M. B. de Launay,
Paris, Payot et Rivages.

Hall Stuart (2007), /Identités et Cultures. Politiques des Cultural
Studies/, éd. établie par Maxime Cervulle, trad. de C. Jacquet, Paris,
Éditions Amsterdam.

Honneth Axel (2000 [1995]), /La lutte pour la reconnaissance/, trad. P.
Rusch, Paris, Editions du Cerf.

Laclau Ernesto, Mouffe Chantal (2009), /Hégémonie et stratégie
socialiste/, trad. Julien Abriel, Besançon, Les Solitaires Intempestifs.

Miège Bernard (2010), /L’espace public contemporain/, Grenoble, PUG.

Voirol Olivier (2005), « Les luttes pour la visibilité. Esquisse d’une
problématique », in /Réseaux/ n° 129-130, p. 89-121.

*Scientific committee ***

France Aubin, UQAM (Canada)

Julia Bonaccorsi, University of Lyon 2 (France)

Dominique Cardon, Orange Labs (France)

Peter Dahlgren, Lund University (Sweden)

Cégolène Frisque, University of Nantes (France)

Isabelle Garcin-Marrou, Sciences Po Lyon (France)

Éric George, UQAM (Canada)

Thomas Heller, University of Lille 3 (France)

Marc Lits, Catholic University of Louvain (Belgium)

Sandy Montañola, University of Rennes 1 (France)

Jacques Noyer, University of Lille 3 (France)

Isabelle Pailliart, University of Grenoble 3 (France)

Bruno Raoul, University of Lille 3 (France)

Juliette Rennes, EHESS (France)

Aurélie Tavernier, University of Paris 8 (France)

Cédric Terzi, University of Lille 3 (France)

Hans-Jörg Trenz, University of Copenhagen (Denmark)

Olivier Voirol, UNIL —University of Lausanne (Switzerland)

*Selection of proposals***

The selection of proposals will consist of two stages:

-Extended abstracts should be no more than 1.500 to 2.000 words and
present the objectives, the main arguments and the original thesis of
the article as well as a few bibliographical references;

-For the selected abstracts, full articles will be submitted to a
double-blind review process.

Authors’ guidelines are available on the website of the journal:
http://edc.revues.org <http://edc.revues.org/>

Each review will be conducted by two referees of the scientific
committee according to a double-blind processwhereby the author remains
anonymous to the referee.

Please, send abstracts and articles in .doc or PDF format to the three
following addresses:

(marion.dalibert /at/ univ-lille3.fr) <mailto:(marion.dalibert /at/ univ-lille3.fr)>

(aurelia.lamy /at/ univ-lille1.fr) <mailto:(aurelia.lamy /at/ univ-lille1.fr)>

(nelly.quemener /at/ univ-paris3.fr) <mailto:(nelly.quemener /at/ univ-paris3.fr)>

You may submit proposals and articles in French or English. Articles
should not exceed 35.000 characters (including spaces, notes, and
bibliography).

*Timeline*

**

October 15^th 2015: submission of extended abstracts (1.500-2.000 words)
to the editors;

November 15^th 2015: notification of acceptance for article submission;

March 15^th 2016: submission of full papers for peer-review;

June 15^th 2016: final articles due;

December 2016: printed and online publication.



---------------
ECREA-Mailing list
---------------
This mailing list is a free service offered by Nico Carpentier and ECREA.
--
To subscribe, post or unsubscribe, please visit
http://commlist.org/
--
To contact the mailing list manager:
Email: (nico.carpentier /at/ vub.ac.be)
URL: http://homepages.vub.ac.be/~ncarpent/
--
ECREA - European Communication Research and Education Association
Chauss�de Waterloo 1151, 1180 Uccle, Belgium
Email: (info /at/ ecrea.eu)
URL: http://www.ecrea.eu
---------------