Prague, Czechia, 26 May 2025
Deadline for proposals – 22 February 2025
Organizers
The workshop will be organized by the Centre for Russian, Caucasian, East European and Central Asian Studies (CERCEC / EHESS) as part of “Global EHESS” program in partnership with Institute of International Studies in Charles University, Nemtsov master’s program, and Brīvā Universitāte (Free University in Riga, Svobodny University). Françoise Daucé (CERCEC/EHESS), Dmitri Dubrovski (Charles University & Brīvā Universitāte), Daniela Kanelovska (Charles University), Ota Konrád (Charles University) & Boris Melnichenko (CERCEC/EHESS & Brīvā Universitāte)
Synopsis
The conference will focus on reflections on social sciences in the context of war and authoritarianism in former Soviet countries. It will explore the vulnerability of researchers conducting « sensitive » fieldwork, as well as the study of vulnerable groups. We invite contributions on engaged or reflexive ethnographic research, including mixed artistic-research or documentary practices, alongside with autoethnographic reflections on positionality when doing « sensitive » fieldwork.
The Upheavals Caused by the War in Ukraine and authoritarian regimes in the Former Soviet Spaces
Political processes in the post-Soviet regions have been marked by escalating authoritarianism in Russia and Belarus. Following mass protests in Belarus from 2020 to 2021, the country has experienced severe political repression, with opposition figures receiving long prison sentences and reports of torture.
Authoritarian trends in Russia have culminated in an aggressive war on Ukrainian territory since February 24, 2022. This war, now approaching its third year, has been accompanied by crimes against humanity and attacks on civilian infrastructure in Ukraine, resulting in catastrophic consequences, including acts of genocide and ecocide. Amid the war, Russia’s authoritarian regime has intensified. In recent years, the suppression of the Wagner Group rebellion, increased political violence, and tragic events such as the death of A. Navalny in prison and the use of torture following the March 22, 2024, Krokus bombing have underscored the regime’s tightening grip on power and xenophobic discourses. Propaganda has reached unprecedented levels, with calls to “purge” the Institute of Philosophy of the Academy of Sciences of so-called “enemies,” alongside persistent censorship and radical changes in the education system. The judiciary operates under martial law, handing down long prison sentences for war criticism, with an increasing number of treason charges, including against scientists.
Even while participating in public discussions about potential peace, in particular with the election of D. Trump in USA, Russian officials have overtly engaged with Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) military forces and are revising their nuclear doctrine, leading to more frequent references to a potential World War III.
These drastic changes permeate all levels of society, extending to the most intimate aspects of individual lives. There are ideological divides within families, cases of denunciation by colleagues or neighbors, increased restrictions on women’s rights, LGBTQI+ individuals and migrants. Even after leaving their home countries, displaced individuals continue to face new armed conflicts, such as the war in Nagorno-Karabakh in September 2023 and the intensified Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Ukrainians, after years of conflict, still face uncertainty about returning to a war-torn country and living under harsh conditions imposed by the ongoing war. Simultaneously, all exiled or migrating groups must navigate the complex processes of integration into host countries.
These catastrophic processes, causing disruptions to self-identity, perceptions of reality, and social bonds, pose significant challenges for individuals and communities alike. For researchers in the humanities and social sciences, this situation demands heightened reflexivity. We propose addressing these challenges through this conference on ethnography and collaborative autoethnography of vulnerability.
Theoretical framework
The concept of vulnerability has become widely used in social sciences in the last thirty years (cf. Bankof, 2001; Brodiez-Dolino, 2016), has become an independent term in sociological research, and has led to a number of specialized articles and books (Butler, 2016; Garrau, 2018; Misztal, 2011; Naepels 2019). Thematically, this concept is close to the studies of “risk”, which became widespread in the 1990s-2000s (Beck, 1992; Giddens, 1988), but whose public use began in the 1950s-1960s with the growth of fears about man-made “dangers” and technogenic disasters (see M. Douglas, who has also developed, since the 1960s, a cultural theory of “danger” cf. Douglas, 1986, 2013, 2020; Douglas & Calvez 1990; Douglas & Wildavsky, 1983).
Some of the scholars put the notion of vulnerability in the center of their research perspectives in particular, in relation with the notion of autonomy (cf. Ricoeur, 1997; Garrau, 2018; Molinier et al., 2009) or with other concepts in the field of STS (Denis et al., 2016; Hommels et al., 2014; Martin et al., 2015; Mol et al., 2010; Puig de la Bellacasa, 2011). Contemporary work around “vulnerability” is complemented by a very rich and diverse approach to research on relations of inequality and mobilization, inspired by feminist approaches, the caring perspective and research on science and technology.
Through a profound rethinking of the political, these works provide new insights both in political and moral philosophy (in particular revisiting J. Rawls’s theory of justice, and, influenced by the work of L. Wittgenstein and P. Ricoeur, reconsidering the philosophical foundations of the social sciences — cf. Das, 2020; Laugier, 2015a, 2015b, 2016), in the methodology of empirical social research, and in the practice of living together. In our study for empirical cases we will focus on the cultural zones of the post-Soviet space, although comparative aspects can be found in other authoritarian regimes, catastrophes, war zones or zones of extreme violence.
Empirical examples can be extremely broad, ranging from cases of legal vulnerability, communicative vulnerability, social vulnerability due to relations of inequality, processes of exclusion, due to disability or mental illness, involvement in relations of care for others, up to vulnerabilities related to infrastructure and exposure to man-made or environmental hazards. The aim is not to provide exhaustive information on each topic, but to point to sources where participants can find support for their comparative, analytical and distancing approaches that serve to understand the experience of vulnerability related to war and authoritarian regimes but not to give a casuistic and essentialist explanation.
This study day will serve as methodological and reflexive exercise inspired by the postulates of French pragmatic sociology (“sociology of conventions and tests”, for an example of the intuition that inspires us, see Boltanski, 2012; Breviglieri, 2012; Lemieux, 2008, 2018; Thévenot L., 2014), and the ethnographic method and self-reflection of the French tradition of reflexive ethnography (cf. Weber et Beaud, 2010).
Accepted formats of participation
Each participant will have 20 minutes for their presentation, followed by 20 minutes of discussion. We welcome contributions in the following formats:
1. Ethnographic or Autoethnographic Methodological Accounts: Presentations that explore methodological approaches, including series of notes or reflections, addressing the experience of vulnerability within the context of war or authoritarian regimes.
2. Interdisciplinary Reflections: Analyses of the relationship between the ethnography of vulnerability and other fields, such as art, activism, theater, or related disciplines.
3. Collaborative Approaches in Reflexive Ethnography: Discussions or presentations on collaborative methodologies in reflexive ethnography, autoethnography, and broader social science research or teaching practices. We encourage applications from all fields of social sciences, including sociology, anthropology, history, and critical disciplines such as Gender Studies, Science and Technology Studies, Care Studies, and Disability Studies. Proposals from independent scholars, artists, activists, and those without academic affiliation are also welcome.
To participate send us your proposals in English before 22th of February, 2025, with the following information:
1. Title and the topic of your presentation;
2. Country of residence;
3. Contact information;
4. Affiliated institution (if any);
5. Abstract approximately 250 words;
6. Whether you need funding;
7. If you have a visa or any other permit to visit the Shengen zone and any other information related to your travel restrictions (for example if you are in Ukraine, you can’t leave the country and you need online participation).
Bibliography
1. Weber, F., & Beaud, S. (2010). Guide de l’enquête de terrain. Produire et analyser des données.
2. Bankoff, G. (2001). « Rendering the world unsafe: ‘vulnerability’ as western discourse », Disasters, 25(1), 19-35.
3. Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. Sage Publications.
4. Boltanski, L. (2012). Love and justice as competences. Polity.
5. Breviglieri, M. (2012). Un essai d’approfondissement sociologique de l’anthropologie capacitaire de Paul Ricoeur. Études Ricoeuriennes/Ricoeur Studies, 3(1), 34-52.
6. Brodiez-Dolino A. (2016) « Le concept de ‘vulnérabilité’ », La Vie des idées, No 111.
7. Butler, J. (2016). « Rethinking vulnerability and resistance », in Butler J., Gambetti, Z. & Sabsay L. (Eds.) Vulnerability in Resistance. Duke University Press. Pp. 12-27.
8. Das, V. (2020) Textures of the ordinary: doing anthropology after Wittgenstein. Fordham University Press.
9. Denis, J. , Mongili, A. , & Pontille, D. (2016). « Maintenance & repair in science and technology studies », TECNOSCIENZA: Italian Journal of Science & Technology Studies, 6 (2), 5-16.
10. Douglas, M. , & Wildavsky, A. (1983). Risk and culture: An essay on the selection of technological and environmental dangers. University of California Press.
11. Douglas, M. (2013). Risk and blame. Routledge.
12. Douglas, M. (1986), Risk Acceptability According to the Social Sciences, in Mary Douglas (ed.) Essays in the Sociology of Perception, Russell Sage/Routledge.
13. Douglas, M. (2020). Risk as a forensic resource. In Risk Management (pp. 1-16). Routledge.
14. Douglas, M. and Calvez M. (1990) The Self as Risk Taker: A Cultural Theory of Contagion in Relation to AIDS’, The Sociological Review 38(3): 445–66.
15. Garrau, M. (2018). Politiques de la vulnérabilité. CNRS.
16. Giddens, A. (1988). Risk Society: The Context of British Politics. The Politics of Risk Society.
17. Hommels, A., Mesman, J., and Bijker, W.E., (2014). « Studying Vulnerability in Technological Cultures », in Hommels, A. , Mesman, J. , and Bijker, W.E. (eds.) Vulnerability in technological cultures: New directions in research and governance. The MIT Press.
18. Laugier, S. (2015a). « La vulnérabilité des formes de vie », Raisons politiques, 57 (1), pp. 65-80. 2.
19. Laugier, S. (2015b). « The Ethics of Care as a Politics of the Ordinary », New Literary History 46 (2), pp. 217-240.
20. Laugier, S. (2016). « Politics of vulnerability and responsibility for ordinary others », Critical Horizons 17 (2), pp. 207-223.
21. Lemieux, C. (2008). De la théorie de l’habitus à la sociologie des épreuves: relire L’expérience concentrationnaire. L. Israël, & D. Voldman (Éds), Michaël Pollak. De l’identité blessée à une sociologie des possibles, 179-205.
22. Lemieux, C. (2018). La Sociologie pragmatique, La Découverte.
23. Martin, A, N. Myers, A Viseu (2015). «The politics of Care in technoscience », Social Studies of Science, 45(5), pp. 625-641.
24. Mol, A. , Moser, I. , & Pols, J. (2010). « Care: putting practice into theory » in Care in practice: On tinkering in clinics, homes and farms, Transcript Verlag.
25. Molinier P. , Paperman P. , Laugier S. (Eds) (2009). Qu’est-ce que le care? Souci des autres, sensibilité, responsabilité. Payot.
26. Misztal B. (2011). The challenges of vulnerability: In Search of Strategies for a Less Vulnerable Social Life, Palgrave Macmillan.
27. Naepels M. (2019) Dans la détresse. Une anthropologie de la vulnérabilité. Éditions de l’EHESS.
28. Puig de la Bellacasa, M. (2011) « Matters of Care in Technoscience: Assembling Neglected Things », Social Studies of Science, 41 (1), pp. 85–106.
29. Ricoeur P. (1997) « Autonomie et vulnérabilité ». In Dillens, A.-M. La philosophie dans la cité: hommage à Hélène Ackermans. Vol. 73. Publications Fac St Louis. p. 121-141.
30. Thévenot, L. (2014). Une vie éprouvée. Entre migration postcoloniale, discrimination à l’embauche, maternité affectée et adoption salvatrice: quelle ‘identité forgée’. Penser l’incertain, 139-160.
Contact: [email protected]
Admission deadline: February 22, 2025
Final presentations deadline: April 20, 2025
Workshop: May 26, 2025 in Charles University, Prague.
