Search results

In history, the idea of uncertainty has taken on many forms, both in the methodological field, with for example the definition of historical sources as traces, and in epistemological terms, with the major question of causality or even ontological with the infinite extension of the "historian's territory". Nevertheless, more than an operative notion perhaps, it has long remained as an invariant, a kind of epistemological madguard (a "residue" according to the term adopted by Marc Bloch) of historical knowledge. The question of the historicization of the idea of uncertainty in the historical discipline is related to the place assigned to it in the epistemology of historians, always in tension with the desire for scientificity and truth that has long structured the disciplinarization and professionalization of history. Where do we place the cursor between uncertainty and truth for historical knowledge? This could be the guiding question to periodize the place of the idea of uncertainty in history and roughly distinguish after a predominantly scientist phase linked to the professionalization of the historical discipline (19th-first 20th century), a phase of doubts about history's ability to tell the truth, which became clear at the end of the 1970s and could conveniently be characterized as the great reversal of uncertainty in history, which, from an embarrassing limitation to reducing as much as possible, became an operating principle for defatalising history. However, it will be necessary to question this periodization, more or less modelled on the general evolutions of the sciences, marked in particular by the rise in power of probabilistic and indeterministic approaches and more or less directly related to what is perceived by the majority as the rise of uncertainty in the historical world itself ; this will require taking into account another level of analysis that adds to the weight of uncertainty in history, the moral and political dimension around the question of the social function of history.

This volume brings together a collection of papers on the general theoretical and methodological problems in the historiography of semiotics. It is not a history in the conventional sense, even though the main periods and figures in the development of semiotics are given due prominence. Nevertheless, it should offer the reader stimulation and food for thought in the critical approach to even the least questioned facts of semiotic history and the emphasis given to hitherto neglected problems and persons.

This introductory article presents a short overview of the evolution of populism since the late-19th century forms to the most recent Western European formulas. Starting from a short conceptual inquiry, the article provides a precise analytical picture of the different changes in the form and content of populism across time and space. Previously connected with radical right formulas, the article illustrates how different new populist parties have partly embraced a left-wing program such as in the case of Podemos in Spain or La France insoumise in the French case. The last part of the article provides possible scenarios for the future. In particular, despite the recent evolutions in the Austrian, Dutch and French elections, the analysis stresses the fact that the populist mood has progressively influenced traditional politics (i.e. the topic of immigration, the search of charismatic figures, the questioning of representative democracy). The article concludes with an open question about the future of a populist from below.

The current historiography is marked by the return of exhibition biographies, the denunciation of explanatory determinisms or the militant refusal of the method; it seems time for the militant statement of the creative subjectivity of historian and the relativism of knowledge. However, this contribution is intended to show that the processing of political discourse benefits from being subjected to controlled and systematised analyses, using IT and statistics, in order to make the reading and interpretation of texts more objective. ; International audience ; The current historiography is marked by the return of exhibition biographies, the denunciation of explanatory determinisms or the militant refusal of the method; it seems time for the militant statement of the creative subjectivity of historian and the relativism of knowledge. However, this contribution is intended to show that the processing of political discourse benefits from being subjected to controlled and systematised analyses, using IT and statistics, in order to make the reading and interpretation of texts more objective. ; L'historiographie actuelle est marquée par le retour des biographies de salon, par la dénonciation des déterminismes explicatifs ou encore par le refus militant de la méthode ; l'heure semble à l'affirmation militante de la subjectivité créatrice de l'historien et du relativisme de la connaissance. Cette contribution entend pourtant montrer que le traitement des discours politiques gagne à se soumettre à des analyses contrôlées et systématisées, ici grâce à l'informatique et la statistique, afin de mieux objectiver les parcours de lecture et l'interprétation des textes.

The Modern French Political History has been significantly transformed over the last twenty years. Apart from the pluralism of disciplinary approaches -law, political science, history- Pierre Rosanvallon's seminal work represents a landmark for the specialists of the political period inaugurated by the French Revolution. After presenting this historiography, we take a precise example in order to show the interest of these new approaches. Even though the history of the Conseil économique et social has been relatively neglected by scholars, it remains the third French constitutional assembly of the twentieth century. It held a specific position within the institutional framework in that it was not elected by universal suffrage but was considered by its members to be one of the rare "institutional representations of civil society". The successive attempts to create the Conseil économique et social during three different republics -in 1925, 1946 and 1958- offer an opportunity to connect the theoretical debates on the competing forms of democracy and the specific institutional experiences. By focusing on the composition, responsibilities and functioning of the different councils as well as on the debates which consistently accompanied their establishment, a series of questions emerge about elections, notions of representation, and sovereignty in modern political regimes. Inspired by Pierre Rosanvallon's political historical perspective, this study offers a new approach on the institutions, "corporate" tendencies, and interest groups of the French republican model.