Suchergebnisse

International audience ; I have felt moved to write this piece for two reasons. First, the episode I will recount below resonates strongly with my experience and that of other non-European colleagues (those I have been discussing with, at least) regarding the politics of academic knowledge production in Western academic contexts. Second, it exemplifies what in my view is a rather problematic understanding of " Eurocentrism " and " theory " , reducing the former to an unproductive polemical register, and confusing the latter with a user's manual. The episode consists of me being called " Eurocentric " in an academic workshop, although this piece is in no way intended as a response to my accusers. Rather, it is written in the spirit of addressing the issues identified above, which I take to be of political, theoretical and pedagogic significance. What, then, was my sin to deserve this academic and political kiss of death? I was surprised—stunned even—especially because I had taken good care to start with a disclaimer that my paper was informed by the French context and inspired by a particular French thinker. Since the previous day of the workshop had seen numerous remarks of the type " Yes, but this doesn't work in Sri Lanka! " (there was a contingent of anthropologists and development geographers with ongoing research projects there), I was careful, running the risk of sounding defensive, to also emphasize that my paper offered one among many possible ways of thinking about the relationship between space and politics, one of the workshop themes. Alas, it didn't work in Sri Lanka! Although I tried to explain that my paper was neither inspired by nor responding to the situation in Sri Lanka, I, the only non-European present, ended up being the only Eurocentric of the whole workshop. The problem, according to my interlocutors, was that my alleged " model " (a term I had deliberately avoided) either " did not work in " or " did not apply to " Sri Lanka (Pakistan, if I remember correctly, was also mentioned). It is this kind of use of the term that I find unproductive and problematic. Based on a strictly geographical or even cartographical

International audience ; My paper addresses the issue of space, politics and (in)justice in the context of the city. The first part of the paper sets the context by providing an overview of the previous work on the geographical dimension of (in)justice. Building on this overview, the second part engages with the works of John Rawls and Iris Marion Young to conceptualize a notion of spatial (in)justice. The argument here is that there is a spatial dimension to (in)justice, which is produced and reproduced by structural dynamics. What is important, therefore, is to consider not only the spatial manifestations of injustice, but also the dynamics that constantly produce them. The last part of the paper considers the notion of spatial (in)justice by using examples from France; namely, the question of banlieues and urban policy since the early 1980s. The argument here is that by establishing a divisive spatial order that has focus on particular spaces, urban policies have failed to address the structural dynamics of spatial injustice, and have largely debilitated mobilizations for justice arising in the banlieues. In this sense, the case of urban policy in France offers insights into the relationship between space, politics and (in)justice. This paper looks at this relationship as a contestation over space between official spatial practices and grassroots political mobilizations. It thus offers a geographical analysis of urban policy as well as an interpretation of local political movements that question or challenge official policies.

International audience ; My paper addresses the issue of space, politics and (in)justice in the context of the city. The first part of the paper sets the context by providing an overview of the previous work on the geographical dimension of (in)justice. Building on this overview, the second part engages with the works of John Rawls and Iris Marion Young to conceptualize a notion of spatial (in)justice. The argument here is that there is a spatial dimension to (in)justice, which is produced and reproduced by structural dynamics. What is important, therefore, is to consider not only the spatial manifestations of injustice, but also the dynamics that constantly produce them. The last part of the paper considers the notion of spatial (in)justice by using examples from France; namely, the question of banlieues and urban policy since the early 1980s. The argument here is that by establishing a divisive spatial order that has focus on particular spaces, urban policies have failed to address the structural dynamics of spatial injustice, and have largely debilitated mobilizations for justice arising in the banlieues. In this sense, the case of urban policy in France offers insights into the relationship between space, politics and (in)justice. This paper looks at this relationship as a contestation over space between official spatial practices and grassroots political mobilizations. It thus offers a geographical analysis of urban policy as well as an interpretation of local political movements that question or challenge official policies.

International audience ; My paper addresses the issue of space, politics and (in)justice in the context of the city. The first part of the paper sets the context by providing an overview of the previous work on the geographical dimension of (in)justice. Building on this overview, the second part engages with the works of John Rawls and Iris Marion Young to conceptualize a notion of spatial (in)justice. The argument here is that there is a spatial dimension to (in)justice, which is produced and reproduced by structural dynamics. What is important, therefore, is to consider not only the spatial manifestations of injustice, but also the dynamics that constantly produce them. The last part of the paper considers the notion of spatial (in)justice by using examples from France; namely, the question of banlieues and urban policy since the early 1980s. The argument here is that by establishing a divisive spatial order that has focus on particular spaces, urban policies have failed to address the structural dynamics of spatial injustice, and have largely debilitated mobilizations for justice arising in the banlieues. In this sense, the case of urban policy in France offers insights into the relationship between space, politics and (in)justice. This paper looks at this relationship as a contestation over space between official spatial practices and grassroots political mobilizations. It thus offers a geographical analysis of urban policy as well as an interpretation of local political movements that question or challenge official policies.

International audience ; Cet article porte sur les questions d'espace, de politique et d'(in)justice dans le contexte de la ville. La première partie brosse un panorama des travaux existant sur la dimension géographique de l'(in)justice, la seconde utilise les travaux de John Rawls et Iris Marion Young pour conceptualiser la notion d'(in)justice spatiale: il s'agit de montrer que l'(in)justice a une dimension spatiale, produite et reproduite par des dynamiques structurelles. Il importe donc de considérer non pas seulement les manifestations spatiales de l'injustice, mais également les dynamiques qui les produisent constamment. Le dernier volet de la communication illustre ces réflexions avec des exemples français, en particulier la question des banlieues et de la politique de la ville depuis le début des années 80. On verra qu'en établissant un ordre spatial discriminant qui se focalise sur certains espaces, les politiques urbaines n'ont pas su prendre en compte les dynamiques structurelles de l'injustice spatiale, et ont contribué à affaiblir les mobilisations en faveur de plus de justice qui pouvaient se manifester dans les banlieues. En ce sens, le cas de la politique de la ville en France éclaire certains aspects de la relation entre espace, politique et (in)justice: on peut penser cette relation en termes d'un conflit autour de l'espace entre des pratiques spatiales officielles et des mobilisations politiques de la base. On peut donc s'en servir pour analyser géographiquement aussi bien la politique urbaine que les mouvements politiques locaux qui mettent en cause ou déstabilisent les politiques officielles.

International audience ; Cet article porte sur les questions d'espace, de politique et d'(in)justice dans le contexte de la ville. La première partie brosse un panorama des travaux existant sur la dimension géographique de l'(in)justice, la seconde utilise les travaux de John Rawls et Iris Marion Young pour conceptualiser la notion d'(in)justice spatiale: il s'agit de montrer que l'(in)justice a une dimension spatiale, produite et reproduite par des dynamiques structurelles. Il importe donc de considérer non pas seulement les manifestations spatiales de l'injustice, mais également les dynamiques qui les produisent constamment. Le dernier volet de la communication illustre ces réflexions avec des exemples français, en particulier la question des banlieues et de la politique de la ville depuis le début des années 80. On verra qu'en établissant un ordre spatial discriminant qui se focalise sur certains espaces, les politiques urbaines n'ont pas su prendre en compte les dynamiques structurelles de l'injustice spatiale, et ont contribué à affaiblir les mobilisations en faveur de plus de justice qui pouvaient se manifester dans les banlieues. En ce sens, le cas de la politique de la ville en France éclaire certains aspects de la relation entre espace, politique et (in)justice: on peut penser cette relation en termes d'un conflit autour de l'espace entre des pratiques spatiales officielles et des mobilisations politiques de la base. On peut donc s'en servir pour analyser géographiquement aussi bien la politique urbaine que les mouvements politiques locaux qui mettent en cause ou déstabilisent les politiques officielles.

International audience ; Cet article porte sur les questions d'espace, de politique et d'(in)justice dans le contexte de la ville. La première partie brosse un panorama des travaux existant sur la dimension géographique de l'(in)justice, la seconde utilise les travaux de John Rawls et Iris Marion Young pour conceptualiser la notion d'(in)justice spatiale: il s'agit de montrer que l'(in)justice a une dimension spatiale, produite et reproduite par des dynamiques structurelles. Il importe donc de considérer non pas seulement les manifestations spatiales de l'injustice, mais également les dynamiques qui les produisent constamment. Le dernier volet de la communication illustre ces réflexions avec des exemples français, en particulier la question des banlieues et de la politique de la ville depuis le début des années 80. On verra qu'en établissant un ordre spatial discriminant qui se focalise sur certains espaces, les politiques urbaines n'ont pas su prendre en compte les dynamiques structurelles de l'injustice spatiale, et ont contribué à affaiblir les mobilisations en faveur de plus de justice qui pouvaient se manifester dans les banlieues. En ce sens, le cas de la politique de la ville en France éclaire certains aspects de la relation entre espace, politique et (in)justice: on peut penser cette relation en termes d'un conflit autour de l'espace entre des pratiques spatiales officielles et des mobilisations politiques de la base. On peut donc s'en servir pour analyser géographiquement aussi bien la politique urbaine que les mouvements politiques locaux qui mettent en cause ou déstabilisent les politiques officielles.

International audience ; can be found at: European Urban and Regional Studies Additional services and information for http://eur.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts: http://eur.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:

International audience ; can be found at: European Urban and Regional Studies Additional services and information for http://eur.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts: http://eur.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:

International audience ; can be found at: European Urban and Regional Studies Additional services and information for http://eur.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts: http://eur.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:

International audience ; This paper provides an overview of French national urban policy for the period 1981–2002, organized around three themes: spatial conceptualizations of intervention areas and changing scales of intervention, discursive articulations of intervention areas, and legitimation of state intervention. By relating the transformations of this policy to the contemporary restructuring of the French state, the paper argues that although there are elements of convergence, the contemporary restructuring of the French state differs remarkably from a US or UK-style neoliberalization, partly because of the republican tradition emphasizing the active role of the state for the well-being of its citizens. This restructuring carries the signs of the strong state tradition in France, and is best understood as an articulation of neoliberalism with established political traditions, an articulation that I try to capture with the notion of a ''republican penal state''.

International audience ; This paper provides an overview of French national urban policy for the period 1981–2002, organized around three themes: spatial conceptualizations of intervention areas and changing scales of intervention, discursive articulations of intervention areas, and legitimation of state intervention. By relating the transformations of this policy to the contemporary restructuring of the French state, the paper argues that although there are elements of convergence, the contemporary restructuring of the French state differs remarkably from a US or UK-style neoliberalization, partly because of the republican tradition emphasizing the active role of the state for the well-being of its citizens. This restructuring carries the signs of the strong state tradition in France, and is best understood as an articulation of neoliberalism with established political traditions, an articulation that I try to capture with the notion of a ''republican penal state''.

International audience ; This paper provides an overview of French national urban policy for the period 1981–2002, organized around three themes: spatial conceptualizations of intervention areas and changing scales of intervention, discursive articulations of intervention areas, and legitimation of state intervention. By relating the transformations of this policy to the contemporary restructuring of the French state, the paper argues that although there are elements of convergence, the contemporary restructuring of the French state differs remarkably from a US or UK-style neoliberalization, partly because of the republican tradition emphasizing the active role of the state for the well-being of its citizens. This restructuring carries the signs of the strong state tradition in France, and is best understood as an articulation of neoliberalism with established political traditions, an articulation that I try to capture with the notion of a ''republican penal state''.