Search results

Les expositions de tags et graffiti art organisées en 1991 sous l'égide du ministère de la Culture offrent un condensé des caractéristiques de la politique culturelle gouvernementale dite « des années Lang » : référents de l'action publique en matière artistique et culturelle, thèmes de débats et enjeux de controverses sont en effet pour la plupart représentés dans cette opération que l'on peut à maints égards qualifier de symbolique. Cet article analyse cette opération non pour une énième dénonciation des excès du relativisme culturel ni pour une démonstration du caractère «populaire» et de l'esprit «jeune» qui auraient animé l'action du ministère, mais pour analyser, à partir d'un cas précis, une question centrale pour comprendre les enjeux des politiques récentes en matière d'art et de culture : les conditions d'obtention du statut artistique et, plus généralement, du label «culturel». Quelles sont les conditions de possibilité de cette entreprise de légitimation culturelle et artistique ? Quels sont les moyens mobilisés pour la mener à bien ? Quels en sont les effets ? Quels types de réactions une opération de ce genre peut-elle susciter ? A travers ces questions, c'est la possibilité d'une production de biens culturels effectuée par des agents extérieurs aux instances traditionnelles de légitimation artistique qui est éclairée. Autrement dit, un ministère de la Culture peut-il constituer un espace autonome de définition de ce qui est artistique et culturel ? Plus généralement, une instance non-artistique peut-elle produire de la valeur artistique ?

The classic accounts of deliberative democracy are also accounts of legitimacy: 'that outcomes are legitimate to the extent they receive reflective assent through participation in authentic deliberation by all those subject to the decision in question' ( Dryzek, 2001, p. 651 ). And yet, in complex societies deliberative participation by all those affected by collective decision-making is extremely implausible. There are also legitimacy problems with the demanding procedural requirements which deliberation imposes on participants. Given these problems, deliberative democracy seems unable to deliver legitimate outcomes as it defines them.Focusing on the problem of scale, this paper offers a tentative solution using representation, a concept which is itself problematic. Along the way, the paper highlights issues with the legitimate role of experts, the different legitimate uses of statistical and electoral representation, and differences between the research and democratic imperatives driving current attempts to put deliberative principles into practice, illustrated with a case from a Leicester health policy debate. While much work remains to be done on exactly how the principles arrived at might be transformed into working institutions, they do offer a means of criticising existing deliberative practice.

Strengthening organizations and collective action in small-scale fisheries (SSFs) is crucial to safeguarding fishers' livelihoods and food and nutrition security as well as to fighting poverty and vulnerability. The crucial role of organizations in SSFs was underscored during the 2008 Global Conference on Small-scale Fisheries, held in Bangkok, Thailand, and the consultative workshops and related events supporting the development of the international guidelines for securing sustainable small-scale fisheries (SSF Guidelines). The United Nations declared 2012 the International Year of Cooperatives with the theme Cooperative Enterprises Build a Better World. This provided further impetus for championing fishers' organizations and collective action as important instruments and drivers in promoting responsible fisheries and achieving the twin objectives of human and ecosystem well-being. In this context, the workshop Strengthening Organizations and Collective Action in Fisheries was held at FAO, Rome, Italy, on 18-20 March 2013. It was attended by 26 SSF experts representing civil society organizations, governments and academia. The workshop anticipated the implementation of the SSF Guidelines by looking at the diversity of existing organizations and collective action in SSFs, discussing their strengths and weaknesses, and proposing elements for a capacity development strategy to strengthen organizations and collective action in SSFs to reduce poverty while promoting responsible fisheries. The workshop identified challenges and opportunities and examined alternative pathways on how organizations and collective action in fisheries can strengthen and be strengthened by the SSF Guidelines. This publication summarizes the workshop results and intends to provide a useful reference document that will feed into the process of implementing the SSF Guidelines, which should be endorsed by the FAO Committee on Fisheries during its session in 2014

Protest is typically rare behavior, yet the first decade of the twenty-first century has been named the era of protest. Successful protests bring masses to the streets, and the emergence of social media has fundamentally changed the process of mobilization. What protests need to be successful is demand (grievances, anger, and indignation), supply (protest organizations), and mobilization (effective communication networks). Motivation to participate can be instrumental, expressive, and identity driven, and politicized collective identity plays an important role in the dynamics of collective action. This volume brings together insights from social psychology, political psychology, sociology, and political science to provide a comprehensive and up-to-date analysis of protest participation, particularly to the question of why some people protest while others do not. It is essential reading for scholars interested in the social and political psychology of individuals in action.

Current literature stresses the significance of networks and network theory in both social as well as technical domains. Not only is the role of networked technologies (such as mobile phones and the internet) in everyday life being scrutinized, but network theory is re-shaping an understanding of how social change and community interaction occurs. In this article, I build on these developments to propose network action research as a methodological variant of the action research family. I propose that network action research is a timely and appropriate research methodology to guide studies that involve people, place and technology and to meet the challenges that stem from the changing nature of community interaction and social formations within a network society. I outline how technology can be used to operationalize and support network action research. Examples from two case studies are used to illustrate key aspects of the methodology.