Suchergebnisse

Como es sabido, Humboldt y Bonpland concluyeron su largo periplo ame­ri­ca­no de casi 5 años con una corta e intensa estadía de casi 3 meses en los EE.UU., de Amé­rica. Como ya se estudió en un estudio precedente ('HiN' nº 3, 2001) en un inciso de su obra político-económica, Humboldt auguró el papel y puesto que muy segura­men­te habría de corresponderles a los nacientes Estados americanos en el conjunto del nue­vo orden mundial post-napoleónico. Sin que su obra involucrase a los 'jóvenes' EE. UU., en algún momento Humboldt dejó explícito que ese futuro pintaba muy diferente para los países hispanoamericanos, en particular en razón de las muchas barreras étni­cas, so­ciales, culturales y sobre todo 'vicios' heredadas de la colonia. Tales con­vic­cio­nes fueron compartidos en su momento por otros connotados 'ilustrados' alemanes, en­tre ellos G.F. Hegel quien además veía casi inevitable –y hasta necesario- un en­fren­tamiento –incluso armado- entre el Norte y Sur de América. Esto último, como precondición para que la 'razón', la idea' y el 'espíritu' pu­dieran renacer en el 'nuevo mundo' una vez hubiera concluida, tras la plena eman­ci­pa­ción iberoameri­ca­na, la dominación colonial europea en el continente; o lo que era lo mismo, para evitar el 'fin' de la 'Historia'. Después de 200 años de compleja y no fácil 'convivencia' entre los EE.UU., de América y el resto del continente 'suramericano', y después de haber fracasado Iberoamérica en al menos dos ocasiones por lograr una plena reinserción en la economía, política y cultura occidentales, los EE.UU., han tomado la iniciativa de ofrecer –e incluso forzar- una gran alianza continental que llevará en un cortísimo plazo –2005- a la formación de un solo mercado preferencial hemisférico, y si se quiere una única cultura económica americana. Una de las muchas preguntas que motiva semejante reto está en saber si los países ibe­­­ro­americanos han superados las aludidas rigideces y 'vicios' histórico-estructurales que en su momento denunció Humboldt; y por lo mismo, si persistiendo éstas, cara sus eventuales socios del Norte, sería posible que Ibero­amé­ri­ca, de la mano de EE.UU., y Canadá, podrá por fin encontrar un sitio adecuado –y por lo demás un papel apropiado y digno- dentro del nue­vo sistema mundial, ahora llamado de la 'globalización'. La mencionada inquietud constituye un nuevo reto para la 'ciencia humboldtiana' y por ello la posibilidad de intentar analizar el 'presente' con las mismas pre­mi­sas que en su fecha utilizó Humboldt para criticar la realidad hispanoamericana y en alguna forma presagiar su futuro inmediato. Es lo que, una vez más con la modestia que el intento exige, lo que se pretende plantear en este trabajo. ; As it is well known, Humboldt and Bonpland ended their almost five-years-journey throughout the American continent with a short but intense stay of nearly three months in the USA. As it has already been studied in a previous paper ('HiN' nº 3, 2001), Humboldt's political and economical thesis predicted the role and the place that would most probably correspond to the newly born American nations within the new post-Napoleonic world order. Afterward, Humboldt explicitly stated that not only the future but the present of the USA seemed very different to the one of the Latin American countries due to the many ethnic, social and cultural barriers, and specially to the many historical 'vices' that these had inherited from the colony. This conviction was shared with other 'illustrated' German thinkers of his time, such as G.F. Hegel, who thought that after the full consummation of the Iberoamerican independence from Europe a confrontation, even military, will be unavoidable and even necessary between the North and the South of the America as precondition for the rebirthing of the 'idea', 'reason' and 'spirit' into the 'new world'; it is, as precondition for the continuity of 'History'; in other words, for avoiding the 'end of History'. After 200 years of a complex and difficult coexistence between the USA and the rest of the continent, and after at least two failures of Iberoamerica to achieve a full reinsertion within the Western politics, culture and economy, the USA, having been a super world power for several decades, have offered, and even forced, a great continental alliance ('ALCA) 'that will lead in, a very short term (2005), to a unique and preferential continental market and, in some way, to a unique American economic culture. One of the many questions that arises about such a challenge is if the Iberoamerican countries have yet been able to overcome the mentioned historic and structural barriers and colonial 'vices' referred by Humboldt. And, if in despite of these barriers, would Iberoamerica, by the hand of the USA and Canada, finally be able to find an appropriate and deserved 'place' and 'role' within the 'new world order' of the so called 'globalization' era. This questioning is a new challenge for the Humboltian science and a possibility for it to analyze the 'present time' with the same premises used by Humboldt at his time to criticize the Hispano-American reality and to certain extent, predict its immediate future. This is what, with the required humbleness, this paper tries to formulate.

Como es sabido, Humboldt y Bonpland concluyeron su largo periplo americano de casi 5 años con una corta e intensa estadía de casi 3 meses en los EE.UU., de América. Como ya se estudió en un estudio precedente ('HiN' n° 3, 2001) en un inciso de su obra político-económica, Humboldt auguró el papel y puesto que muy seguramente habría de corresponderles a los nacientes Estados americanos en el conjunto del nuevo orden mundial post-napoleónico. Sin que su obra involucrase a los 'jóvenes' EE. UU., en algün momento Humboldt dejó explícito que ese futuro pintaba muy diferente para los países hispanoamericanos, en particular en razón de las muchas barreras étnicas, sociales, culturales y sobre todo 'vicios' heredadas de la colonia. Tales convicciones fueron compartidos en su momento por otros connotados 'ilustrados' alemanes, entre ellos G.F. Hegel quien además veía casi inevitable -y hasta necesario- un enfrentamiento -incluso armado- entre el Norte y Sur de América. Esto ültimo, como precondición para que la 'razón', la idea' y el 'espíritu' pudieran renacer en el 'nuevo mundo' una vez hubiera concluida, tras la plena emancipación iberoamericana, la dominación colonial europea en el continente; o lo que era lo mismo, para evitar el 'fin' de la 'Historia'. Después de 200 años de compleja y no fácil 'convivencia' entre los EE.UU., de América y el resto del continente 'suramericano', y después de haber fracasado Iberoamérica en al menos dos ocasiones por lograr una plena reinserción en la economía, política y cultura occidentales, los EE.UU., han tomado la iniciativa de ofrecer -e incluso forzar- una gran alianza continental que llevará en un cortísimo plazo -2005- a la formación de un solo mercado preferencial hemisférico, y si se quiere una ünica cultura económica americana. Una de las muchas preguntas que motiva semejante reto está en saber si los países iberoamericanos han superados las aludidas rigideces y 'vicios' histórico-estructurales que en su momento denunció Humboldt; y por lo mismo, si persistiendo éstas, cara sus eventuales socios del Norte, sería posible que Iberoamérica, de la mano de EE.UU., y Canadá, podrá por fin encontrar un sitio adecuado -y por lo demás un papel apropiado y digno- dentro del nuevo sistema mundial, ahora llamado de la 'globalización'. La mencionada inquietud constituye un nuevo reto para la 'ciencia humboldtiana' y por ello la posibilidad de intentar analizar el 'presente' con las mismas premisas que en su fecha utilizó Humboldt para criticar la realidad hispanoamericana y en alguna forma presagiar su futuro inmediato. Es lo que, una vez más con la modestia que el intento exige, lo que se pretende plantear en este trabajo. ; As it is well known, Humboldt and Bonpland ended their almost five-years-journey throughout the American continent with a short but intense stay of nearly three months in the USA. As it has already been studied in a previous paper ('HiN' n° 3, 2001), Humboldt's political and economical thesis predicted the role and the place that would most probably correspond to the newly born American nations within the new post-Napoleonic world order. Afterward, Humboldt explicitly stated that not only the future but the present of the USA seemed very different to the one of the Latin American countries due to the many ethnic, social and cultural barriers, and specially to the many historical 'vices' that these had inherited from the colony. This conviction was shared with other 'illustrated' German thinkers of his time, such as G.F. Hegel, who thought that after the full consummation of the Iberoamerican independence from Europe a confrontation, even military, will be unavoidable and even necessary between the North and the South of the America as precondition for the rebirthing of the 'idea', 'reason' and 'spirit' into the 'new world'; it is, as precondition for the continuity of 'History'; in other words, for avoiding the 'end of History'. After 200 years of a complex and difficult coexistence between the USA and the rest of the continent, and after at least two failures of Iberoamerica to achieve a full reinsertion within the Western politics, culture and economy, the USA, having been a super world power for several decades, have offered, and even forced, a great continental alliance ('ALCA) 'that will lead in, a very short term (2005), to a unique and preferential continental market and, in some way, to a unique American economic culture. One of the many questions that arises about such a challenge is if the Iberoamerican countries have yet been able to overcome the mentioned historic and structural barriers and colonial 'vices' referred by Humboldt. And, if in despite of these barriers, would Iberoamerica, by the hand of the USA and Canada, finally be able to find an appropriate and deserved 'place' and 'role' within the 'new world order' of the so called 'globalization' era. This questioning is a new challenge for the Humboltian science and a possibility for it to analyze the 'present time' with the same premises used by Humboldt at his time to criticize the Hispano-American reality and to certain extent, predict its immediate future. This is what, with the required humbleness, this paper tries to formulate.

[spa] La presente tesis doctoral, constituida como un compendio de tres publicaciones, aborda el fenómeno de la carrera dual adoptando enfoques teóricos y metodológico plurales, fundamentados en disciplinas tales como la sociología, la gestión y la psicología del deporte. El primer trabajo se centra en analizar la medida en la que el colectivo de deportistas de élite hace uso de diferentes servicios académicos de apoyo a la carrera dual, así como describir su relación con el nivel de éxito deportivo internacional y el nivel educativo alcanzado. En este estudio, enmarcado en el proyecto SPLISS 2.0 y fundamentado en el modelo de los nueve pilares de De Bosscher et al. (2006), 2160 deportistas de élite de 13 estados/naciones respondieron el cuestionario estandarizado Elite Sport Climate Survey. El examen de los datos y la identificación de relaciones entre las variables investigadas se realizó por medio de análisis descriptivos y de correlaciones, tanto a nivel global como a nivel nacional/estatal. Los resultados globales muestran una relación positiva débil entre el nivel educativo y el nivel de éxito deportivo, y una relación positiva mínima entre la disponibilidad de servicios académicos de apoyo a la carrera dual y el nivel de estudios. Sin embargo, el análisis por naciones/estados no muestra relaciones significativas en la mayoría de los casos. La investigación concluye que la promoción de las carreras duales es una responsabilidad moral de las naciones, y aconseja llevar a cabo más estudios similares en territorios que dispongan de contextos parecidos a nivel socioeconómico y cultural. La segunda investigación realizada se propone conocer las características organizativas de los programas universitarios de apoyo al colectivo de deportistas de élite en el sistema universitario de Cataluña. Partiendo de la teoría de sistemas abiertos de Katz & Kahn (1978), se analizaron diez programas universitarios de apoyo a la carrera dual por medio de dos técnicas complementarias. Por un lado, se llevaron a cabo entrevistas semiestructuradas a 13 coordinadores y coordinadoras. Por otro lado, se analizó el contenido existente en los sitios web de cada universidad. Los resultados exponen diferentes perfiles de estudiantes-deportistas de élite inscritos en los programas. Por otro lado, se describen carencias en ámbitos como la disponibilidad de recursos, la planificación o la legislación existente. Además, se aprecia una destacable influencia por parte de elementos como el profesorado o el sistema europeo de grados universitarios. El trabajo concluye que la voluntad política, un contexto económico favorable y la colaboración privada son elementos a tener en cuenta para el desarrollo de los programas. El tercer estudio busca investigar las principales demandas, barreras y recursos percibidos por estudiantes-deportistas de élite en las distintas fases de su transición de la educación secundaria al grado universitario en ciencias de la actividad física y el deporte. Asimismo, pretende identificar las trayectorias seguidas por este colectivo en función de la importancia subjetiva concedida al deporte y a la educación. Con base en el modelo de transiciones en la carrera deportiva de Stambulova (2003), el modelo holístico de la carrera deportiva de Wylleman, Reints & De Knop (2013), las fases de la transición a la universidad propuestas por Pérez-Rivasés et al. (2017) y las trayectorias descritas por Pallarés et al. (2011) y Miró et al. (2018), 11 estudiantes-deportistas que se encontraban en su segundo y tercer año del grado universitario participaron en entrevistas semiestructuradas. El análisis temático deductivo-inductivo de las transcripciones llevó a la formulación de tres temas: (a) cuestiones generales de la transición a la universidad, (b) cuestiones específicas de la transición al grado en ciencias de la actividad física y del deporte, y (c) trayectorias de la transición. Los resultados muestran que el estrecho vínculo entre el deporte y el contenido del grado universitario se percibe como el principal recurso en esta transición. Sin embargo, esta relación tan próxima entre ambas áreas también se percibe como una barrera importante, en tanto que las asignaturas prácticas implican un riesgo de lesión o de sobreentrenamiento que afecta tanto al desarrollo deportivo como al académico. Asimismo, se observa que la importancia otorgada al deporte y a los estudios es variable a lo largo de los distintos momentos de la transición, fenómeno que denominamos "trayectorias de transición fluidas". El estudio concluye proponiendo el diseño o mejora, por parte de instituciones educativas y/u organizaciones deportivas, de iniciativas orientadas a facilitar la carrera dual en el contexto de un título universitario altamente codiciado por el colectivo de deportistas de élite en España. Tras la exposición de las tres investigaciones que articulan la tesis doctoral, se identifican potenciales implicaciones prácticas de las mismas, y se proponen futuras líneas de investigación que puedan dar continuidad al trabajo desarrollado. ; [eng] The present doctoral dissertation, constituted as a compendium of three publications, addresses the phenomenon of the dual career by adopting plural theoretical and methodological approaches, based on disciplines such as sociology, management and psychology of sport. The first work focuses on analysing the extent to which elite athletes make use of different academic dual career support services, as well as on describing its relationship with the level of international sporting success and the level of education achieved. The study, framed in the SPLISS 2.0 project and based on the nine pillar model by De Bosscher et al. (2006), was conducted with 2160 elite athletes from 13 nations who answered the Elite Sport Climate Survey, a standardized questionnaire. The examination of the data and the identification of relationships between the variables was conducted through descriptive and correlation analyses, both overall and by nations. The overall results show a weak, positive relationship between the level of education and the level of sporting success, as well as a minimal, positive relationship between the availability of academic dual career support services and the level of education. In the analysis by nations, however, no significant relationships were found in most cases. It is concluded that the promotion of dual careers is a moral responsibility of nations, and is recommended to develop further research in nations with similar socio-economic and cultural contexts. The second research aims to identify the organizational characteristics of higher education programs which support elite athletes in the Catalan university system. On the basis of Katz & Kahn's open systems theory (1978), ten dual career support programmes were analysed using two complementary techniques. On the one hand, semi-structured interviews were carried out with 13 coordinators. On the other hand, the content of each university's website was analysed. The results show different profiles of elite student-athletes enrolled in the programs. On the other hand, deficiencies are described in areas such as resource availability, planning or existing legislation. In addition, there is a remarkable influence of elements such as the teaching staff or the European university degree system. The work concludes that political will, a favourable economic context and private collaboration are elements to be taken into account for the development of programmes. The third study aims to investigate the main demands, barriers, and resources perceived by elite student-athletes in various phases of dual career transition to a university degree in physical activity and sport sciences. It also aims to identify the transition pathways pursued depending on the subjective importance they attached to sport and education. On the basis of Stambulova's model of career transitions (2003), Wylleman, Reints & De Knop's holistic career model (2013), the phases of the transition to university proposed by Pérez-Rivasés et al. (2017) and the trajectories described by Pallarés et al. (2011) and Miró et al. (2018), 11 elite student-athletes who were in their second and third year of the university degree participated in semi-structured interviews. Deductive-inductive thematic analysis of the interview transcripts revealed three main themes: (a) general university transition issues, (b) PASS-specific transition issues, and (c) transition pathways. Our results show that the close link between sport and the content of the degree was perceived by the elite student-athletes as their main resource. This link, however, was also perceived as a major barrier as the compulsory practical subjects entailed a risk of injury or overtraining that could affect both athletic and academic development. We noticed how the importance they attached to sport or studies varied at different moments of the transition period, a phenomenon we termed "fluid transition pathways". The study concludes by proposing that educational institutions and/or sports organizations design or improve initiatives which facilitate dual careers in the context of a university degree that is highly sought after by the group of elite athletes in Spain. After the presentation of the three studies that articulate this doctoral dissertation, potential practical implications are identified and future lines of research that could continue the work carried out are proposed.

At first glance, it may be surprising to consider the German-Jewish born sociologist Norbert Elias (Breslau, 1897–Amsterdam, 1990) as a reference of primary importance for thinking about the future of democracy and citizenship in Europe and beyond. Until recently, 'classics' of historical sociology as a whole have rarely been considered as highly relevant for investigations of the present state and future of relations between political communities in the age of globalisation. Moreover, in Elias's work, which focuses on very long-term social (including political) processes in pre- modern and modern Europe, the major terms used in European Studies and in political theories on European Union – such as 'legitimacy', 'sovereignty', 'citizenship' or 'democracy' – are rarely mentioned. Elias was obviously not first and foremost a theorist of nationalism or a post-nationalist author. He would even have refused to be considered mainly as a political or social theorist, and even less as a theorist or as a philosopher tout court. Elias's first doctorate was in philosophy but he was to abandon that discipline in favour of sociology, an intellectual break that deeply shaped his subsequent thinking (Elias 1994; Mennell 1998: 7-9). Elias's sociology was then marked by the opposition between positive, descriptive or 'reality congruent' social sciences, on the one hand, and normative philosophy, sometimes denounced as unrealistic or utopian, on the other. In addition, he refused to consider politics or policy as a distinct sphere. Moreover, Elias's historical sociology, in its more political aspects, mostly seems interested in the genesis of the state (Elias 1996; 1997), as were such sociologists as Anderson (1977) and Tilly (1993). However, a closer examination of his work reveals the undoubtedly central character of the question of social and political integration beyond the nation state. This preoccupation is already present in the conclusion of Über den Prozess der Zivilisation (1997, completed in 1939), often considered as his magnum opus, which reveals that, at this early stage in his writings, Elias questioned the relationship between nation-states and democracy. He continued to do so in later essays, especially in the crucial text, 'Changes in the We–I Balance' (1991, written in 1987), on which I will focus in the following discussion, and in Humana Conditio (2010, written in 1985). Now, the nature of this 'link' – historical and contingent, or, alternatively, conceptual or necessary – has led in the past twenty years to a well-known opposition between the so-called 'post-nationalist' authors and the 'national republicans', in France, or the 'liberal' or 'civic nationalists', in Great Britain (see Lacroix 2002; 2004). Even though Elias did not directly confront the problem of transcending national borders in conceiving of, and implementing, democracy in European Union, his intuitions can be read in relation to these recent debates about the pertinence of the national-democratic and post-national paradigms. It is true that Europe in the sense of the actual European Union does not really receive close attention in his writings. Quite obviously in Elias's view, European integration, if it would really take place, should rather be considered as a first step or as a transitional phase towards a more global, worldwide integration. Nevertheless, he demonstrated through all his work how much historical sociology is relevant for thinking about European integration and the very nature of the European Union. In 'Changes in the We–I Balance', Elias did not explicitly examine whether democracy can, or should, exist beyond the nation state, although it appears quite obvious, as in Humana Conditio (2010), that the nation-state is not the end of history. The originality of Elias's sociology lies elsewhere, and is twofold. On the one hand, it is to be found in Elias's forceful suggestion that any immediate political problem has to be considered in the light of long-term developments (see Déloye 2000; 2008) and in an all-embracing sociological perspective. Recently, Stefano Bartolini's book Restructuring Europe (2005) is an exceptional attempt to adopt a genuinely long-term socio-political perspective in order to understand the centralising processes that led to nation-states and to European integration. However, it remains focused on politics whereas Elias's more comprehensive approach includes the domains of psychology and the emotions. On the other hand, Elias's originality consists of his determination not to turn observations into norms or values that could legitimate particular conceptions of politics. If one forgets that sociological, self detached, standpoint, then Elias's propositions might sometimes seem similar to nationalist ideas, of course referring to civic or liberal nationalism (see Miller 1995; 2000) that considers the nation as the 'ultimate horizon of a political identity', or at least to the notion that democracy cannot be detached from the national frame. First of all, Elias strongly insists on the importance of affects and emotions for all kinds of collective identities, including political ones, and for every social and individual process of integration. Furthermore, his writings lay great stress on the enduring importance of the 'national habitus' (Elias 1991; 1996), particularly in the case of the old European countries. Finally, Elias sometimes seems to define the community as founded on conflicts with outsiders, both inside the community (Elias 2008), at the cultural or national level (Elias 1996), and beyond (Elias 1991), which at first glance resembles the fashionable idea (after Edward Said) of 'the Other'. In this paper, I will challenge this 'national' or culturalist reading of Elias's work, a reading that insists on the importance of belonging to a national community that one can find in the French sociologist Dominique Schnapper's essay La communauté des citoyens (1994). I will show that Elias's intuitions, by giving a crucial role to democratisation processes, contribute much more to deepen, from a sociological standpoint and in a critical way, the conceptions articulated by the post-nationalist authors – first of all the concept of 'constitutional patriotism' advocated by Jürgen Habermas[2] (1998; 2000) and that of 'post-national identity' presented by Jean-Marc Ferry (1992; 2000; 2005). And yet, according to Elias, European union, European unity or European integration, is not, first of all, a matter of values or ideals, political will or belief. More generally and less consciously, the growing repulsion towards suffering and pain would reveal a growing emotional identification between human beings over the centuries, though most obviously within their particular nation-states. However, just like Habermas, Elias suggests that a democratic political community could not be entirely based on such a feeling, although it is a 'civilising' one. This is because of his rational preferment that leads him to argue that people should rather base their acts on an understanding of the reality of their social relations. Moreover, there is no reason to consider as typically European in any meaning of the term that conscience-formation process associated with a widening circle of mutual identification. Elias admittedly studied the civilizing process by focusing on modern Western Europe at first, but it has never signified that European people have to be considered as 'civilized', compared to others, or even 'more civilized' thanks to cultural specific features, or in the vanguard of such a decentred conscience-formation process thanks to a specific European process. Not only did Elias severely criticise all nationalist and Eurocentric positions but, in the twentieth century more than ever before, humanity as a whole has to be considered as the real social unit of reference in a wholly interdependent world. In what follows, I firstly propose to review briefly the main ideas of the theory of the civilising process from state formation to globalisation that provides the framework for a long-term historical sociology. In this first part I will emphasize the crucial question of the links between the nation-state and democracy in the twentieth century that constitute the background of the current discussion between (liberal, civic) nationalists and post-nationalists. Second, I will show how the question of post-national interdependence and integration appears as a central problem in Elias's 'political' sociology, that always considers distinctly and together national, European, and global levels in a processual way. Third, I will tackle what are, according to Elias, the main obstacles to post-national political integration in terms of the endurance of national habitus, and will insist on the importance of not conflating the sociological study of such a phenomenon with its political justification. I will end with some comments on Eliasian post-nationalism and on his 'realist cosmopolitanism'. My opinion is that the stimulating tension between Hobbesian and Kantian inflexions in Elias's work, already analysed by Andrew Linklater in the field of international relations theory (Linklater 2004; 2011), is interestingly questioned when post-national integration in Europe or civic patriotism is at stake. My hypothesis is that, from an 'Eliasian' standpoint, the sociological study of long-term historical processes would not only reveal what separates Europeans from each other, but also what (temporarily) binds them together, 'for better and for worse', and what (more definitely) binds Europeans to the rest of the world.

At first glance, it may be surprising to consider the German-Jewish born sociologist Norbert Elias (Breslau, 1897–Amsterdam, 1990) as a reference of primary importance for thinking about the future of democracy and citizenship in Europe and beyond. Until recently, 'classics' of historical sociology as a whole have rarely been considered as highly relevant for investigations of the present state and future of relations between political communities in the age of globalisation. Moreover, in Elias's work, which focuses on very long-term social (including political) processes in pre- modern and modern Europe, the major terms used in European Studies and in political theories on European Union – such as 'legitimacy', 'sovereignty', 'citizenship' or 'democracy' – are rarely mentioned. Elias was obviously not first and foremost a theorist of nationalism or a post-nationalist author. He would even have refused to be considered mainly as a political or social theorist, and even less as a theorist or as a philosopher tout court. Elias's first doctorate was in philosophy but he was to abandon that discipline in favour of sociology, an intellectual break that deeply shaped his subsequent thinking (Elias 1994; Mennell 1998: 7-9). Elias's sociology was then marked by the opposition between positive, descriptive or 'reality congruent' social sciences, on the one hand, and normative philosophy, sometimes denounced as unrealistic or utopian, on the other. In addition, he refused to consider politics or policy as a distinct sphere. Moreover, Elias's historical sociology, in its more political aspects, mostly seems interested in the genesis of the state (Elias 1996; 1997), as were such sociologists as Anderson (1977) and Tilly (1993). However, a closer examination of his work reveals the undoubtedly central character of the question of social and political integration beyond the nation state. This preoccupation is already present in the conclusion of Über den Prozess der Zivilisation (1997, completed in 1939), often considered as his magnum opus, which reveals that, at this early stage in his writings, Elias questioned the relationship between nation-states and democracy. He continued to do so in later essays, especially in the crucial text, 'Changes in the We–I Balance' (1991, written in 1987), on which I will focus in the following discussion, and in Humana Conditio (2010, written in 1985). Now, the nature of this 'link' – historical and contingent, or, alternatively, conceptual or necessary – has led in the past twenty years to a well-known opposition between the so-called 'post-nationalist' authors and the 'national republicans', in France, or the 'liberal' or 'civic nationalists', in Great Britain (see Lacroix 2002; 2004). Even though Elias did not directly confront the problem of transcending national borders in conceiving of, and implementing, democracy in European Union, his intuitions can be read in relation to these recent debates about the pertinence of the national-democratic and post-national paradigms. It is true that Europe in the sense of the actual European Union does not really receive close attention in his writings. Quite obviously in Elias's view, European integration, if it would really take place, should rather be considered as a first step or as a transitional phase towards a more global, worldwide integration. Nevertheless, he demonstrated through all his work how much historical sociology is relevant for thinking about European integration and the very nature of the European Union. In 'Changes in the We–I Balance', Elias did not explicitly examine whether democracy can, or should, exist beyond the nation state, although it appears quite obvious, as in Humana Conditio (2010), that the nation-state is not the end of history. The originality of Elias's sociology lies elsewhere, and is twofold. On the one hand, it is to be found in Elias's forceful suggestion that any immediate political problem has to be considered in the light of long-term developments (see Déloye 2000; 2008) and in an all-embracing sociological perspective. Recently, Stefano Bartolini's book Restructuring Europe (2005) is an exceptional attempt to adopt a genuinely long-term socio-political perspective in order to understand the centralising processes that led to nation-states and to European integration. However, it remains focused on politics whereas Elias's more comprehensive approach includes the domains of psychology and the emotions. On the other hand, Elias's originality consists of his determination not to turn observations into norms or values that could legitimate particular conceptions of politics. If one forgets that sociological, self detached, standpoint, then Elias's propositions might sometimes seem similar to nationalist ideas, of course referring to civic or liberal nationalism (see Miller 1995; 2000) that considers the nation as the 'ultimate horizon of a political identity', or at least to the notion that democracy cannot be detached from the national frame. First of all, Elias strongly insists on the importance of affects and emotions for all kinds of collective identities, including political ones, and for every social and individual process of integration. Furthermore, his writings lay great stress on the enduring importance of the 'national habitus' (Elias 1991; 1996), particularly in the case of the old European countries. Finally, Elias sometimes seems to define the community as founded on conflicts with outsiders, both inside the community (Elias 2008), at the cultural or national level (Elias 1996), and beyond (Elias 1991), which at first glance resembles the fashionable idea (after Edward Said) of 'the Other'. In this paper, I will challenge this 'national' or culturalist reading of Elias's work, a reading that insists on the importance of belonging to a national community that one can find in the French sociologist Dominique Schnapper's essay La communauté des citoyens (1994). I will show that Elias's intuitions, by giving a crucial role to democratisation processes, contribute much more to deepen, from a sociological standpoint and in a critical way, the conceptions articulated by the post-nationalist authors – first of all the concept of 'constitutional patriotism' advocated by Jürgen Habermas[2] (1998; 2000) and that of 'post-national identity' presented by Jean-Marc Ferry (1992; 2000; 2005). And yet, according to Elias, European union, European unity or European integration, is not, first of all, a matter of values or ideals, political will or belief. More generally and less consciously, the growing repulsion towards suffering and pain would reveal a growing emotional identification between human beings over the centuries, though most obviously within their particular nation-states. However, just like Habermas, Elias suggests that a democratic political community could not be entirely based on such a feeling, although it is a 'civilising' one. This is because of his rational preferment that leads him to argue that people should rather base their acts on an understanding of the reality of their social relations. Moreover, there is no reason to consider as typically European in any meaning of the term that conscience-formation process associated with a widening circle of mutual identification. Elias admittedly studied the civilizing process by focusing on modern Western Europe at first, but it has never signified that European people have to be considered as 'civilized', compared to others, or even 'more civilized' thanks to cultural specific features, or in the vanguard of such a decentred conscience-formation process thanks to a specific European process. Not only did Elias severely criticise all nationalist and Eurocentric positions but, in the twentieth century more than ever before, humanity as a whole has to be considered as the real social unit of reference in a wholly interdependent world. In what follows, I firstly propose to review briefly the main ideas of the theory of the civilising process from state formation to globalisation that provides the framework for a long-term historical sociology. In this first part I will emphasize the crucial question of the links between the nation-state and democracy in the twentieth century that constitute the background of the current discussion between (liberal, civic) nationalists and post-nationalists. Second, I will show how the question of post-national interdependence and integration appears as a central problem in Elias's 'political' sociology, that always considers distinctly and together national, European, and global levels in a processual way. Third, I will tackle what are, according to Elias, the main obstacles to post-national political integration in terms of the endurance of national habitus, and will insist on the importance of not conflating the sociological study of such a phenomenon with its political justification. I will end with some comments on Eliasian post-nationalism and on his 'realist cosmopolitanism'. My opinion is that the stimulating tension between Hobbesian and Kantian inflexions in Elias's work, already analysed by Andrew Linklater in the field of international relations theory (Linklater 2004; 2011), is interestingly questioned when post-national integration in Europe or civic patriotism is at stake. My hypothesis is that, from an 'Eliasian' standpoint, the sociological study of long-term historical processes would not only reveal what separates Europeans from each other, but also what (temporarily) binds them together, 'for better and for worse', and what (more definitely) binds Europeans to the rest of the world.

This is the story of the epic struggle for black equality in the 20th century told through the deeply intertwined life histories of the staunch segregationist and wealthy cotton planter, Senator James O. Eastland, and his sharecropper nemesis, Fannie Lou Hamer, who became the spiritual leader of the civil rights movement