Místo: Praha Datum: 6. listopadu 2020 Deadline pro zaslání přihlášek: 30. června 2020 Kontakt: firstname.lastname@example.org Organizátoři: CEFRES, ÚSD AV ČR, Collegium Carolinum v Praze
The history of psy-sciences under communist rule in the former Eastern Bloc has been widely perceived as a mirror image of state socialist mental health policies. In the last years, however, the situation has changed: the history of psy-sciences in communist Europe has become an evolving field of research dealing with a variety of topics ranging from the transnational history of psychiatry to the history of social control and criminality. Following post-Foucauldian ideas, many historians and other scholars started to turn their attention to the relation between psy-sciences and distinctive communist art of governing. The role of psy-sciences in communist dictatorships came to be perceived within a broader framework of biopolitics and technologies of the self. Furthermore, drawing inspiration from science and technology studies, many of these works aim to analyse knowledge and practices of psy-sciences in relation to complex networks of agents and objects.
Following these newest developments, this workshop aims to bring together researchers dealing with the history of psy-sciences in communist Europe. The main aim is to (1) discuss contemporary approaches, topics and themes in current research about the role of psy-sciences in the communist states of the Eastern Bloc and to (2) outline possible questions and issues relevant for future research in this field.
We are interested in papers from various methodological backgrounds dealing with the history of psy-sciences in communist Europe. We especially welcome papers focusing on aspects and questions such as:
Psy-sciences between East and West: circulation of ideas and practices
How did the production of knowledge and practices of psy-experts look like in Eastern Europe?
Were psy-experts involved in discussions with their colleagues from other parts of Europe or were they working in isolation?
Were psy-experts in Eastern Europe more influenced by their national scientific traditions or by globalising trends in the field?
Was there any forum for exchanging ideas and theories?
What kind of role had international conferences in shaping the knowledge of psy-experts?
Creating the ‘socialist self’: psy-sciences, identity and politics
How did the knowledge and practices of psy-sciences form the ‘self’ of people under the communist rule?
How was the concept of ‘socialist personality’ constructed and where was it operating (e.g. in mental health institutions, at schools or in the military)?
Was the discourse of psy-sciences subjugating or empowering?
What kind of ‘techniques of the self did psy-sciences produce and to what extent did people internalize them?
How did psy-sciences shape the communist art of governing?
Regulating the socialist society: psy-sciences, security and social control
What was perceived as ‘abnormal’ or ‘anti-social’ behaviour and how was it treated by psy-experts and the state?
How did the knowledge and practices of psy-science influence socialist criminology and penology?
How was the ‘medicalisation’ of crime integrated into the socialist criminal justice system?
To what extent did psy-sciences get involved public health campaigns propagated by the socialist state?
We welcome all contributions in different phases of research (e.g. an outline of research, a presentation of a chapter/article or finished research). Please send us a short biography (ca. 150 words) and an abstract of your paper (up to 400 words for a 20-minute presentation) before 30 June 2020. The workshop will be held in English.
Participants who are not able to secure funding for travel and accommodation will have the possibility to apply for financial assistance.
Pořadatel: Jakub Střelec (FSV UK/CEFRES)
Jérôme Heurtaux (CEFRES Director)
Adéla Gjuričová (Senior Researcher, Institute of Contemporary History of the Czech Academy of Sciences)
Martin Schulze Wessel (Institute Director of Collegium Carolinum)
Datum a místo: 27. února 2020, Praha Deadline pro zasílání přihlášek: 15. listopadu 2019 Organizátoři: ÚDU AV ČR a CEFRES Ve spolupráci s: ÚSD AV ČR a Université Paris-Nanterre Jazyk: angličtina
Interwar East-Central Europe gave rise to an international movement of left-wing activist photographers, whose aim was to expose the workers’ living and working conditions through mass-produced documentary photographs. Despite growing research in the wake of the landmark exhibition “The Worker Photography Movement” in Madrid in 2011, we still have difficulties grasping this photographic production in its full scope because the conditions in which it was preserved and transmitted over generations have not been systematically explored.
Originally, social, proletarian, or worker photography, as named by its proponents, was presented by the Communist propaganda as a weapon in the class struggle. It was meant to supply left-wing printed media with images documenting the life of workers in order to counteract the influence of “bourgeois” illustrated magazines. Therefore, some of the photographs were kept in the picture archives of newspapers, while others remained in the hands of their authors. The Nazi occupation of Europe brought about a shift in the conservation of worker photography by leading the Communists to hide or to destroy archives that were deemed compromising. As a result, picture archives in journals such as Arbeiter Illustrierte Zeitung in Germany, Regards in France or Rudé Právo in Czechoslovakia, as well as other archives of press agencies and leftist organizations across Europe, disappeared.
After World War II, however, many of these photographs resurfaced and were granted a second life. Some were moved to documentary collections of the Communist historical museums which blossomed in countries of the Eastern Bloc in the 1950s, while others were included in the photographic collections founded in art museums from the 1970s. Such transfers brought about shifts in the status and uses of these images. Worker photographs turned into historical documents or works of art, despite having been originally conceived of as news or reportage photography and mass-reproductions. Having become cultural objects in their own right, they were used for political or historical purposes. Today, this visual material still raises issues of status and past political uses, which art and history museums in East-Central Europe have to address through new museum practices.
This international workshop examines the legacy of worker photography as
museum object, cultural heritage and history in East-Central Europe from 1945
until today. How was worker photography preserved, historized, and mediated in
East-Central European museums? The goal is to provide a multifaceted
perspective on worker photography by confronting its political and historical uses
and its musealization (van Mensch 1992) after 1945 on the one hand, and
the memory issues it raises today on the other.
The workshop is part of the interdisciplinary and international sessions organized by the Photography Research Centre at the Institute of Art History of the Czech Academy of Sciences (https://www.udu.cas.cz/en/photography-research-centre/). Established in 2018, the Centre ambitions to become a singular platform for interdisciplinary research in the Czech Republic, with the objective of overcoming national, branch-based and mono-institutional approaches of photography and photographic history in Central Europe.
Papers are sought on worker photography in museum collections in East-Central Europe, addressing the following questions :
Contextual and ethical reasons that led to conserving worker photography;
Actors and institutions involved in this process;
Conservation and cataloguing procedures (themes, metadata and documentation);
Exhibition, mediation and display practices;
The political, ideological and cultural uses of worker photography in museums;
Historiography: uses of worker photographs as illustrations of official narratives, or worker photography histories, be they local or transnational;
Worker photography as evidence, historical document, work of art;
Shifts observed: from the private to the public sphere, from one medium or format to another;
Material forms: analogue (prints, photomechanical reproductions) or digital;
International exchanges between institutions and circulation of photographs;
Comparative outlooks on worker photography collections in East-Central Europe and beyond.
This call for
papers welcomes presentations from scholars, curators, archivists and
collection managers who engage with the questions of the preservation,
collection, exhibition and historiography of worker photography in East-Central
European museums after 1945.
Deadline for submissions: 15 November 2019
Paper proposals: abstract of up to 300 words for 20 minute talks and a short biography (c. 150 words) can be sent to Fedora Parkmann (email@example.com).
Conferences costs: Help with travel and accommodation costs may be offered to participants who are not able to secure funding from their institutions.
The workshop will take place in Prague on 27 February 2020 at the CEFRES (French Research Center in Humanities and Social Sciences). The workshop language is English.
Fedora Parkmann (Institute of Art History, Czech Academy of Sciences/CEFRES)
Christian Joschke (Université Paris-Nanterre, Paris) – scientific collaboration
Jérôme Heurtaux (CEFRES)
Petr Roubal (ÚSD AV ČR)
Petra Trnková (Photographic History Research Centre, ontfort University, Leicester/Vědecké centrum fotografie, ÚDU AV ČR)
Post-revolutionary hopes and disillusions. Interpreting, promoting and disqualifying revolutions.
Mezinárodní konference – Workshop určený doktorandům
Datum: 6. a 7. prosince 2019 Místo: Praha Deadline pro zasílání příspěvků: 30. října 2019 Organizátoři: CEFRES, FF UK, FSV UK, ÚSD AV ČR, ERC projekt „Tarica“ ve spolupráci s: IFP, Centrum francouzské civilizace a frankofonních studií (CCFEF) Varšavské Univerzity, Centrum polské civilizace Sorbonnské Univerzity, Vědecké centrum Polské akademie věd v Paříži, CNRS vědecká jednotka LADYSS (Univerzita Paříž 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne) a Polský institut v Praze Jazyk: angličtina
Under the frame of the international conference “Post-revolutionary hopes and disillusions. Interpreting, promoting and disqualifying revolutions” is organized a special workshop for PhD students and Master students to debate about issues and perceptions of post-revolutions’ situations in Central and Eastern Europe or elsewhere. This session will be held beside an academic debate, as well as a large public discussion about the topic.
2019 represents an important symbol and a major commemorative moment in Europe.
Marking thirty years since the collapse of the communist regimes of Central and
Eastern Europe, as well as fifteen years since their European integration, this anniversary gives rise to political, memorial and academic
initiatives throughout Europe. In a way, it does undoubtedly crystallize the
tensions and controversies surrounding the “1989 event” interpretation,
as it renews the assessment of countries transformations in the region since
the Velvet Revolution.
The political landscapes of post-communist countries provide contrasting
situations. Democracies and the rule of law have emerged everywhere in a
context of universalization of political and economic liberalism in Europe.
Nevertheless, several societies are experiencing current upheavals, which are
often described as illiberal, authoritarian or populist, or even as
Hence, the scientific production on the concerned societies, based on
tried methods of investigation and analysis, invite us to think and rethink the
“1989 event”, which remains a major moment in our contemporary
history, and the transformations that Central and Eastern Europe, as well as the
other European countries and the European Union, have undergone since the
collapse of communism.
This thirtieth anniversary is a unique opportunity to think about
revolutionary experiences and regime change in various historical contexts. Thereby, this conference aims at offering wider and new academic
perspectives on regime transformations and democratic transitions, through a
comparative approach. Post-Communist Europe will undoubtedly be one of our
focus, as well as the Arab world following the 2011 uprisings or the political
transitions in Sub-Saharan Africa. Thus, this unprecedented proposition is to offer
an equal value of those revolutions in our comparative analysis, without any
ranking based on success of failure.
The chosen perspective is to question
the object “revolution” in terms of contradictory investments that it
is the object of a variety of actors. To analyze the multiple interpretations
that the revolution raises: promotion, even sublimation; but also
disqualification, even outright rejection.
In fact, the expressions of
disillusionment that accompany a revolutionary episode is far from rare. If
there is a law of revolutions, it may be this one. The narrative of
disappointment occurs almost constantly, despite the great diversity of regime
change trajectories. It emerges from democratic regressions led by new
political actors, from the recycling of the old regime, a counter-revolutionary
process, the lack of any major social changes, or merely because the hopes
carried by the revolution were not translated into political acts. Yet common
in the public space, expressions of disappointment have barely been the object
of academic research.
Thus, here are some exciting questions that fully justify a comparative examination:
I-Describing and representing hopes and disappointments
Expressions of hopes, expectations, disappointment, disenchantment, disillusion, are multiple: discursive and political, as well as artistic, literary and cinematographic. What forms do they take in the Eastern European, Arab of African context? What are their lexical and moral registers?
How is shape disillusion following the so-called “Old regime return”? Are these objective or ideal facts?
What is the impact of social inequalities persistence, economic reform lack, fading of sovereignty?
Which individuals, professional and social groups are more like to express hopes and disappointment? Are hopes and disappointment expressed individually or collectively?
What are the post-revolutionary disappointment temporalities: immediate or differed?
Are all kind of disappointments expressed?
II-Understanding and explaining hopes and disappointment
It goes without saying that the expression of hope or disappointment is not only a matter of individual and collective psychological mechanisms.
What are the mechanisms by which hope and disappointment is built? What are the specific actors, strategies, circumstances into play? What are the particularities of the moral, ethical and political framework from which disenchantment is deployed?
As Bronislaw Baczko mentioned, recalling the “emotional climate created by the revolutionary fact, the upsurges of fears and hopes (which) necessarily drive the production of social imaginaries”, to what extent is emotional over-investment part of political effervescence?
Is disillusionment only the natural product of prior illusion? Disappointment would then impose itself as a mirror of revolutionary hope, but it is not reduced to it as long as one is not the natural consequence of the other: it is the moment where some create and exploit the disappointment that must be the object of the investigation.
What is the materiality of disappointment? How do political, emotional, psychological, social vectors articulate themselves?
III- Uses and Effects of Disappointment
What are the social and practical practices of disappointment? Does all or part of society share it? How do some political entrepreneurs exploit it as a strategy?
What are the disappointment consequences on scholars and experts’ perception of the post-revolutionary process?
Thanks to the richness and diversity of these
questions, this conference will gather specialists from several disciplines of
social sciences and humanities without borders, neither temporal nor spatial. We
will still be dedicated to contemporary Central Europe, the Arab world and sub-Saharan
Africa. The papers will have to mobilize original sources and be based on a
clearly exposed method (literary analysis, oral history, political sociology,
social psychology, etc.). PhD students and young researchers are particularly
encouraged to propose a paper.
Deadline for paper proposals (max 500 words) : 30 October 2019
Selection of contributions and feedback from the conference organizers: 10 November 2019
international conference is organized by CEFRES, the Faculty of Arts of Charles
University, the Faculty of Social Sciences of Charles University, the Institute
of Contemporary History of the Czech Academy of Sciences and the ERC
In collaboration with the French
Institute in Prague, the Centre of French civilization and francophone studies
(CCFEF) of the University of Warsaw, the Centre of Polish Civilization of
Sorbonne University, the Scientific Centre of the Polish Academy of Sciences in
Paris, the CNRS research unit LADYSS (University Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne) and
the Polish Institute in Prague.
This conference is the third in the framework of a cycle of three
conferences, entitled “1989-2019: Beyond the Anniversary, Questioning 1989”,
held consecutively in Paris, Warsaw and Prague, coordinated by Maciej Forycki
(Scientific Centre in Paris of the Polish Academy of Science), Jérôme
Heurtaux (CEFRES–French Research Centre in Humanities and Social Sciences),
Nicolas Maslowski (Centre for French Studies (CCFEF), University of Warsaw) and
Paweł Rodak (Centre of Polish civilization, Sorbonne University).
Due to limited funding, the organizers will be able to support some
prospective or underfunded participants. Hence, conference attendees are
advised to start exploring financial support from their home institutions or
Paris is looking for a PhD Candidate to join the “Justice, law and politics of
history in Central Europe and/or South East Asia” project funded by the CNRS.
This doctoral thesis will question, from a multidisciplinary
perspective, the relationships between justice, law and history (the latter
being considered as a sector of public action). The research work may
contribute to a diversity of fields, including the sociology of knowledge, the
sociology of the public uses of the past and/or the sociology of public action.
A consideration of issues of temporalities and spatial differences will be
needed. The project should lie at the intersection between political science,
history and area studies. Mastering one of the Central European languages is requested,
and if fieldwork includes a country in Asia, the idiom of this country should
also be mastered.
A least three issues will be explored: the judicial
writing of history; historians in the courtroom; the place of judicial matters
in the public policies of history – in particular war crime trials and/or
trials against political opponents. A consideration of the legal and
institutional frameworks within which history is written will combine with a
reflection on the political and social uses of history.
In the selection of case studies and the devising of
research methods, the student will build upon the literature on entangled
history, connected histories, and global history. The time frame of the topic will
be closely tied to the construction of cases. Empirical research may focus on
any segment of the 20th century.
The selected candidate will enrol in Sciences Po
Paris’ doctoral programme and will be part of the Political science doctoral
school. The doctoral student will work within the Center for International
studies (CERI Sciences Po), CNRS, UMR 7050.
CERI is a multidisciplinary centre for research in the
social sciences and humanities that brings together specialists of Russia, Central
and Southeast Europe, and Asia – among others.
The PhD will be supervised by Dr. Habil. Nadège Ragaru, Sciences Po (CERI-CNRS).
The doctoral student will take part on the collective
life and research activities of the center.
Constraints and Risks
doctoral contract includes an obligation to conduct fieldwork. The doctoral student will spend at least three
months per year doing field research in order to collect empirical data
(through participant observation, interviews, etc.). During
these periods, the student will be hosted by the Centre français de recherches
en sciences sociales (CEFRES), in Prague, Czech Republic. CEFRES is part of the
network of French research institutes abroad (UMIFRE). It offers administrative
and logistical support and constitutes a stimulating scientific environment,
connected with both local and regional research networks. Depending on the case studies chosen, fieldwork in
other countries may be required.
The candidate must hold a Master’s Degree in social sciences (history, anthropology, sociology, political science) with a specialization in Central and Southeast European studies and/or South Asian area studies. He/she must not be enrolled in another doctoral programme. Mastering one of the languages of Central Europe, Southern Europe and Eastern Europe is requested, and if fieldwork includes a country in Asia, the idiom of this country must also be known.
The doctoral thesis can be written in French or in English.
The PhD is funded. The selected PhD candidate will sign a “contrat doctoral” granting 2135 euros (gross salary) per month for a period of three years from 1st of October 2019 to 30th of September 2022.
The PhD is funded by the CNRS and is a CNRS doctoral contract.
The PhD candidate will conduct his or her work based at the CERI – Sciences Po in Paris, France.
applications for the funded PhD position within the framework of the CNRS-funded
project have to be made – exclusively by email – to the following address: firstname.lastname@example.org
Datum: 20. a 21. května 2019
Místo: CEFRES (Na Florenci 3, Praha 1), Centrum medievistických studií (Jilská 1, Praha 1) Deadline pro podávání přihlášek: 15. ledna 2019 Organizátor: Martin Pjecha (CEU, CEFRES) Organizován ve spolupráci s: CEFRES, Centrum medevistických studií (CMS), Central European University (CEU) Jazyk: angličtina
The second millennium of the Church is one of a connected series of “total revolutions”, enacted by those who had been promised Christ’s return and blissful paradise, yet experienced only desperation. Their hatred of this status quo, hatred of heaven’s absence, reached such a state that they fought to bring heaven into the world.
Dnes již klasický Eugenův Rosenstock-Huessyho výklad evropských revolucí,  od středověkých až po moderní, kladl především důraz na náboženskou perspektivu. Dříve bylo násilné svržení vládců nebo zničení hierarchií (zejména lidem) téměř nemyslitelné vzhledem k jejich důležitosti pro zachování “politického” a “náboženského” řádu. Po Rosenstocku-Huessym se však badatelé snažili upřednostňovat sociálně-ekonomická, politicko-ideologická, etno-lingvistická a obecně materialistická vysvětlení (závisejících na současných trendech) pro takové násilí. Toto vznikalo na úkor náboženského a teologického vysvětlení násilí. Íránská revoluce v roce 1979 ovšem náboženskou perspektivu zanesla zpět do akademického povědomí. Z interdisciplinárního pohledu bylo (a je) to, co je dnes označováno jako “náboženské”, považováno za jakousi vnitřní významovou strukturu, kterou revoluční činitelé vyjadřovali a informovali o svém jednání. Zároveň se tím zařazovali do existujících božích nebo nad-lidských myšlenkových směrů (augustiniánský, apokalyptický, mystický, atd.) nebo je pod vlivem nových či v té době znovu objevených myšlenkových proudů (humanista, sv. Jáchym, křesťanský platonista, atd.) dále rozvíjeli.
Moderní badatelé stále nemohou vybalancovat emické a etické vysvětlení revolučního jednání. Přesto přinejmenším od 14. století začala vznikat různá hnutí a myslitelé, kteří jasně definovali své násilné revoluční jednání teologickými termíny nebo způsobem, ve kterých pojmy “náboženský” a ” politický” nemůžeme oddělit na dvě odlišné sféry: Apostolic Brethren nebo Cola de Rienzo v Itálii, husité v Čechách, Thomas Müntzer v německých zemích, György Dozsa v Maďarsku, Lollards a Oliver Cromwell v Anglii. Do seznamu bychom ovšem mohli zahrnout i takové události, jako jsou francouzská, panevropská (1848) a ruské revoluce, které tradičně postrádají teologickou analýzu. Taková hnutí stavěla a vyvíjela se na dosavadních základních pravdách, jako je lidské bytí a dějiny, dokonalost světa a lidský vztah k Bohu. Jejich účelem bylo nejen legitimizovat násilné činy (post facto), ale i činitele motivovat, vést a informovat je při jejich cestě.
Cílem našeho workshopu je diskutovat o těchto otázkách a dále rozvést tato a další témata související s revolucemi od středověku po moderní období v západní i východní Evropě. Pokusíme se znovu otevřít historickou debatu o revolucích, které vážně zohledňují politickou i náboženskou stránku problematiky. Chtěli bychom zejména zdůraznit širokou geografickou a chronologickou oblast a uvést nové a interdisciplinární přístupy, které by zpochybnily již zavedené historiografické narativy. Ve workshopu budou účastníci rozděleni do tematických skupin a budou vyzváni reagovat na příspěvky ostatních. Mezi témata/otázky, které nás budou zajímat, patří:
Mají “totální revoluce” druhého tisíciletí společnou náboženskou formu?
Je moderní člověk narozen mimo revoluci?
Do jaké míry mohou být revoluce porovnávány, považovány za součást trendu či viděny jako jedinečné?
V čem byly “novátorské” kulturně / intelektuálně / nábožensky heterodoxní symboly, jenž vedly povstání a revoluce?
Pokud jde o vzpoury a revoluce, existují nějaká zvláštní období pro evropskou historii?
Do jaké míry “nové” myšlenky a tradice, které se vynořují z dřívějších období, ovlivňují pozdější nábožensko-politického myšlení až do současnosti?
Dr. Phillip Haberkern (Boston University)
Dr. Matthias Riedl (Central European University, Budapešť)
Dr. Jérôme Heurtaux (CEFRES, Praha)
Dr. Matthias Riedl (Central European University, Budapešť)
Dr. Pavel Soukup (Centrum medievistických studií, Praha)
Martin Pjecha (CEU/CEFRES)
Žádáme zájemce, aby poslali do 15. ledna 2019 Martinovi Pjechovi (Pjecha_Martin@phd.ceu.edu) stručný abstrakt jejich 20-ti minutového příspěvku (200-300 slov). Měli by se zejména zaměřit na to, jak jejich příspěvek může přispět k tématu workshopu. Přednášející by měli být připraveni zapojit se do živých diskusí v angličtině týkajících se příspěvků účastníků a dalších témat.
Omezené finanční příspěvky na cestu do Prahy budou k dispozici pro ty, kteří nemají příležitosti využít financování od své instituce. Prosím zašlete nám svou žádost o finanční příspěvek spolu s abstraktem.
 Wayne Cristaudo, “Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/rosenstock-huessy/>.
 Zvláště v jeho Die europäischen Revolutionen und der Charakter der Nationen (1931).
Organizovaný výzkumným týmem projektu Bewildering Boar – Aníbal Arregui, Luděk Brož, Marianna Szczygielska, Virginie Vaté a Erica von Essen (Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences)
Datum: 16.-17. října 2018 Místo: bude upřesněno Jazyk: angličtina