Call for paper: Immoral Money and War Profiteurs (1870-1945)

The conference on “Immoral Money and War Profiteurs (1860-1945)” is part of a series of scientific events focusing on the topic of political corruption, organised by a Franco-German research partnership (project POCK2, ANR-DFG) between Paris-Sorbonne University, the University of Avignon, Darmstadt University of Technology and Goethe University Frankfurt. The collaborative project is also supported by research groups from the Autonomous University of Barcelona, the New Europe College of Bucharest, the Free University of Amsterdam, and is part of the International Scientific Coordination Network « Politics and Corruption » (GDRI 842 CNRS).

The conference will explore the emergence of immoral money and war profiteurs in times of war or in the post-war period in Europe (1870-1945). The “economic cleansing” that occurred in France after the Second World War is an example of war profiteering that has been studied by the CNRS research team (GDR) 2539 “Companies under the Occupation”. By contrast, the Franco-Prussian War in 1870 and the Great War have not been given much attention. This conference aims to analyse the allegations of corruption levelled against companies that were thought to have turned high profits in wartime or immediately thereafter. A special but nonexclusive focus should be given to French and German cases. Examples found in other European countries, from the last third of the XIXth century to the first half of the XXth century, may also be addressed.

While it is superfluous to stress the importance of wars as historical highlights, we shall emphasize how decisive wars are in defining public norms systems. Indeed, the potential contradiction between individual benefits and collective interest is increased during such conflicts. In this context, great sacrifices are made on behalf of community and national safety as patriotism is required from all, while unique economic dynamics emerge: hasty decisions are made in times of great uncertainty; public spending increases substantially and huge funds are injected in the war system. High profits may thus be made at a low cost by individual stakeholders, particularly in such sectors as military supply and army logistics. Influence networks prove to play a crucial role in such circumstances. It is mainly when wars have been lost that the gains achieved by war profiteurs are seen as unacceptable. Profit margins considered as unreasonably high, as well as speculative profits, are on the radar and deemed all the more scandalous since they have been made against a backdrop of general shortage. The topic of “immoral money” invites us to assess the importance of post-war periods rather than just focus on the conflicts themselves.


Topics could include but are not limited to:

– public debates on immoral money and hidden practices/malpractices during the 1870-1871 War, the Great War or World War II and their aftermaths – not only in France. Other conflicts may also be examined. Proposals that deal with the issues of war debts and reparations, especially in terms of the polemics they led to, will be welcome.

– the institutions that have dealt with this question in judiciary, political and parliamentary terms: focus may be placed on the parliamentary inquiry committees that have been established at the time.

– efforts should be made to put a figure on the profits made by specific firms as well as by entire industry sectors, however delicate the task may be – especially in the case of France, given the lack of a standardized business accounting programme until 1941, which is when the national chart of accounts was created.


Please send proposals (1500 characters max.) in either English or French before 1st March 2018 to and

The scientific board (composed of Olivier Dard, Jens Ivo Engels, Silvia Marton, Cesare Mattina, Frédéric Monier and Gemma Rubi) will examine and select the proposals.

Transport and accommodation will be provided to participants.


Upload file: CFP_Immoral_Money

Call for Papers: What is a Christian Man?

What is a Christian Man ?

Commitments and Masculinities in Europe from the Nineteenth Century to the Present

Workshop organized by the research axis 6 ‘Gender and Europe’ of the LabEx EHNE

To take place in Paris, 11th and 12th June 2018.


What are the ties between masculinities, religious practices and political commitments in Europe from the nineteenth century up to the present day ? A close analysis of men’s religious commitments will aid our understanding of both the politics and the construction of masculinities. These commitments take place in both private and public space, while men’s religious role within the family – hitherto little explored by historians – can also provide a new setting for historical analysis of masculine religiosity.

Male Political Commitments and Religious Beliefs

French historiography has emphasized the secularization of society since the French Revolution where politics gained to the disadvantage of religion. It is usually assumed that, as religion in Europe became ‘feminized’, men disengaged from religious practice (Fouilloux, 1995). At the same time, political history has revealed how anticlericalism became a vehicle for men to assert freedom of thought and democratic values in opposition to feminized religions controlled by clergymen with troubled masculinities (Healy, 2001). The ‘anticlerical man’ has become a historiographical commonplace (Lalouette, 2001).

While historians of women and gender have questioned the politicization of women, considering whether religious mobilizations were a response to their exclusion from the political and public sphere, few works have dealt with men’s simultaneous religious and political commitments (e.g. Harrison, 2014). Yet studies of Germany, Spain and Northern Europe have revealed that the configurations of religion, politics and gender vary between countries. Thus, an intersectional approach to masculinities, religion and politics on a European scale will enable us to overcome the limitations and specificities of national approaches.

Religious Practices and Masculinities

Taking for granted that men drifted away from religious practice, historiography often forgets how heavily such assumptions depend on statistics of attendance at Sunday mass. However, Sunday attendance is just one among many religious practices: processions or pilgrimages continued to attract a much more mixed group of participants, while there were also devotions or spiritual practices mainly endorsed by men, such as the Sacred Heart in Belgium (Van Osselaer, 2013). Other political or social commitments could become spaces where men defended religious values and ideas, just as we know that women invested some religious practices with political meaning (Della Sudda, 2007). Are there practices in which Christian men engaged as both religious and political commitments? Such an approach could also shed light on the continuum between male and female political mobilizations.

Historians often portray the working class as highly dechristianized, while the upper classes have a distinct masculinity fostered in charity circles (Brejon de Lavergnée). We would like to mobilize an intersectional approach that incorporates class and gender alongside religion to analyse what it means to be a Christian man as a peasant, a worker, a bourgeois or an aristocrat. To what extent could religion transcend class difference to become something shared and relevant to male identity in general?

Paper proposals could treat one or more of the following issues:

  1. Political commitment and religious identity: in several European countries, religion became an element in the definition of national identity, for example Anglicanism in the British Empire or Lutheranism in Prussia. Consequently, democratization and political participation does not systematically lead to anticlerical masculinities. How are modern masculinities defined in countries where political participation is compatible with religious belonging? On the other hand, in authoritarian or totalitarian regimes, does religion become a particular place where menseek refuge, or a form to resistance?
  2. The gender of atheism, agnosticism and anticlericalism: Distance from the Church runs a wide span, from a simple loss of personal faith through to open war against the clergy. A gendered approach to these attitudes would enrich our understanding of the various forms of estrangement from religious institutions. On the other hand, does the violence of anticlerical discourse strengthen men’s political and religious identity?
  3. Lay and religious masculinities at war: Wars and military conflicts are crisis times prone to define anew gender identities and political belongings. In France, comradeship at the front created a male fraternity that overcame differences between civilians and the clergy who were hitherto forbidden to carry arms. In civil and resistance wars, are clergymen ordinary men among others? Is religious belonging compatible with fighting and military obedience? On the other hand, how can religious discourse legitimate fighting?
  4. Christian husbands and fathers: As home and family became increasingly valued compared to religious orders, how did Christian men consider their role as husbands and fathers? How important are discourses about paternity and marital life in the self-definition of Christian men ? To what extent is home a politicised place at the turn of the twentieth century?
  5. The gender of religious emotions, beliefs and practices: In the wake of history of emotions, we would like to question the relationship between gender and devotional practices. Nineteenth-century religion, more centred on love and marital piety, insists on an affective relationship to God. How did men engage in this kind of piety and devotional practices, mainly considered as ‘feminine’? To what extent does religion create different norms of lay masculinity?


Organisation of the conference

The workshop will be held in Paris on the 11th and 12th June 2018. Presentations should last 30min, and be held in French or English. 

How to submit a proposal :

Paper proposals (half a page) including sources and methodological approach, should be sent alongside a short biography to Anthony Favier (, Anne Jusseaume ( and Caroline Muller ( ) before 1 March 2018. Candidates will be informed of the scientific committee’s decision by the end of March 2018.

Organising committee

Anthony Favier – Laboratoire de Recherche Historique Rhône Alpes (LARHRA)
Anne Jusseaume – LabEx EHNE, UMR Sirice/Centre d’Histoire de Sciences Po (CHSP)
Caroline Muller – LARHRA/Centre de Recherche en Histoire Culturelle (CERHIC)

Scientific committee

Matthieu Brejon de Lavergnée (Maître de conférences HDR à Sorbonne Université – Centre d’Histoire du XIXe siècle),
Bruno Dumons (Directeur de recherche, CNRS – LARHRA),
Julie Le Gac (Maîtresse de conférences à Paris Nanterre, ISP/LabEx EHNE),
Manuela Martini (Professeure d’histoire moderne, Université Lyon 2 – LARHRA),
Florence Rochefort (Chargée de recherche au CNRS, GSRL – EPHE/CNRS),
Régis Schlagdenhauffen (Maître de conférences à l’EHESS – IRIS/LabEx EHNE)


Bibliography :

  • Immaculada BLASCO HERRANZ, Paradojas de la ortodoxia, política de masas y militancia católica femenina en España (1919-1939), Zaragoza, Prensas universitarias, 2003, 433 p.
  • Matthieu BREJON DE LAVERGNEE, La Société de Saint-Vincent-de-Paul, 1833-1871 : un fleuron du catholicisme social, Paris, le Cerf, 2008, 713 p.
  • Magali DELLA SUDDA, Une Activité politique féminine conservatrice avant le droit de suffrage en France et en Italie : socio-histoire de la politisation des femmes catholiques au sein de la Ligue patriotique des Françaises (1902-1933) et de l’Unione fra le donne cattoliche d’Italia (1909-1919), thèse d’histoire sous la direction de Laura Lee DOWNS et Lucetta SCARAFFIA, EHESS, Université de la Sapienza (Rome), 2007, 816 p.
  • Étienne FOUILLOUX, “Femmes et catholicisme dans la France contemporaine”, Clio, Histoire, femmes et sociétés, 2, 1995.
  • Carol E. HARRISON, Romantic catholics : France’s postrevolutionnary generation in search of a modern faith, Ithaca : Cornell University Press, 2014, 328 p.
  • Róisín HEALY, “Anti-Jesuitism in Imperial Germany : the Jesuit as Androgyne”, dans Helmut SMITH (éd.), Protestants, Catholics and Jews in Germany, 1800-1914, Oxford, New York, Berg, 2001, p. 153-183.
  • Jacqueline LALOUETTE, La Libre pensée en France, 1848-1940, Paris, Albin Michel, 2001, 636 p.
  • Raúl MÍNGUEZ BLASCO, “Monjas, esposas y madres católicas : una panorámica de la feminización de la religión en España a mediados del siglo XIX, Amnis, revue de civilisation contemporaine Europe/Amériques, 11, 2012.
  • Tine VAN OSSELAER, The Pious sex : Catholic constructions of masculinity and feminity in Belgium, c. 1800-1940, Leuven, University Press, 2013, 271 p.
  • Timothy VERHOEVEN, “Neither Male nor Female : the Jesuit as Androgyne 1843-1870”, Modern & Contemporary France, 16, 1, février 2008, p. 37-49.
  • Yvonne Maria WERNER (ed.), Christian masculinity : Men and religion in northern Europe in the 19th and 20th century, KADOC-Studies on Religion, Culture and Society, 8. Leuven University Press, 2011.

Call for paper: The Peace Treaties (1918-1923): Making Peace against each other

International Conference

Place : Paris
Dates : 21-23 March 2019 Dead-line : 15 April 2018

Organisers: Isabelle Davion (Paris-Sorbonne University, SIRICE, EHNE) Stanislas Jeannesson (University of Nantes, CRHIA, EHNE)

The historiography of the post-WW1 treaties has evolved significantly in the last 30 years: there is now a general agreement that this less-than-perfect work represented a sincere attempt to rebuild an international system which would apply a number of shared principles and values. The 2019 centennial provides an opportunity to reconsider these treaties which opened a new chapter in the history of international relations.

The conference will be organised in partnership with the Center of Excellence Labex EHNE (Writing a new History of Europe) and the joint research groups SIRICE (Sorbonne-Identities, International Relations and Civilizations of Europe) and CRHIA (Centre de recherches en histoire internationale et atlantique). This project aims to:

– examine the treaties which were signed between 1918 and 1923 – from Brest-Litovsk to Lausanne- as a whole, in a global perspective, and thus, get away from a “Western-centered” chronology.

– decompartmentalize the national historiographies and reveal collective approaches, even transnational ones.

– consider how the treaties were enforced during the first years of their practical application : during this decisive phase which takes us to the signature of the Lausanne treaty and even beyond, the principles set by the Peacemakers had to be applied in the light of realities on the ground. The treaties contain provisions which allow progressive implementation and adjustments in various fields : territorial (plebiscites), military (occupation regimes), economic (definition of the reparations nature and amount), legal (question of minorities in East-central Europe and Middle East, mandate system, experts, League of Nations)… They were a work in progress, in which Great Powers and Successor states, victorious and vanquished belligerents had equal responsibilities.

From this broad perspective, we would like to set out three main lines of discussion that provide a basis for proposals for papers to the conference:

1. Notions and principles which underpin the 1918-1923 treaties, and amongst them: self- determination and minority status; the idea of a legitimate frontier; the question of responsibilities; moral and financial reparations. In each case, how and to what extent do the treaties reach agreements on these issues? Can we regard them as a consistent structure or should we still highlight national specificities? Or how the European notion of « minority » is applicable in the League of Nations universal logic?

2. The treaties reception in Europe and former Ottoman Empire, as well as in colonial territories and the United States. We intend to favour multinational and transnational proposals in order to avoid case studies and to contribute to a global history of the Peace treaties. What does it mean to make peace? How do people manage the period which runs from the armistice to the treaty? How do hopes raised by Wilsonism respond to the actual content of the treaties?

3. The enforcement of the treaties, during the years immediately following their signing. In an approach at various scales and at various moments, we would like to observe the conditions which accompany the organisation of a plebiscite, as well as the conditions which accompany the implementation of the new international order in Geneva. Old and new actors such as diplomats, officers, lawyers, experts, NGO, will receive particular attention. The question of the solidarity –or rather the lack of it‒ among the Peacemakers and victorious nations who were in charge of the treaties enforcement will be looked at: was the eventual failure of these treaties due –at least partially‒ to the collective resignation of the former allies when confronted with responsibilities involved in victory?

Paper proposals, in French or in English, are to be sent to the conference organisers by April 15 2018. A publication is planned.
To apply, please send a 250 word abstract of the proposed paper, together with a short CV, to: Travel costs as well as accommodation will be paid for by the organisers.


Honorary Committee

Michel Catala, University of Nantes
Olivier Dard, Paris-Sorbonne University
Robert Frank, Panthéon-Sorbonne University
Lothar Höbelt, University of Vienna
Hervé Magro, Head of the Diplomatic Archives, Paris Antoine Marès, Panthéon-Sorbonne University Marie-Pierre Rey, Panthéon-Sorbonne University Tomasz Schramm, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań

Scientific Committee

Balázs Ablonczy, Eötvös Loránd University
Étienne Boisserie, INALCO
Corine Defrance, CNRS
Frédéric Dessberg, Panthéon-Sorbonne University / Saint-Cyr Military Academy Sabine Dullin, Sciences Po
Frédéric Guelton, History Office of the French Ministry of Defense Jean-Michel Guieu, Panthéon-Sorbonne University
John Horne, Trinity College
Ross Kennedy, Illinois State University
Henry Laurens, Collège de France
Marcus Payk, Humboldt Universität Georges-Henri Soutou, Paris-Sorbonne University Florin Ţurcanu, University of Bucarest

Upload file: The Peace Treaties – CFP

Call for paper: The Cultural Heritage of Europe @ 2018 Re-assessing a Concept – Re-defining its Challenges

Paris, 4-5 June 2018, Institut national d’histoire de l’art

International Conference organized by LabEx « Écrire une Histoire Nouvelle de l’Europe », University Paris-Sorbonne

Concept: Michael Falser, visiting professor, University Paris-Sorbonne (2018) with Dany Sandron, professor, University Paris-Sorbonne

Deadline : 10 november 2017

Today’s globalized concept of cultural heritage is often understood as a product of European modernity with its 19th-century emergence of territorially fixed nation-states and collective identity constructions. Within the theoretical overlap of the disciplines of history (of art), archaeology and architecture cultural properties and built monuments were identified and embedded into gradually institutionalized protection systems. In the colonial context up to the mid-20th century this specific conception of cultural heritage was transferred to non-European contexts, internationalized in the following decades after the WWII and taken as universal.

Postcolonial, postmodern and ethnically pluralistic viewpoints did rightly question the supposed prerogative of a European Leitkultur. Only rather recently did critical heritage studies engage with the conflicting implications of progressively globalized standards of cultural heritage being applied in very local, non-European and so-called ‘traditional’ contexts. However, in order to bridge what academia often tends to essentialize as a ‘Western’ and ‘non-Western’ divide of opposing heritage conceptions, a more balanced viewpoint is also needed in order to update the conceptual foundations of what ‘cultural heritage of/in Europe’ means today.

The European Cultural Heritage Year 2018 – a campaign with unquestioned assumptions?

Right at the peak of an identity crisis of Europe with financial fiascos of whole nation states, military confrontations and refortified state borders at its continental peripheries with inflows of refugees from the Near East and the Global South did the European Council and Parliament representatives reach a provisional agreement to establish a European Year of Cultural Heritage in 2018. With affirmative slogans such as “We Europeans” and “our common European heritage”, the campaign intends to “raise awareness of European history and values, and strengthen a sense of European identity” (Press release of the European Council, 9 February 2017). However, with its unquestioned core assumption of the validity of Europe’s territorial status with simply interconnected borderlines of its affiliated member states and of a given collective ‘we’-identity within the European Union, this cultural-political campaign risks to miss the unique chance of a critical re-assessment of how a ‘European’ dimension of cultural heritage can be conceptualized in today’s globalized and inter-connected reality.

The “cultural heritage of Europe” @ 2018: towards a global and transcultural approach

The global and transcultural turn in the disciplines of art and architectural history and cultural heritage studies helps to question the supposed fixity of territorial, aesthetic and artistic entity called Europe, more precisely the taxonomies, values and explanatory modes that have been built into the ‘European’ concept of cultural heritage and that have taken as universal.

By taking into consideration the recent processes of the accelerated exchange and global circulation of people, goods and ideas, the conference aims to reconstitute the old-fashioned units of analysis of what ‘European cultural heritage’ could be by locating the European and the non-European in a reciprocal relationship in order to evolve a non-hierarchical and broader conceptual framework. With a focus on cultural properties (artefacts), built cultural heritage (from single architectures, ensembles and sites to whole city- and cultural landscapes etc.), and their forms of heritagization (from archives, museums, collections to cultural reserves), case-studies for the conference can address the various forms of the ‘cultural’ within heritage: its ‘social’ level (actors, stakeholders, institutions etc.), its ‘mental’ level (concepts, terms, theories, norms, categories) and, most obviously, its ‘physical’ level with a view on manipulative strategies (such as transfer and translation, reuse and mimicry, replication and substitution etc.).

Grouped along four panels in two days, cases-studies should question the concept of cultural heritage with its supposedly ‘European’ connotations and dimensions within artefacts and monuments by destabilizing at least one of its four constitutive core dimensions:

  1. Place and Space – from stable sites to multi-sited, transborder contact zones and ambivalent third spaces
  2. Substance and Materiality – from the monumental, homogeneous and unique of the artefact and listed monument to the transient, multiple, visual, digital, commemorated etc.
  3. Time and Temporality – from objects of permanence and stability to the temporal, ephemeral, fugitive, processual
  4. Identity – from the collective and cohesive to the ambivalent, contested, plural and/or partial and fragmentary

The Host and the Network, Dates and Deadlines

The international two-day conference in French and English will take place on 4 and 5 June 2018 at the Institut national d’histoire de l’art (INHA) and is embedded into the Laboratory of Excellence (LabEx) “Writing a New History of Europe – Ècrire une Histoire Nouvelle de l’Europe” at Sorbonne University. One of its seven thematic axes – entitled “National Traditions, Circulation and Identities in European Art” – acts as the principle host of the event: with a special focus on geography, historiography and cultural heritage, it looks at art history in the Labex perspective of finding both elements of explanations and answers to the crisis Europe is currently going through. Is conducted by the Centre André Chastel (the Research Laboratory of Art History under the tutelage of the National Center for Scientific Research/CNRS, Sorbonne University and the Ministry of Culture) as the co-sponsor of the conference. Finally, the conference is situated within the new Observatoire des Patrimoines (OPUS) of the united Sorbonne Universities.

The conference is conceived by Michael Falser, Visiting Professor for Architectural History and Cultural Heritage Studies at Paris-Sorbonne (2018), in association with Dany Sandron, Professor of Art History at Sorbonne University/Centre Chastel and speaker of LabEx, axis 7.

Abstracts with name and affiliation of the speaker, title and 200 words abstract of the presentation are due with the deadline of 10 November. Candidates will be notified on 30 November 2017.

The proposals for papers should be sent to :

Contact for additional information:

Michael Falserprofesseur invité à l’université Paris-Sorbonne chercheur associé Cluster of Excellence « Asia and Europe in a Global Context », Heidelberg University, Germany
Email :
Homepage :

Elinor Myara Kelif, Chargée de recherche et de coordination, LabEx EHNE axe 7, Centre André Chastel, CNRS (
Email :


Upload call for paper: Conference The Cultural Heritage of Europe

Call for paper: International Conference: The Paris Peace Conference of 1919 and the Challenge of a New World Order

International Conference to be held in Paris, 5-8 June 2019

Under the aegis of the Institut historique allemand (IHA)/Deutsches Historisches Institut Paris (DHIP), LABEX EHNE, Commission d’histoire des relations internationales/Commission for the History of International Relations

The Peace Conference held in Paris in the aftermath of the Great War remains among the most important yet also most controversial events in modern history. Although it is often considered to have made a second global war all but inevitable, it has also been praised for providing the basis for an enduring peace that was squandered recklessly by poor international leadership during the 1930s.

A major international conference will take place in Paris in June 2019 to commemorate the centenary of the 1919 Conference from a global perspective. The purpose of this event is to re-examine the history of the Peace Conference through a thematic focus on the different approaches to order in world politics in the aftermath of the First World War. A remarkably wide range of actors in Paris – from political leaders, soldiers and diplomats to colonial nationalist envoys and trade unionists, economists, women’s associations and ordinary citizens – produced a wide array of proposals for a future international and, indeed, global order. These proposals were often based on vastly different understandings of world politics. They went beyond the articulation of specific national security interests to make claims about the construction and maintenance of peace and the need for new norms and new institutions to achieve this aim. To what extent the treaties and their subsequent implementation represented a coherent order remains a question of debate.

By ‘order’, we mean in the first instance, the articulation and development of systematic ideas, institutions and practices aimed at promoting a durable peace that would deliver security, economic recovery and social justice. This distinguishes thinking about ‘order’ from discussions of ‘national interests’ – though there was of course overlap between these two modes of thinking about future international relations. Second, we are interested in ‘order’ as an analytical concept in its own right. This encourages historians to identify, as Paul Schroeder has urged, the shared rules, assumptions, and understandings about a particular set of political relations and to show how specific decisions reflect the norms of the order.

Emphasising the preoccupation of peace-makers with the problem of world order broadens the scope of the familiar questions and debates that have dominated the literature on the Peace Conference. It also opens the way for posing new questions and for thinking about more familiar questions in new ways. We therefore invite papers addressing the following questions:

1) What were the different conceptions of political, economic and social order advocated at the Paris Conference? What was the relationship between different ideas about the international order, such as a system based on national self-determination and one based on the rule of law? Were there broad overarching conceptions of an international order, such as liberal or socialist internationalism, that could accommodate more narrowly focused ideas such as free trade or labour rights? How did people conceive of the relationships between self-interest and order? What role did power politics play in conceptions of international order? Were the absentees from Paris – notably the Germans and the Bolsheviks – able to shape the debate about the emerging international order?

2) What were the origins of these different ideas about order? Why was there such an interest in the systematic development of particular orders both during and after the war? Who produced ideas about order, and why? What was in particular the role of NGOs and ordinary citizens? Can an approach based on different ‘generations’ of international actors illuminate this problem in new ways? Was the idea of ‘order’ a reaction to international politics before and during the war? Or did it represent a continuity with certain strands of thinking about international politics that pre-dated the outbreak of war in 1914? What was the relationship between the articulation of war aims and ideas about post-war order?

3) To what extent did contending visions of an international order shape the peace treaties? Did the organization and proceedings of the Conference reflect tensions between the national, the regional and the global? What was the role of regional orders in shaping broader conceptions of a new world order? To what extent did discourses concerning new regional orders reflect fundamental changes in the conceptualization of world politics? To what extent were they a repackaging of the more familiar themes of empire or spheres of influence?

4) How were the peace treaties legitimated to domestic and international audiences? Were subsequent negotiations on the implementation and revision of the peace treaties shaped by the profound debates about international politics that took place before and during the Peace Conference? Were conceptions of international order systematically subordinated to concerns about national security? Conversely, to what extent can it be argued that the Paris Peace Conference produced or contributed to a disorder in European politics that led ultimately to the Second World War?

5) What was the impact of the Paris Peace Conference on views of world order based on gender, class and race? How did women, workers and colonial subjects respond to the peace conference and what was its impact on the emergence of alternative voices in international affairs? Whose voices were heard at Paris in 1919 and whose remained silent or were silenced?

6) What political and diplomatic practices were implied in these various conceptions of international order? To what extent did these practices shape the course of international relations after 1919? Did the intellectual debate and political experience of the Paris Peace Conference play a role in shaping a future generation of leaders (such as Jean Monnet and John Foster Dulles)?

Paper proposals
The Conference organizers aim to ensure the conference provides a global perspective on the Paris Peace Conference. We are therefore particularly keen to receive proposals from scholars working on topics pertaining to the non-western world. The organisers anticipate securing limited financial resources to support delegates’ participation in the conference.

The conference languages will be English and French
Regardless of language, all proposals will receive serious consideration.

The deadline for paper proposals is: 1 June 2018
Please send your proposal (abstract in English or French of no more than 500 words) and short CV to:
Axel Dröber:

Download the call for paper: CfP Paris Peace Conference ENG

Call for paper: European stakeholders during the Revolutions of 1848

International colloquium 

Paris — May 2018

After the colloquium held for the 150-year anniversary of 1848 and its famous Revolutions, organized by the French « Société de 1848 » and which was a historiographic landmark, it seemed important, twenty years later, to shed a new light on this major event of the Nineteenth Century.

Firstly, we ought to answer to Maurice Agulhon’s repeated wish to know more about the stakeholders, insofar as the Dictionary of the French political leaders of 1848 written by the Nineteenth Century History Study Centre (« Centre d’histoire du XIXe siècle ») of Paris-Sorbonne and Paris-Panthéon Sorbonne universities, published with Agulhon’s support, is a new step in the thorough study of this period.

Secondly, we shall widen our field of study to encompass the whole of the 1848 Revolutions. The Nineteenth Century History Study Centre, the EHNE Excellence Laboratory (« LabEx ») whose main purpose is to write a new story of Europe, the « Société de 1948 et des révolutions du XIXe siècle », the Comity of Parliamentary and Political History (« Comité d’histoire parlementaire et politique ») and the Intercollegiate Cultural History Centre of Padua (« Centre interuniversitaire d’histoire culturelle de Padoue »), all fostered by the French « Conseil d’État », have worked together to organize this event, which will take place in Paris in May 2018. The main question will be the following: What  does it mean to be a stakeholder in the Revolutions of 1848? We will lean upon the notion of protagonist as defined by Haïm Burstin regarding the 1789 French Revolution, while paying close attention to the effects of stances in the geographic, linguistic and social fields.

To this end, an international open call for contributions is launched regarding the eight following themes. Whether the approach be specifically historical or rather multidisciplinary, whether or not it should use the prosopographic method, as a whole or partially, the statements will focus on one or several groups of stakeholders rather than on individuals. The circulation of stakeholders as well as the flow of ideas will be taken into account, just like the colonial dimension will be.


1) The new rulers and their entourage (ministers, cabinets, national leading elites…)

2) The parliamentarians (candidates, sociographic study of the elected representatives, including in a diachronic and / or synchronic comparative dimension, working in board, committee and session)

3) Stakeholders at the boundary of national and local matters (on the one hand, provincial, departmental, municipal elected representatives, stakeholders in peripheral, cut off areas; on the other hand, mediation of central authorities, prefects, government auditors and sub-auditors, magistrates, military men with territorial responsibilities, chancellors, teachers…)

4) International travellers: revolutionaries, utopists, outcasts (experiences abroad, circulation of models, transnational movements of brotherhood…)

5) Insurgents and forces of law and order: profiles, operational modes, representations

6) Social and gender stakeholders (bosses, labourers, women, members of clubs, members of charitable organizations…)

7) Spiritual and cultural mediators (national and local prides, priests of all ranks, members of the Freemasonry, writers, publicists, engineers, agronomists…)

8) 1848 stakeholders after 1848 (experience, public image…)


A conclusive round table will enable participants to draw up the most common profiles of European stakeholders in the Revolutions of 1848 and will strive to answer the main question of  the colloquium.


One-page long summarized proposals should be sent to the following email address before September 15, 2017. Communicating languages will be French and English.


Scientific committee

Eric Anceau (Paris-Sorbonne), Sylvie Aprile (Paris-Nanterre), Fabrice Bensimon (Paris-Sorbonne), Francesco Bonini (Rome Lumsa), Jacques-Olivier Boudon (Paris-Sorbonne), Philippe Boutry (Paris-Panthéon-Sorbonne), Matthieu Bréjon de Lavergnée (Paris-Sorbonne), Jean-Claude Caron (Blaise-Pascal Clermont-Ferrand), Delphine Diaz (Reims Champagne-Ardenne), Emmanuel Fureix (Paris-Est Créteil), Jean Garrigues (Orléans), Maurizio Gribaudi (EHESS), Louis Hincker (Valenciennes), Arnaud Houte (Paris-Sorbonne), Raymond Huard (Paul-Valéry Montpellier III), Dominique Kalifa (Paris-Panthéon-Sorbonne), Axel Korner (UCL), Jacqueline Lalouette (Paris 13), Jean-Noël Luc (Paris-Sorbonne), Peter Mc Phee (Melbourne), John Merriman (Yale), Silvia Marton (Bucarest), Sylvain Milbach (Savoie Mont-Blanc), Natalie Petiteau (Avignon), Vincent Robert (Paris-Panthéon-Sorbonne), Carlotta Sorba (Padoue), Jonathan Sperber (Missouri)


Organizational committee 

Eric Anceau (Paris-Sorbonne), Matthieu Bréjon de Lavergnée (Paris-Sorbonne), Pierre-Marie Delpu (Paris-Panthéon-Sorbonne), Delphine Diaz (Reims Champagne-Ardenne), Sébastien Hallade (Paris-Sorbonne), Louis Hincker (Blaise Pascal Clermont-Ferrand), Arnaud Houte (Paris-Sorbonne), Vincent Robert (Paris-Panthéon-Sorbonne)


Call for papers: Religious pluralism and social diversity: religions in the European public space

International conference: 3-5 October 2018 Nantes, France

“Identity”, wrote historian Tony Judt, “is a dangerous word”. Indeed identity politics today, often based on essentialized, ahistorical notions of religion and nation, call into question the bases of pluralistic, multi-ethnic and multireligious societies in Europe and beyond. This conference will explore some of the ways in which cultural and religious pluralism has always been a central element of European society and how it continues to be so today. We will look at how various European states have accommodated religion in general and diverse religious organizations, paying particular attention to questions of group identity and individual freedoms and of the distinctions between public and private space. We will remain attentive to the networks of exchange and the relations between societies and states in constant flux. We will bear in mind the constant question of the difficult definition of “Europe”, of which European states and societies we are discussing. Today’s Europe, often simplistically identified with a specific political project, the European Union, and with its relations with its Mediterranean and eastern neighbors, is not the same Europe as that of 1914, much less that of the Middle Ages or the 16th century.
The European confessional landscape has been both consistently diverse and constantly in flux. Religions constantly change, or perhaps better said, believers and practitioners constantly adapt their religion to changing social and political realities. Many faithful of, for example, Christianity or Islam, tend to think of their religions as eternal or immutable: calls to change or “reform” doctrine or practice are often pitched as efforts to “return” to a lost original purity of the religion’s putative apogee: the age of the Apostles, of the Prophet and his Companions, a thirteenth-century “Golden Age” of the Church, etc. This tends to essentialize religion and can lead to fundamentalism, and to doctrinaire rejection of rival versions of one’s own religion (Rabbinic Judaism/Karaism, Catholicism/Protestantism/Eastern Christianity or Sunnism/Shiism) and of elements of secular modernity. Such essentialization by those outside of a religious tradition can lead them to reject it as “backward” or incompatible with contemporary values of secularism.

Yet religions are constantly in flux: the diverse forms of Judaism or Buddhism practiced in Europe today are different from those found centuries ago, or those practiced in other parts of the world today.

This conference will explore Europe’s religious heritage through a series of five academic sessions on key themes (papers may be given in French or in English). It also proposes a series of workshops (in French) aimed at a larger audience, of professionals and policy makers, interested in the challenges and possibilities that diversity in religious practice and belief pose to 21st century societies.

Academic workshops:

  • Workshop 1: Defining religion
    What is religion? How have philosophers, theologians, anthropologists, jurists and others delimited the boundaries between sacred and profane? Religious and secular? To what extent are such definitions culturally specific? How and when do we move between a polemical opposition between “religion” and “superstition” to an apparently more objective category of “religions” in the plural? Can non-theocentric belief systems (communism, fascism, etc.) be considered “religions”, to the extent that they contain many aspects of religious systems?
  • Workshop 2: Secularization and pluralism in European society.
    Secularization has often been studied in terms of a binary struggle between Church and State. The attention in this workshop will be on the role of a plurality of religions in determining state attitudes towards religion and definition of religious rights, whether the role of Jews and Protestants in the first French Republic, the place of dissident Protestants in seventeenth-century England, or the role of Islam in twentieth- century Europe. Will twenty-first century Europe see a reaffirmation or redefinition of secularity? Or an accommodation with religious specificities in a “post-secular” world?
  • Workshop 3: Religious politics in Europe’s colonial empires
    From the sixteenth to the twentieth centuries, European nations ruled large colonial empires with tremendous religious diversity. This workshop will study the reactions of colonial powers to that religious diversity and the policies put into place, ranging from encouragement of Christian or Muslim missionaries, to policing and enforcing religious boundaries, to the manipulation of local religious elites and their recruitment into colonial hierarchies. Colonized populations used religious arguments and religious organizations in different ways, to navigate colonial structures, to argue for greater rights, or to oppose European colonial power.
  • Workshop 4: Religious pluralism in the Muslim world
    The attention in this workshop will be on how Muslim societies have responded, on the levels of theology, law, and practice, to religious pluralism. The legal category of dhimmi emerged in the first centuries of Islam, though in practice the status of dhimmi varied greatly between different Muslim societies. Since the nineteenth century, Muslim theologians and jurists confronted with the categories of secular law have had diverse strategies for defining the place of non-Muslims in Muslim societies and of Muslims in non-Muslim societies (principally Europe and the Americas).
  • Workshop 5: Religion in a globalized world: secularization, commercialization, re-enchantment.
    Increased personal mobility and revolutionary changes in communication technology have created a globalized market for religion. This workshop will examine the effects of these changes on religious practice and on the place of religion in European public space, on the organization and roles of traditional religious institutions and on the emergence of new institutions, but also on interreligious dialogue in European societies.

Submission guidelines:

Submissions are invited from scholars in all academic fields. We in particular invite submissions from PhD students.

Proposals for a 30-minute paper may be submitted, by 1 September 2017, to ipra@univ- Proposals may be in English or in French and should consist of:

  1. A .doc file containing:
    1. full name and affiliation of scholar
    2. title for the proposed communication, with an indication of in which workshop participation is proposed.
    3. an abstract (200-500 words) of the communication
    4. a list of 5-10 keywords
  2. A CV

Approval and confirmation:

The organizational committee will confirm receipt of each proposition and will respond by 31 October 2017, at which time contributors will be asked to confirm their participation.
Local expenses (hotel, meals) will be paid by the organizers for those who are presenting papers. Travel expenses may be paid in part or totally for those whose universities are unable to pay for travel.

Organizational committee:

Dominique Avon, Université du Maine
Arnault Leclerc, Université de Nantes
Michel Catala, Université de Nantes
John Tolan, Université de Nantes
Nicolas Stefanni, IPRA, Université de Nantes
Amanda Rio de Pedro, Alliance Europa, Université de Nantes

Programme committee:

D. Avon
A Leclecrc
J. Tolan
Jean-Marc Ferry, Université de Nantes
Christiane Gruber, University of Michigan
Tomoko Masuzawa, University of Michigan
Annick Peters Custot, Université de Nantes
Karine Durin, Université de Nantes
Céline Borello, Université du Maine
Vincent Vilmain, Université du Maine
Jean-Philippe Schreiber, Université Libre de Bruxelles Lionel Obadia, Université de Lyon II
Caroline Julliot, Université du Maine

Upload file: call for papers IPRA