International Conference, France – Université d’Angers, May 9-10, 2019
Co-organized with Université Paris Sorbonne and Université Savoie Mont Blanc
What are the foundations and the ideological, political, sociocultural and/or aesthetic and literary expressions which compose the multifaceted figure of the war correspondent during the Interwar Period, particularly in the Latin area – principally Italy, France, Spain, Portugal and their colonies, and Latin America – simultaneously a theater of conflicts and a supplier of correspondents for the rest of the world? How does the figure of a war correspondent differ from that of travel writers ? And to what extent are these two figures comparable or even identical? What were the impacts of the intermediate conflicts of the years 1918-1939 on the renewal of the role and function of war correspondents? And finally, bearing in mind that most of the above-mentioned conflicts were born as consequences of the imperial aims of antiparliamentary regimes with revolutionary designs (colonial wars or anti-colonial resistances, the internationalization of the red, black or brown revolutions, geopolitical tensions between democracies and totalitarian or authoritarian regimes, etc.), could one argue that the war correspondents of this transitional period were the product of these civilizational upheavals; and more particularly, to what extent were they the forerunners of the apprehended disaster of the Second World War, and the Spanish Civil War, – generally considered as its « dress rehearsal »? Although limited to Italy, France, Spain, Portugal (and their colonies) and Latin America, the papers can, of course, explore the question of war correspondents from other geographical areas as well (such as Germany, Great Britain, United States, Soviet Union, etc.), provided they operate within the Latin area.
The abstracts (3000 characters, including blank spaces: French, Italian, English and Spanish as reference languages) must be sent before 1st November 2018 to the following conference organizers :
Manuelle Peloille (Université d’Angers) : firstname.lastname@example.org
Olivier Dard (Sorbonne Université/LabEx EHNE) : email@example.com
Emmanuel Mattiato (Université Savoie Mont Blanc / LLSETI) : firstname.lastname@example.org
Scientific Committee :
François Cochet (Université Paul Verlaine),
António Costa Pinto (Université de Lisbonne),
Olivier Dard (Sorbonne Université),
Yves Denéchère (Université d’Angers),
François Hourmant (Université d’Angers),
Michel Leymarie (Université de Lille),
José Ferrándiz Lozano (Universitad de Alicante),
Emmanuel Mattiato (Université Savoie Mont Blanc),
Barbara Meazzi (Université Nice Sophia Antipolis),
Didier Musiedlak (Université Paris Nanterre),
Anne-Sophie Nardelli (Université Savoie MontBlanc),
Manuelle Peloille (Université d’Angers),
Francesco Perfetti (LLUIS Guido Carli),
Ana Isabel Sardinha (Université Sorbonne Nouvelle),
Frédéric Turpin (Université Savoie Mont Blanc).
Institute for Mediterranean Studies FO.R.T.H. (Rethymno, Greece)
10-11 October 2019
Art historians have long adopted the tools of the history of ideas, exchanges and transfers. They have thus been able to question the division between “center” and “periphery” and to nuance the binary hierarchy “dominant / dominated”, “transmitter /receiver” of influences, in favor of complex cartographies structured around dynamic networks (Joyeux-Prunel, Spring 2014, Fall 2016). Recent research has demonstrated the extent to which political and cultural history affects the transmission of forms and models and modifies representations (Messina & Jarrassé 2012; Fraixe, Piccioni, Poupault 2014). Art historians now take into account the games of mirrors at work in the factory of intersected identities, when the gaze turns towards these places “from where you do not come but from which we have passed” (Joyeux-Prunel, Spring 2016). Such a critical re-reading of national narratives helps to better understand the balance between nationalism – or, even regionalism – and cosmopolitanism and encourages us today to verify the heuristic potentialities of the notion of the Mediterranean in the field of art history.
While it is true that the question of the relationship between North and South has been addressed relatively often, circulations within the Mediterranean basin have been rarely dealt with (Gravagnuolo 1994; Troisi 2008; Maglio Mangone Pizza 2017). However, contrary to the canonical history of a modernity of essentially northern origin, another geography could emerge where the “south” would no longer play the conventional subaltern role, but the far more stimulating one of an active alterity (Other Modernisms 2011; Southern Modernisms 2015) in a much more diverse and multipolar space.
The chronological limits envisaged – 1880-1945 – take into account the widespread presence of a Mediterranean thought of the arts, be they highbrow or lowbrow, fixed to the avant-garde horizon or seeking their “futuro alle spalle” (Pirani 1998), exalting a universalist humanist ideal or pledging allegiance to the imagined third way of fascisms. Drawing on the roots of a popular or national culture, these modernities are characterized by a desire to reconcile with a reconstructed tradition. In the early 1910s, the Occitan regionalist Jean-Charles-Brun could even sketch the features of a “Mediterranean art” which would be the point of convergence of “Saracen” motifs, “Arab types”, Spanish, Byzantine and Lombard influences. This imagined Mediterranean is to be found throughout the first half of the twentieth century, from the Maurrassian evocations to the voyage of CIAM IV in the Aegean (1933), through the humanistic evocation of Valéry and the nationalist exploitation of the myths of “Latinity” and “Greekness”.
This search for a common aesthetic base is genuine; it underlies an uninterrupted dialogue between artists, critics and intellectuals running through the routes, real or ideal, of the Mediterranean.
The attempt to partially recreate this contrasting landscape in the light of a quest for modernity of multiple trajectories may seem a challenge, insofar as the values and goals of the movements involved are contradictory and are still being discussed. Nevertheless, this critical vagueness leaves open the possibility to explore paths that are still too often considered as off-center on a map of avant-gardes mainly polarized between Northern Europe and the United States.
The Sicilian Liberty style, the plastic richness of a Maillol – his Mediterranean (also known as Thought), exhibited in 1905, could be thought of as a manifesto –, the Catalan Noucentisme or rationalist currents inspired by the austere interiors of the fishermen of Ibiza, the Cyclades or Capri: these manifestations and many others, all born of a repertoire of undoubtedly heterogeneous representations, aren’t they but versions of a regressive “return to order” that pledges allegiance to the ideologies of colonialism, academic conservatism and fascism? Is it possible to define better and historicize the vague notions of “Mediterranean South”, “Latinity”, “Mediterraneanity”, Greco-Latin West, “Romanity” or “Greekness” (to cite but the designations we are familiar with)? Which artists, which creations, which “mediators” – art critics, journals, translations – are involved in the production of these images and discourses? To which extent do all these come to enrich the varied spectrum of modernities in the first half of the twentieth century?
The International Conference The Mediterranean of the Artists: A Critical Modernity 1880-1945 is the second stage of a reflection that started in Marseille (MUCeM) on 26-27 March 2018, on the occasion of a meeting entitled Modernisms in the Mediterranean: Artistic and Art Critical Paths, 1880-1950.
Papers for our next conference – The Mediterranean of the Artists: A Critical Modernity 1880-1945 – are expected to focus on the following themes:
– Artistic histories/historiographies of the notion of the Mediterranean.
– Fantasies and representations evoked by the Mediterranean in the field of visual arts.
– Ideologies related to the notion of the Mediterranean as formulated in the field of visual arts: progressive (line of Valéry, Audisio, Braudel, Camus), conservative or even reactionary (identitarian, racist, colonialist…).
– Inter-Mediterranean and North-South circulation of aesthetics, models, artists, critics and art theorists.
– Anti-modernisms: aesthetic ideals drawing on a rediscovered/reinvented Mediterranean past.
– Modernisms: aesthetic ideals that rely on a rediscovered/reinvented Mediterranean to promote a radical renewal of models in order to accompany, even influence and determine the technical, economic and social transformations that occurred at the turn
of the 19th and the first half of the 20th century.
These themes or orientations will constitute, with the conferences of the first meeting in Marseille, the contents of a collective work to appear in 2020.
– Receipt of proposals (250-300 words) and Curriculm (200 words) : before 20 December 2018. Send
proposals to: email@example.com and firstname.lastname@example.org
– Selection of proposals: 15 March 2019.
– Symposium: 10-11 October 2019
– Receipt of papers (4,500-6,000 words): 15 February 2020.
Papers will be in French or English.
The program will include abstracts:
– in English and Greek for papers in French,
– in French and Greek for papers in English.
– AMU-TELEMMe (Aix-Marseille University)
– LabEx ENHE (Ecrire une Histoire Nouvelle de l’Europe – André Chastel Center / Sorbonne University)
– Institute for Contemporary Publishing Archives (IMEC) (Caen)
– Institute for Mediterranean Studies, FO.R.T.H.
Rossella Froissart (TELEMMe / Aix-Marseille University)
Jérémie Cerman (André Chastel Center/ Sorbonne University)
Yves Chevrefils-Desbiolles (IMEC, Caen)
Evgénios D. Matthiopoulos (Institute for Mediterranean Studies, FO.R.T.H. / University of Crete)
Silvia Bignami, Antonello Negri, Paolo Rusconi, Giorgio Zanchetti (University of Milan)
Maria-Grazia Messina (University of Florence)
Pierre Pinchon (TELEMMe / Aix-Marseille University)
Isabel Valverde Zaragoza (Univeristat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona)
Marie-Paule Vial (Conservateur en chef du Patrimoine honoraire)
Rossella Froissart (TELEMMe / Aix-Marseille University)
Jérémie Cerman (André Chastel Center/ Sorbonne University)
Yves Chevrefils-Desbiolles (IMEC, Caen)
Gelina Harlaftis (Institute for Mediterranean Studies, FO.R.T.H. / University of Crete)
Poppy Sfakianaki (Institute for Mediterranean Studies, FO.R.T.H. / University of Crete)
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)?
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: ADroeber@dhi-paris.fr.
While the fate of war remains uncertain on the battlefields of the Great War, many French political and military decision-makers already have ambitious plans for post-war France, particularly in the East. Whether in the framework of the Franco-Russian alliance, its support for the Serbian kingdom or the attentive ear to independence demands within the Double-Monarchy, France intends to project its diplomatic, military and economic influence in Central and Eastern Europe, and reap the rewards in the event of victory. These ambitions are fulfilled first and foremost by political and military missions. One thinks of Albert Thomas’s mission with the Russian Provisional Government, then with the Berthelot mission in Romania, with the French military missions in Poland or with the young Czechoslovak army. The first bridges between France and the new states of central Europe are thus built very early.
Parallel to these reflections, as early as August 14th 1920, Czechoslovakia, the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes (SHS) and Romania promised each other armed assistance in case of aggression from Hungary. The two failed attempts to restore the former Emperor Charles in Budapest in March and October 1921 prompted the three countries to strengthen their ties. Several bilateral agreements are thus concluded: between Romania and Czechoslovakia on April 23rd 1921, between Romania and the SHS Kingdom on June 7th, 1921, finally between Czechoslovakia and the SHS Kingdom on August 31st, 1922. Nonetheless, this dynamic of mutual aid is relative, because the alliance is openly and exclusively against Hungarian and, to a lesser extent, Bulgarian revisionism. Therefore, the SHS Kingdom is not protected against Italian claims and Romania cannot count on any help against the Soviet Union, which still actively claims Bessarabia. Finally, the Little Entente is weakened by the absence of Warsaw, who maintains good relations with Budapest and a heavy dispute with Prague over the territory of Teschen (Cieszyn). These states are all beneficiaries of the status quo post bellum. However, due to their severe differences, these new regional powers had an interest in associating themselves with the major continental military power that was France in order to prevent the revisionist powers from questioning the regulation of the peace.
After the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, France can no longer count on the Russian ally of the first hours of the Great War. It is therefore seeking to establish an effective alliance in Eastern Europe in order to guarantee its security in the event of a German recovery. After some hesitation, especially concerning the policy to be followed with regard to Hungary in particular and the Danubian zone in general, it accompanies the movement initiated by the Little Entente and thus contributes to the development of diplomatic, economic, and strong military ties with the new powers that emerged in the wake of the peace treaties. Already linked to Poland since February 19, 1921, France joined forces with Czechoslovakia on January 25, 1924. By the Locarno Accords of October 16th 1925, Germany recognizes its western borders. On the other hand, with regard to its eastern borders, it only agrees to sign an arbitration treaty with Poland and Czechoslovakia. This situation prompts France to become more involved. A military alliance between Paris and Prague was signed on October 16th 1925, the very day of the signing of the Locarno Treaties. On June 10th, 1926 France initialed a similar protocol with Romania before doing the same with the SHS Kingdom on November 11th 1927.
Nevertheless, the alliances concluded between France, the States of Little Entente, and Poland are of very general scope and concretely inefficient. In this context marked by an undeniable reluctance to write tangible commitments in stone, how did the leaders of these countries seek to implement these diplomatic agreements? Though this theme has already been the subject of a vast literature during the past decades, the issue has been examined mainly in terms of bilateral relations between Western European countries and one or the other regional player, or in terms of the diplomatic dilemmas that powers like France or Great Britain could be facing. The political transition of the late 1980s and the prospect of enlargement of the European Union in the early 2000s strongly contributed to a renewal of these issues in the early 1990s. Since then, interest in this moment in European history has declined somewhat. The commemorations announced around the centenary of the end of the Great War offer the opportunity to reinvest this field of study, especially as a new generation of European researchers, multilingual has to explore and confront many kinds of national archives corpus and to analyse decision-making at the intermediate levels of the State hierarchy.
The aim of this conference is to shed light on joint initiatives between France and all the partner countries of Central Europe during the inter-war period, as it is their combination that forms a system of alliances. Proposals for papers should therefore focus on:
The crossed or transnational logics at work in the constitution of this system of alliances;
The military aspects of this system of alliances: armies’ joint maneuvers and the elaboration of common tactical schemes; officer training via military schools; personnel exchanges; interactions between staffs; doctrinal circulation and reception; circulation of military publications; the role of national languages and the French language as vectors of communication;
The political and diplomatic aspects of this alliance system: the development of joint strategic plans, the exchange of information and intelligence;
The industrial and financial aspects of this alliance system: the sale or loan of equipment, the terms of their financing, the formation of joint ventures or the acquisition of participations;
The technical aspects of this alliance system: the development of expertise in decision-making, the regulatory, normative and institutional reconfiguration of young states after the 1920s;
The role of actors and networks as animators of this system of alliance: diplomats, military, industrial and financial, experts and intellectuals, political parties …;
The “alliance culture” that countries of central Europe and France reciprocally seek to build in their public opinions;
The memories of the alliance maintained during the Cold War and as part of the construction of the European political project.
France’s collaboration with the member states of the Little Entente (Czechoslovakia, Romania, Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes) — and of these powers amongst themselves — will be emphasized, but communications on the ties with the other Allied Powers or partners from the region (Poland, the Baltic States and Finland, Greece, Turkey), and even with the revisionist powers (Soviet Russia, Hungary, Bulgaria) are welcome.
National traditions, circulations, and identities in European art
The short entries (7,000 characters) should be intended for a general public and offer a new reflection on European history. They will be translated into English (and into German in the mid-term), and could also be used for pedagogical and academic purposes in connection with our different partnerships (Maisons de l’Europe, Toute l’Europe, Laboratoire d’Innovation Pédagogique sur l’Europe).
We invite you to contribute to this project by drafting an entry on one of the following subjects:
Those interested are invited to contact the editorial managers for the proposed entries with an 80-word summary of the entry’s primary elements, emphasizing the European dimension of the subject and its relevance for a new history of Europe.
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.
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:
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?
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?
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?
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?
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 (email@example.com), Anne Jusseaume (firstname.lastname@example.org) and Caroline Muller (email@example.com ) before 1 March 2018. Candidates will be informed of the scientific committee’s decision by the end of March 2018.
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)
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)
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.
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.
– 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: firstname.lastname@example.org. Travel costs as well as accommodation will be paid for by the organisers.
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
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