CFP: Photography and Resistance – MAI: Feminism & Visual Culture

MAI: Feminism & Visual Culture invites authors with expertise in visual and cultural studies, as well as in related disciplines, to contribute to our new focus issue on photography and resistance. The issue will be co-edited with Dr Kylie Thomas, a Marie Skłodowska-Curie, Research Fellow at the Netherlands Institute for War, Holocaust and Genocide Studies.

We are particularly interested in contributions that critically illuminate the lives and work of women and non-binary photographers, particularly those who have drawn on the insights and practices of intersectional feminism and anti-racism.

Background & Inspiration

Photography, as Yvonne Vera writes, ‘has often brought forth the most loaded fraction of time, a calcification of the most unequal, brutal, and undemocratic moment of human encounter’ (Vera 1999). It has also been used as a form of resistance to repressive regimes, to oppose war and violence, and as a means of challenging heteronormative patriarchy. It can serve as a tool of critique, granting visibility to events, people or demonstrations of power that are otherwise not intended to be seen. And, feminist and LGBTQ+ photographers have taken up cameras to produce entirely new visual vocabularies, to reimagine the world and challenge hegemonic ways of seeing.

How women and non-binary photographers made use of the medium as a form of resistance came into clear view at the time of the Second World War. One example of photographers working at that time was Claude Cahun, whose photomontages reinvented the human form and refused normative conceptions of the body.

In 1937, Cahun moved to the Isle of Jersey with her partner Suzanne Malherbe, who practised as an artist under the name Marcel Moore. From the start of the German occupation of the island in July 1940 until they were arrested in 1944 and sentenced to death for their resistance activities, Cahun and Moore produced pamphlets and visual materials that they distributed across the island in defiance of the Nazi occupation (Thynne 2010).

Elsewhere, photographers such as Emmy Andriesse, Eva Besnyö and Violette Cornelius formed a photographers’ organisation in the Dutch resistance movement, known as De Ondergedoken Camera (The Hidden Camera). And, once she obtained forged papers, Andriesse, who was Jewish, documented the occupation of Amsterdam at the risk of being murdered by the Nazis (Baring 2013).

Later, in the United States, Doris Derby, Diana Davies, Ruth-Marion Baruch, and Maria Varela documented the Civil Rights Movement (Speltz 2016).

In the US, Nan Goldin’s intimate portraits of her friends, shot over several decades and through the height of the HIV/AIDS pandemic, refused state-prescribed moralising and the silencing of alternative forms of kinship (Junge 2016).

Another visual activist, Zanele Muholi has used photography as a way not only to honour the lives of LGBTQI+ Black Africans, but also as a form of advocacy in campaigns against homophobic hate crimes (Baderoon 2011; Lewin 2019).

More recently, Nona Faustine’s ‘White Shoes’ series (2014) consisted of images of the artist in locations around New York City that evoked the repressed history of slavery in the United States. Her work reclaimed the Black female body as a source and site of resistance against the violence of both the past and the present (Diabate 2020).

By no means has such work been limited to the West. For example, Her Pixel Story in Kashmir, the Thuma Collective in Myanmar, and the Kaali Collective in Bangladesh are contemporary photography collectives making use of the medium to resist repressive regimes.

In South Africa, the 1980s saw Lesley Lawson, Deseni Moodliar, Zubeida Vallie and Gille de Vlieg joining Afrapix, the anti-apartheid photography collective. Many of their images drew attention to the vital role played by women in the struggle for freedom in South Africa (Lawson 1985; Comley, Hallett & Ntsoma 2006).

In the last decade, women and non-binary activist-photographers have taken part in resistance movements across the world, from the Arab Spring to Black Lives Matter. Recent exhibitions, such as ‘Still I Rise: Feminisms, Gender, Resistance. Act 2’, at the De La Warr Pavilion (2018), ‘Another Eye: Women Refugee Photographers’ in Britain after 1933 at Four Corners (2020), and a major solo show of the work of Zanele Muholi at the Tate Modern, (2020), all testify to the growing interest in this field.

However, the ways in which women and non-binary artists, writers, (art) historians, thinkers and activists have made use of photography as a form of resistance remain under-researched. Therefore, to contribute to the field of feminist studies, this focus issue of MAI intends to honour female resistance in photography and critically engage with such work via contemporary and historical analysis.

Suggested (but not Exclusive) Areas of Examination:

Feminist/LGBTQI+/anti-racist artists and activists’ photography as a form of resistance (formal, content, discursive & circulation analysis)
Women and non-binary photographers documenting conflict, protest and political violence
Circulation and reception of photographs by women and non-binary photographers during times of conflict and war (feminist publications/posters/activism/resistance archives)
Women and non-binary photographers who participated in resistance movements during the Second World War
Women and non-binary photographers who formed part of, and documented anti-hegemonic (anti-colonial, anti-communist, anti-capitalist, anti-apartheid) struggles
Photographers who have visualised their bodies as forms of resistance to racist, heteronormative patriarchy (such as Berni Searle, Nona Faustine, Zanele Muholi)
Photographers whose work provides a form of resistance to cultural amnesia and systemic erasures
Contributions that focus on the under-researched topic of the work of women and non-binary photographers from the Majority World.
300-500-word Abstracts Deadline: 12 December 2020

Full Articles Deadline: 30 May 2021

MAI considers submissions in the following formats:

academic research articles (6000-8000 words)
interviews (1000-3000 words)
creative writing (poems, short stories, creative responses, max 3000 words)
video essays (5-10 min + a brief supporting statement 800-1000 words)
photographs, visual/audiovisual or interactive art
All articles will be peer-reviewed.

Proposed publication date: the first half of 2022.

MAI formatting guidelines: 
Please send your abstracts to kyliethomas.south(at) & contact(at)

CFP: Patriarchal backlashes to feminism in times of crisis (EJES)

Call for papers for EJES Volume 26 (2022)

The editors of EJES are issuing calls for papers for the three issues of the journal to be published in 2022. Potential contributors are reminded that EJES operates a two-stage review process. The first is based on the submission of detailed proposals (up to 1,000 words) and results in invitations to submit full essays from which a final selection is then made. The deadline for essay proposals for this volume is 30 November 2020, with delivery of completed essays in the spring of 2021 and publication in Volume 26 (2022).


EJES operates a two-stage review process.

  1. Contributors are invited to submit proposals for essays on the topic in question by 30 November 2020.
  2. Following review of the proposals by the editorial board panel, informed by external specialists as appropriate, the guest editors will invite the authors of short-listed proposals to submit full-length essays for review with a spring 2021 deadline.
  3. The full-length essays undergo another round of review, and a final selection as well as suggestions for revisions are made. Selected essays are then revised and resubmitted to the guest editors in late 2021 for publication in 2022.

EJES employs Chicago Style (T&F Chicago AD) and British English conventions for spelling.

Patriarchal backlashes to feminism in times of crisis

“Plus ça change, moins ça change.”

Guest editors: Florence Binard (University of Paris) and Renate Haas (University of Kiel)

Susan Faludi’s bestseller Backlash was first published in 1991, nearly 30 years ago, and yet its message seems to resonate more clearly than ever. It highlighted the pervasive and prevalent reaction of patriarchy (defined broadly as a system of society based on male domination) to the advance of women’s rights. Faludi analysed glossy magazines, movies, TV programmes, the New Right’s war on women, and the neofeminist stance as well as “polished” political discourse and showed that whatever the medium/organ/channel, women from all walks of life were openly or insidiously coaxed and cajoled into fulfilling their so-called natural role as homemakers.

Since then, new technologies and their channels of dissemination have proven to be useful tools for women and feminists to spread their views. But these means of communication are also the vehicles for antifeminist propaganda which is damaging to women’s rights. The achievements of the past are under threat in a growing number of countries if they have not already been reversed. This includes the right to contraception, abortion, education, work, etc. “Freedom of” and “freedom to” remain never-ending battles for women all over the world.

This special issue asks what has happened in Europe between the publication of Faludi’s book and the present in terms of backlash.

Researchers from the different parts of Europe and all disciplines included in ESSE are invited to submit essay proposals. Some of the topics might include:

  • Identifying “true” feminist politics in contemporary society
  • Universal rights versus group rights
  • Accusations of cultural appropriation/state multiculturalism vs women’s rights
  • Untruths used and abused in the current social discourse
  • Visual discourse in advertisement
  • Anti-feminist governmental practices
  • Internet trolls

Detailed proposals (up to 1,000 words) for full essays (7,500 words), as well as a short biography (max. 100 words) should be sent to the editors by 30 November 2020:
Florence Binard ( and Renate Haas (

CFP: Sites of Feminist Memory

Sites of Feminist Memory: Remembering suffrage in Europe and the United States of America

Conference dates: 12-13 May 2020 – Aix en Provence

Keynote speaker:
Dr Sharon Crozier-de Rosa (University of Wollongong), co-author of Remembering Women’s Activism
, Routledge, 2019.

On April 24th 2018, suffragist leader Millicent Garrett Fawcett became the first woman to be honoured with a permanent statue in Parliament Square, one hundred and eighty six years after George Canning, the first of her 11 male predecessors[1]. The unveiling was the culmination of a two-year campaign initiated by activist Caroline Criado Perez. The choice of Fawcett sparked vigorous debate amongst activists and academics alike[2]. Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, the coming centenary of the ratification of the 19th Amendment has inspired #Monumental Women, a grassroots organization, to mount a campaign for the commissioning of a statue honouring the suffrage leaders Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony. This campaign also triggered vigorous accusations that the monument would “white wash” the suffrage past, accusations which resulted in the decision to add the African-American leader Sojourner Truth to the monument[3]. Its unveiling is planned for August 26, 2020 in Central Park, New York. Like Fawcett’s, it will be the first statue of its kind in this most prestigious of public spaces. 

These spectacular enshrinements of leading suffrage campaigners in such quintessential sites of national memory can be read as a form of apotheosis for a process begun by the suffrage campaigners themselves to inscribe the suffrage past into our built environments via statues and street names, commemorative plaques and memorial monuments, community cafés and communal libraries[4]. Building on the very recent work of Vera Mackie and Sharon Crozier-de Rosa[5], interrogating the history and effects of that process of creation of literal ”Sites of Feminist Memory”[6], across Europe and the United States, in local, national and transnational settings, will be a central ambition of this conference. We thus invite papers which focus on such literal sites of feminist memory in Europe and the United States and fruitfully engage with the following themes:

–   Where and why have literal sites of feminist memory appeared?

–   What is their relation to surrounding « lieux de mémoires”[7] and to « national » collective memory?

–   Does the creation of these sites borrow from existing traditions of site-creation or is there anything distinctly « feminist » about this process?

–   Are there only « national » or « local » sites of feminist memory or can transnational sites be identified?

–   What effects on collective understandings of « feminism » and the « feminist » past do these sites have, if any?

–   What consequences did/do they have on feminists’ collective memory?

–   How did they shape feminist identities at the time of their creation?

–   How do they shape them now, if at all?

–   What affects are associated with these sites?

–   How stable are the meanings attached to these sites over time?

The other ambition of this conference will be to ponder the more general question of the place of the suffrage past in what Maria Grever has called the ”Pantheon of Feminist Culture”[8]. She meant by this a loose and evolving collection of ”sites of memory” in the sense of Pierre Nora, that is a set of ”leaders, historical events, monuments, rituals, symbols, images, founding texts and historiography”[9] which become iconic and are drawn on by feminists to justify their struggles and identities to themselves, to each other and to their enemies[10]. As the controversies surrounding the statues in London and New York have highlighted, the suffrage past’s place in that Pantheon is hotly contested. Here, we welcome papers which focus on specific suffrage leaders, events, texts, symbols, and images as contested ”sites of feminist memory” in Europe and the United States and which explore some of the following themes:

–   How have these sites of feminist memory emerged? 

–   What has been at stake in their memorialisation?

–   How has historical research contributed to or undermined memorial narratives about these sites?

–   Has the place of these sites in the Pantheon of Feminist Culture remained constant or ebbed and flowed? And why?

–   Can transnational sites be identified? Or are these inescapably national?

–   What affects are associated with these sites and their contestation?

It is envisaged that the conference will result in a publication and the constitution of a research network with a view to bidding for international, particularly European, funding. 

Please send a 300 word abstract in English to Marc Calvini-Lefebvre ( and Claire Sorin ( by 19 February 2020

Notification of acceptance will be given by 01 March 2020.

This conference is organised by the Laboratoire d’Études et de Recherche sur le Monde Anglophone (LERMA) of Aix-Marseille Université and supported by the Aix-Marseille Initiative d’Excellence (A*MIDEX)

[1] A statue commemorating the suffragette Emmeline Pankhurst was erected in 1930 in Victoria Tower Gardens which run alongside the Houses of Parliament but do not face them as does Parliament Square. 

[2] e.g. Rachel Holmes, ”A new feminist statue is a great idea. Shame they picked the wrong feminist”, The Guardian, April 14, 2017

[3] Martha Jones, “How New York’s new monument whitewashes the women’s rights movement,” The Washington Post, March 22, 2019

[4] Hilda Kean, ‘Searching for the Past in Present Defeat:The Construction of Historical and Political Identity in British Feminism in the 1920s and 1930s’, Women’s History Review 3, no. 1 (1994): 57–80; Hilda Kean, ‘Public History and Popular Memory: Issues in the Commemoration of the British Militant Suffrage Campaign’, Women’s History Review 14, no. 3 & 4 (2005): 581–602; Laura E. Nym Mayhall, ‘Creating the “Suffragette Spirit”: British Feminism and the Historical Imagination’, Women’s History Review 4, no. 3 (1995): 319–44.

[5] Sharon Crozier-De Rosa, Remembering Women’s Activism (London : Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2019), especially chapter 1.

[6] Maria Grever, ‘Rivals in Historical Remembrance: Wollstonecraft and Holy Women as “Loci” of Feminist Memory’, The European Journal of Women’s Studies 3 (1996): 101–13.

[7] Pierre Nora, ‘Between Memory and History: Les Lieux de Mémoire’, Representations, no. 26 (1989): 7–24,

[8] Maria Grever, ‘The Pantheon of Feminist Culture: Women’s Movements and the Organization of Memory’, Gender & History 9, no. 2 (August 1997).

[9] Ibid, p. 101

[10] Lisa Tetrault, Myth of Seneca Falls: Memory and the Women’s Suffrage Movement, 1848-1898 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2014); Marc Calvini-Lefebvre, ‘The Great War in the History of British Feminism: Debates and Controversies, 1914 to the Present’, Revue Française de Civilisation Britannique [Online] XX, no. 1 (2015),

CFP – Ateliers SAGEF au Congrès SAES 2020 (Tours)

Pour le soixantième congrès annuel de la SAES qui aura lieu à l’Université de Tours, du 4 au 6 juin 2020, le thème retenu est “RenaissanceS”. Texte de cadrage :

La SAGEF y tiendra comme chaque année un atelier « Femmes, sexe, genre » et examinera toutes les propositions qui croiseront ces prismes d’analyse avec celui de RenaissanceS, aussi bien en littérature qu’en civilisation ou en linguistique. Le thème retenu semble particulièrement fécond pour aborder les problématiques et objets d’étude de la SAGEF puisqu’il s’agit notamment de changements de perspectives, de repositionnements, de transformations, qui peuvent s’appliquer aux corps, aux rapports sociaux de sexe, aux féminismes, etc. Autant de notions qui se trouvent également au coeur des études de genre.

Merci de faire parvenir vos propositions de 300 mots, accompagnées de votre affiliation avant le 20 Octobre à: Alexandrine Guyard-Nedelec (Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne): alexandrine.guyard-nedelec(at) ET – Marc Calvini-Lefebvre (Aix-Marseille Université): marc.calvini-lefebvre(at)


“The frivolous objections some women made to our appeals were as
exasperating as they were ridiculous”

Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Eighty Years and More

From the 1911 National Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage to Phyllis
Schlafly’s “STOP-ERA” campaign in the 1980s and governor Kay
Ivey’s recent signing into law of House Bill 314 criminalizing
abortion in Alabama, women have played a prominent role in opposing
feminism in the US. Yet these visible forms of anti feminism are but the
tips of a much larger iceberg of women’s resistance to feminism that
this two-day conference, organized by the “Women and the F-Word”
team (, proposes to explore.

The notion of women’s resistance to feminism includes—but is not
reduced to—organized antifeminism, a countermovement which has been
the object of pioneering work (A. Dworkin, _ Right Wing Women_, 1983, T.
Jablonsky, _ The Home, Heaven, and Mother Party_, 1994, S. Marshall, _
Splintered Sisterhood_, 1997). Resistance is understood as a broad set
of negative reactions experienced and/or expressed by women or groups of
women when they are faced with self-styled feminist behaviors, ideas or
actions. As feminism is conceived as a flexible and evolving ideology,
which the plural “feminisms” more adequately reflects, the modes and
mechanisms of resistance will be examined from a diachronic and
dialogical perspective that always takes into account the particular
historical moment.

This interdisciplinary conference means to bring together contributions
shedding light on the specific features of women’s resistance to
feminisms in the United States since the 19th century.

Papers addressing the following issues will be welcome:

  • -How did/do women perceive the first women’s rights advocates?
  • What precise term initially triggers resistance?: Rights? Suffragism? Feminism? Modern/Radical feminism? White? Elite? Abortion? Etc..
  • How do women (de)construct their own (non) feminism through those terms?
  • What sort of discourses/actions did/do they produce or perform and how did/do they spread them?
  • How did/do women evolve from a position of “feminist” to “anti“ or “non feminist”?
  • How did/do they (re)negotiate their identification to womanhood?
  • How important are the binaries feminism/femininity, feminism/individualism ?
  • How does intersectionality shape resistance and how, in turn, does resistance strengthen intersectional identities?
  • How did/do women contest the boundaries of mainstream feminism?
  • How does globalization affect the mechanisms of resistance?
  • Are there cases of transnational resistance?
  • How has resistance evolved over the centuries? (persistence and
  • change)
  • How does women’s resistance impact feminism?
  • Can indifference be considered a form of resistance?

Please send a 300- word abstract and a brief bio to :, and

DEADLINE: October 15, 2019.


Aix-Marseille University, 29 avenue Robert Schuman, 13621 Aix-en-Provence, France

KEYNOTE ADDRESS : Dr Ronnee Schreiber (San Diego State University),
author of _Righting Feminism: Conservative Women and American Polit_ics
(OUP, 2008)

CFP: Feminism, law and citizenship

Appel à communications Université Paris 1 Panthéon Sorbonne, Paris, 24-26 juin 2020

Colloque international organisé par l’Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne et l’Université de Reading, en partenariat avec le Gender, Law and Society Working Group du Research Committee for the Sociology of Law (RCSL).

La citoyenneté a trait au statut de citoyen·ne et aux droits, devoirs et privilèges y afférant. Ainsi, la citoyenneté encadre les relations entre les particuliers et l’Etat dans lequels vivent ces dernier·e·s. Sans surprise, la question du rapport entre féminisme, droit et citoyenneté s’appuie sur la théorie féministe du droit, qui postule la centralité du droit dans la subordination historique des femmes.

Lorsque la Révolution française promulgua l’idée alors pionnière du suffrage « universel » en 1789, les femmes en étaient exclues et le furent jusqu’en 1944, en dépit du combat mené par des militantes des droits des femmes. Celles-ci réagirent immédiatement à la publication de la Déclaration des droits de l’Homme et du citoyen avec la publication, en France, de la Déclaration des droits de la femme et de la citoyenne (Olympe de Gouges, 1791) et celle, en Angleterre, de la Défense des droits de la femme (Mary Wollestonecraft, 1792). L’exemple du droit de vote, bien connu, n’illustre qu’une des multiples facettes de ce rapport triangulaire, qui connaît de fortes variations en fonction des contextes historiques et géo-politiques dans lesquels on peut l’étudier.

Si les femmes ont désormais obtenu ce droit dans l’immense majorité des pays, le rapport entre genre, droit et citoyenneté revêt également une importance primordiale en matière de droit à la propriété, droits reproductifs, protection contre les discriminations – y compris intersectionnelles –, etc. Lorsque l’Irlande se prononça par référendum en mai 2018 pour le retrait de l’interdiction d’avorter qui figurait dans la Constitution, la députée Clare Daly souligna dans l’enceinte du parlement irlandais que c’était la relation entre les femmes et la société qui se transformait, en écho à l’une des réactions à la dépénalisation de l’avortement dans l’Etat de Victoria (Australie) : « C’est avec cette décision que nous accédons à une citoyenneté pleine et entière ».

Ce colloque international se propose ainsi d’explorer les enjeux contemporains ayant partie liée au féminisme, au droit et à la citoyenneté et sollicite des communications portant notamment, mais non exclusivement, sur les thèmes suivants :

  • Activisme féministe
  • Démocratie et montée des populismes
  • Droits des femmes
  • Droits reproductifs et justice reproductive
  • Egalité femmes-hommes
  • Genre et sexualité
  • Intersectionnalité

Le colloque s’adresse à la fois aux universitaires, chercheurs et professionnels travaillant en particulier dans les champs disciplinaires suivants : droit, philosophie, histoire, sociologie, études sur le genre, science politique, civilisation. Les langues de travail seront le français et l’anglais.

Les propositions, d’environ 300 mots, sont à envoyer d’ici le 30 septembre 2019, accompagnés d’une brève note biographique, à :

Alexandrine Guyard-Nedelec (pour les propositions en français) : Rosemary Auchmuty (pour les propositions en anglais) :

Click here for the bilingual call for papers (pdf document): CFP-Feminism law citizenship-Paris FR+ENG


L’arrivée au pouvoir de Donald Trump aux Etats-Unis en 2017 et
l’année suivante, l’élection de Jaïr Bolsonaro au Brésil, qui
assument l’un et l’autre des discours ouvertement misogynes et
anti-LGBTQI+ ont suscité d’innombrables commentaires. Ainsi,
l’Amérique du nord et l’Amérique latine, souvent pensées comme
des espaces politiques, culturels et économiques distincts, ont
dernièrement fait l’objet de questionnements communs qu’il nous
semble nécessaire d’explorer au-delà de l’arrivée au pouvoir de
forces politiques réactionnaires. Ce numéro de la revue
pluridisciplinaire _Textes & Contextes_ se propose donc d’examiner la
politisation des femmes américaines sous l’angle de la vie privée
depuis le début du XXe siècle.

Les femmes n’ont jamais autant occupé de charges électives en
Amérique que de nos jours. En Amérique latine, la décennie qui
s’achève a été marquée par la féminisation des parlements et par
l’élection à la tête de leurs pays respectifs de plusieurs femmes.
En Amérique du Nord, la féminisation du monde politique progresse
également. En effet, le 116e congrès des États-Unis, élu en 2018,
compte une proportion inédite de femmes parmi lesquelles un nombre
significatif de femmes aux profils économiques, sociaux et culturels
diversifiés. Quant au Canada, depuis l’élection de Justin
Trudeau en 2015, il est dirigé par un gouvernement paritaire intégrant
de nombreuses femmes issues des minorités également.

Si l’arrivée dans l’arène politique de femmes dont le capital
social diffère des élites traditionnelles est récente, elle l’est
moins dès lors que l’on s’intéresse à des formes de mobilisation
qui échappent au jeu électoral. La participation de femmes de toutes
origines aux grands événements politiques qui ont structuré
l’histoire du continent (conflits coloniaux, indépendances, guerre de
sécession) est attestée historiquement et démontre leur engagement
dans les processus d’élaboration des projets nationaux. Or l’accès
à la sphère publique n’est pas neutre et n’échappe pas aux normes
de genre : la construction de l’Etat moderne et les théories du
contrat social ont exclu les femmes du politique pour les reléguer à
la sphère privée. La seule manière pour elles d’accéder à
la sphère publique, et plus encore à l’espace politique, était
d’assumer un rôle fondé sur une construction univoque de
l’identité féminine autour de la maternité et de faire
allégeance à des normes masculines tant dans leur vie privée que dans
leurs pratiques politiques. Alors que toutes formes de relations
interpersonnelles présentent des enjeux de pouvoir, depuis les années
1960, les mouvements féministes proclament que le « personnel est
politique ». Elles ont ainsi pointé du doigt les innombrables
inégalités induites par la séparation des sphères publiques et
privées et par leur hiérarchisation. L’existence même d’un
espace privé est remise en question puisque celui-ci n’échappe pas
au contrôle politique qui impose, même dans l’intimité, des normes
et des identités de genre aux individus.

Avec des chronologies propres à chaque pays, des organisations de
femmes s’unissant pour revendiquer de nouveaux droits sont apparues
tout au long du XXème siècle. Les premières regroupaient des femmes
appartenant, la plupart du temps, aux élites blanches, mais, peu à
peu, d’autres discours sont parvenus à s’imposer dans le champ des
féminismes. Le _black feminism _apparait aux États-Unis à la fin des
années 1960 en réaction au sexisme au sein des mouvements associés au
_Black Power_ et aux lacunes d’un mouvement féministe alors
majoritairement blanc qui laissait de côté les
Africaines-Américaines. Il ouvre la voie au développement de
réflexions autour du concept d’intersectionnalité qui trouvent
aujourd’hui leur prolongement d’une part, dans un courant théorique
comme le féminisme décolonial latino-américains porté par les
écrits de Rita Segato, María Lugones ou encore Ochy Curiel et
d’autre part, dans des applications concrètes, comme le _feminismo
comunitario_ bolivien ou le mouvement des femmes zapatistes au

Ces derniers temps, on assiste, sur le continent américain, à une
résurgence de mouvements sociaux féminins de grande ampleur
dénonçant les violences fondées sur le genre ainsi que la
difficulté, pour les victimes, de parler et d’être entendues en
raison des normes culturelles, sociales et économiques qui maintiennent
les femmes dans une position d’infériorité et alimentent ainsi
l’impunité et la reproduction de ces violences. Depuis 2015,
plusieurs pays en Amérique latine ont connu une vague de mobilisation
sans précédent des femmes contre les violences sexuelles et
domestiques et pour la conquête du droit à l’avortement. Né en
Argentine à la suite d’un féminicide, le mouvement _#Niunamenos _a
rapidement essaimé en Bolivie, au Brésil, en Colombie, au Chili, en
Équateur, au Mexique, au Paraguay, au Pérou, en Uruguay et au
Venezuela où les femmes et les minorités sexuelles se sont dressées
pour dénoncer les multiples formes de violences qui leur étaient
infligées et l’indifférence des pouvoirs publics. Depuis
_#Vivasnosqueremos_ et _#NoEstamosSolas _sont aussi apparus. Initié aux
Etats-Unis en 2017, _#MeToo_ a donné une voix à celles qui ont subi
harcèlement, agressions sexuelles et viols. Tous ces mouvements se
caractérisent par leur volonté de penser comme une expérience
collective les différentes violences subies de manière individuelle
pour mettre en lumière les entrelacs de la culture patriarcale et la
dimension systémique de l’oppression exercée à l’encontre des
femmes et des minorités sexuelles. Ils ont acquis une dimension
internationale grâce aux Nouvelles Technologies de l’Information et
de la Communication (NTIC) qui ont facilité l’émergence de réseaux
transnationaux de solidarités et leur ont donné une visibilité.

Si la relation entre intime et identités politiques se donne à
voir dans les slogans et les discours militants, elle peut également se
lire dans des sources moins exposées ou négligées sur la base de
critères genrés, c’est-à-dire considérées comme moins
importantes politiquement ou encore moins fondées scientifiquement
parce que rapportées au « féminin ». Du journal intime à
l’autobiographie en passant par la correspondance et les publications
sur les réseaux sociaux, de nombreux ego-documents revêtent une
dimension politique dans leur évocation de l’intimité et des
conflits entre identités vécues et normes de genre imposées. Ce
numéro 15.2 de la revue _Textes & Contextes_ à paraître en novembre
2020, souhaite donc mobiliser des recherches variées appartenant au
champ des sciences humaines et sociales ou des lettres qui explorent les
liens et les heurts entre intimités et identités politiques ainsi que
l’appropriation de ces deux concepts par les femmes
latino-américaines et/ou nord-américaines depuis le début du XXe

Les résumés des propositions d’articles compteront entre 300 et 500
mots et seront accompagnés d’un titre provisoire et de 5 à 6
mots-clés ainsi que d’une courte notice biographique. Il devront
parvenir avant le 15 septembre 2019 aux coordinateurs de ce numéro,
Christen Bryson, Elodie Gamache, Olivier Maheo et Anne-Claire
Sanz-Gavillon, à cette adresse :

Les auteur·es seront notifié·e·s de l’acceptation ou du refus de
leur proposition au plus tard le 30 octobre 2019. Il est à noter que
l’acceptation lors de cette première phase de sélection
n’entrainera pas automatiquement la publication de l’article.

Les articles rédigés en français, anglais ou espagnol (de 10000 mots
maximum) devront être envoyés à la même adresse avant le 15
février, pour que ceux-ci soient soumis à une double relecture
d’experts dont le résultat conditionnera la publication finale, avec
ou sans modifications préalables.

Pour les appels en espagnol et en anglais, visitez notre
annonce sur Fabula.

Les normes de mise en page et de structuration du texte sont
consultables à l’adresse suivante :


January 8-10, 2020
Université de Lille / Université Paris-Est Marne-la-Vallée

On July 28, 2018, Brent Staples published a New York Times op-ed entitled “How the Suffrage Movement Betrayed Black Women” in which he warned the organizers of the centennial of the 19th amendment against “convey[ing] pernicious messages and perpetuat[ing] historical wrongs” during the commemorations by overlooking both the racist history of the fight for woman suffrage in the United States and the major role that black activists played in it. “The recent uproar over the monuments to white supremacy that dominate public spaces in the South has put civic groups on notice that memorials often convey pernicious messages and perpetuate historical wrongs. Organizers [of the centennial celebrations] need to keep that in mind as they commemorate a movement in which racism clearly played a central role,” he wrote. This article thus encouraged us to see beyond the symbol of the Nineteenth Amendment and the victory narrative associated with it, and recover the complex history in which it is rooted and think about its legacy at a moment when the right to vote in the United States is still being contested, a perspective which the Schlesinger Library and Radcliffe Institute’s project entitled “The Long 19th Amendment” illuminates (
As Alexander Keyssar has shown in The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States (Basic Books, 2000), the history of the right to vote in the United States is a history of both progress and regression, and woman suffrage is no exception. New Jersey was the only state to enfranchise propertied women in 1776, a decision which Rosemarie Zagarri called “the New Jersey exception” (Revolutionary Backlash: Women and Politics in the Early American Republic, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008), only to disenfranchise them some 30 years later. Not only were some American women enfranchised at the municipal and state levels before 1920,i but the first woman Representative, Jeannette Rankin, was elected to the U.S. Congress in 1916.
On the other hand, many women remained disenfranchised after the ratification of the 19th amendment, such as black women in the South, Native American women until 1924, and American women married to foreigners, who had been deprived of their citizenship by the Expatriation Act of 1907 and a Supreme Court decision in 1915. Up to this day, voter suppression has prevented women – and men – from exercising their right to vote.
Problematic conceptualizations of citizenship have also shaped the history of woman suffrage. In Civic Ideals: Conflicting Visions of Citizenship in U.S. History (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1997), Rogers M. Smith notes that U.S. citizenship has been legally constructed “in terms of illiberal and undemocratic racial, ethnic, and gender hierarchies” (p.1). Dynamics of marginalization have characterized the understanding of US citizenship, outside the woman suffrage movement and within it. Yet women’s social
movements have also explored citizenship in practice, thus giving it new directions and new meanings through their experiences outside the voting booth.

The aim of this conference is to rethink the history of the 19th amendment by reassessing its significance as well as its multifaceted legacy. Individual papers may address, but are not limited to, the following topics:
• The place of suffrage in early feminisms before and after 1920: Was woman suffrage a central demand of the women’s rights movement in the nineteenth and early twentieth century? To what extent was this demand radical or conservative (Ellen Carol DuBois, Lori Ginzberg)? To what extent did the emphasis on the right to vote limit the radicalism of the women’s rights movement by making alliances across race and class difficult if not impossible? Did the exercise of the right to vote remain an important demand of the women’s rights movement after 1920? What were the specificities of women of color’s struggle for the franchise (Rosalind Terborg-Penn)? Were white feminist activists concerned with black disenfranchisement after the ratification of the 19th amendment?ii Is there a female specificity in the phenomenon of voter suppression (Carol Anderson)?
• The place of suffrage in the definitions of women’s citizenships before and after 1920: How was women’s citizenship constructed outside of the right to vote before 1920 (see for instance Linda Kerber’s “Republican Mothers” and Jan Lewis’s “Republican Wives”)? How were women’s economic and political citizenships articulated in the 19th and early 20th century (Lizabeth Cohen, Alice Kessler-Harris, Lara Vapnek) and how did the right to vote help redefine women’s citizenships? What were women’s experiences of the vote before 1920? What were the geographical specificities of woman suffrage and women’s citizenship before and after 1920? Did the debates over the 26th amendment involve gendered arguments?
• The long 19th amendment from a transnational and international perspective: To what extent was the American fight for woman suffrage specific to the United States? What were the international networks that American suffragists benefited from before 1920? What were the international networks women of color participated in when fighting for their right to vote? Did some American women help foreign disenfranchised women after 1920? How was woman suffrage used to feed US imperial designs before and after 1920? How uniquely American is voter suppression?

KEYNOTE SPEAKERS: Martha Jones (Johns Hopkins University). Rogers Smith (University of Pennsylvania).

Proposals (500 words in English and a short bio) to be sent to:
(We welcome papers from graduate and doctoral students.)

Proposals will be reviewed by the Conference Committee:
Audrey Célestine, CERAPS, IUF, Université de Lille
Claire Delahaye, LISAA, Université Paris-Est Marne-la-Vallée
Simon Grivet, CECILLE, Université de Lille
Nicolas Martin-Breteau, CECILLE, Université de Lille
Hélène Quanquin, CECILLE, Université de Lille
Fatma Ramdani, CECILLE, Université de Lille

Anderson, Carol. One Person, No Vote: How Voter Suppression Is Destroying Our Democracy. Bloomsbury, 2018.
Cohen, Lizabeth. A Consumers’ Republic: The Politics of Mass Consumption in Postwar America. New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 2003.
DuBois, Ellen Carol, Mari Jo Buhle, Temma Kaplan, Gerda Lerner, et Carroll Smith- Rosenberg. “Politics and Culture in Women’s History: A Symposium.” Feminist Studies, vol. 6, n° 1 (Spring 1980), p. 26-64.
Ginzberg, Lori D. “Re-Viewing the First Wave.” Feminist Studies, vol. 28, n° 2 (Summer 2002), p. 418-434.
Kerber, Linda K. Women of the Republic: Intellect and Ideology in Revolutionary America. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1980.
Kessler-Harris, Alice. In Pursuit of Equity: Women, Men, and the Quest for Economic Citizenship in 20th century America. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
Keyssar, Alexander. The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States. Basic Books, 2000.
Lewis, Jan. “The Republican Wife: Virtue and Seduction in the Early Republic.” The William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. 44, No. 4 (October1987), p. 689-721.
McConnaughy, Corrine M. The Woman Suffrage Movement in America: A Reassessment. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
Smith, Rogers M. Civic Ideals: Conflicting Visions of Citizenship in U.S. History. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1997.
Staples, Brent. “How the Suffrage Movement Betrayed Black Women.” New York Times, July 28, 2018.
Terborg-Penn, Rosalind. African American Women in the Struggle for the Vote, 1850 to 1920. Blomington: Indiana University Press, 1998.
Vapnek, Lara. Breadwinners: Working Women and Economic Independence, 1865—1920. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2009.
Zagarri, Rosemarie. Revolutionary Backlash: Women and Politics in the Early American Republic. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008.
i As Corrine M. McConnaughy asserts, “beneath the surface of the long wait for a federal woman suffrage amendment was a much more dynamic story of the politics of women’s voting rights in the states.” The Woman Suffrage Movement in America: A Reassessment (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013), p. 2. Before 1920, some states granted women full voting rights, whereas others allowed them to vote on school matters or other local issues, and others enabled them to vote in statewide elections or presidential elections only.
ii The issue of black disenfranchisement was put forward by a delegation of 60 colored women at the February 1921 National Woman’s Party convention. They presented evidence of the violation of the Nineteenth Amendment and asked the National Woman’s Party to support a congressional investigation on the matter, but the organization refused to help them, see Freda Kirchwey, « Alice Paul Pulls the Strings, » The Nation (March 2, 1921), 332–33.

JE jeunes chercheur·e·s, Strasbourg, 8 mars 2019

From the 17th century lady to the 21st woman, the borders of femininity and womanhood in the English – speaking world have evolved and have been reconfigured. In the last forty years, scholarly work on issues of gender has become more and more widespread, in a wide variety of disciplines (history, literature, linguistics, psychology…). The ways in which the concepts of male and female have been defined and used in research have changed with the emergence and development of women’s studies and gender studies (Kristeva 1982, Butler 1990, Halberstam 1998). While the critical relevance of the polarity of these concepts has been called into question, they are still widely seen as necessary for their ability to show the importance of demarcations of gender in various lines of inquiry (Korte & Lethbridge 2018), including when questions of gender rebellion and porosity of gender boundaries arise (Adams & DeLuzio 2012). To honour International Women’s Day 2019, we welcome contributions addressing the question of how femininity and womanhood have been defined, represented and explored in Anglophone literature, linguistics and history, spanning from the Early Modern period to the contemporary world. The question raises issues related to the limits and boundaries of gender, in the way these affect women in their physical world and in their representations of self as women: bodies constrained and restrained, behaviours prescribed and defied, (un)bridgeable frontiers dividing countries, regions, ethnic origins, age or class and their interaction with gender… (Pickering & Cochrane 2013). We encourage PhD students, post – graduate students, and early career researchers to submit an abstract. Scholars whose research intersects with the study of gender norms and transgression or the specificities of female experiences of borders, be they geographical, social, and racial, are particularly welcome.

Topics may include but are not limited to:
– Representations of femininity: transgression, idealisation and normalisation
– Representations of female bodies: how have they been defined by experts, scientists and other “moral entrepreneurs” (Becker 1963)? Who are these entrepreneurs? Who sets the norm? How can these norms be called into question, defied and erased? And how do transgressions come to be normalised?
– Physical boundaries of femininity: female bodies performed, constrained, freed
– Gender and genre: resisting the gender binary in literature, stage performance and gender performance (West & Zimmerman 1987), reverse-gender casting, female travelogues …
– Intersectional feminism (Crenshaw 1989): the part played by race, ethnicity, class, age, disability, &c. into the construct ion of femininity and the borders erected around such a normative experience
– Liminal spaces: experiences of border crossings, whether they be physical, geographical, social and related to the frontier between masculinity and femininity
– Language and resistance to gender boundaries
– Frontiers and feminist scholarship (Frontiers, a Journal of Women’s Studies)

We invite abstracts in English of up to 300 words for 20-minute papers. Please submit your abstract along with a short biographical notice to Irène Delcourt (CENA,, Lucy- Anne Katgely (SEARCH, and Juliette Misset (SEARCH, by January 20, 2019. Papers will be given in English.

CFP: « ‘Good girls go to heaven, bad girls go everywhere!’

JE GRER/SAGEF, Université Paris Diderot

Bâtiment Olympe de Gouges, salle 720, vendredi 29 mars

« ‘Good girls go to heaven, bad girls go everywhere!’

Féminisme, multiculturalisme et luttes contre les intégrismes religieux »

Si l’origine exacte de l’expression « good girls go to heaven, bad girls go everywhere! » est incertaine, tantôt attribuée à l’actrice et scénariste américaine Mae West tantôt à la rédactrice en chef du magazine Cosmopolitan, Helen Gurvey Brown, elle a été reprise comme slogan par les féministes qui dénoncent la double norme sexuelle imposée aux femmes par les religions. 

Aujourd’hui quels que soient les intégrismes religieux (catholique, protestant, islamique, juif, hindouiste, bouddhiste, orthodoxe etc.) ils partagent tous la volonté de maîtriser le corps et la sexualité des femmes dont l’existence aurait, selon eux, pour but unique la maternité.

À une époque où l’influence des intégrismes religieux sur les politiques d’État semble gagner du terrain (recul sur les lois avortement aux États-Unis, en Pologne ; tribunaux de la Sharia en Grande-Bretagne, etc.), l’objet de cette journée d’étude sera d’interroger les articulations entre féminisme,antiféminisme et multiculturalisme d’État. Les propositions de communication (environ 200 mots, accompagnées d’une mini bio-bibliographie),  sont à envoyer à Florence Binard : avant le 15 novembre 2018.

CFP: Special Issue for Feminist Theory journal: Lesbian Politics, Feminist Theory

Call issued by Ilana Eloit and Clare Hemmings, Department of Gender Studies, LSE

Our aim for this special issue proposal is to explore the importance of rethinking
feminist politics and feminist theory from a lesbian perspective. While lesbian politics and experiences are often erased or euphemized in the history of feminism, we argue that this absence can be considered an instance of feminist “haunting,” which Avery Gordon has characterized as the “something-to-be-done”: an unresolved feminist contradiction which has not only impacted the way feminist theory is framed but also how feminist stories have been and are being told. However, as Gordon has noted, “the ghost demands your attention” (Gordon 2011, p. 3). We will be asking in this special issue: What happens when lesbian haunting is taken seriously as a starting point in feminist theory and histories of social movements? What changes (or stays the same) when we foreground lesbian theories within variously located histories of feminism, and what changes (or remains) within lesbian theory as well when we de-centre its white and Anglophone canon? What challenges does the (re)centring of lesbian traditions propose to the histories we tell, our canons of thought, or the dominance of certain theoretical strands, as well as what we think of as feminism?

When Monique Wittig, one of the founders of the French Women’s liberation
movement, wrote in 1980 that lesbians were not women, she provided a dramatic
counter-response to second-wave feminism’s approach to lesbianism according to
which “feminism [was] the theory and lesbianism the practice” (Atkinson in
Richardson 1998, p. 282). Indeed, Wittig’s intellectual gesture disrupted such a
feminist ordering of things by elevating lesbianism to the status of feminism’s theory. Despite this, while feminism’s roots in women’s social movements of the 1970s are consistently returned to in accounts of the past, there is no such parallel emphasis for lesbian theory. How did lesbians’ experiences then produce a
new lesbian standpoint and how might this relate to arguments about inclusion or exclusion in the present? How does what we thinking of as ‘lesbian’ change when we think with and through the related and coextensive hauntings of trans*, black, decolonial, working class or other marginal threads within a theoretical or political canon? How do these interrelated hauntings challenge stable definitions of what a lesbian archive is and who its subject is? And lastly, what kinds of solidarities between feminist and lesbian movements and theories emerge when we think in complex ways about the multiple hauntings that are constitutive of that relationship?

We welcome articles of up to 8000 words or more experimental pieces (including poetry, photography, stories, polemic) of up to 5000 words from a wide range of disciplines or inter/disciplinary perspectives. The deadline for work is Friday 14th September 2018 and pieces should be sent to and in the first instance. If you are planning to submit, please look at the Feminist Theory formatting guidelines to ensure your writing conforms to house style.

CFP: Feminisms and ARTivism in the Americas

Call for Publications: EOLLES Journal Special Issue 
on Feminisms and ARTivism in the Americas (20th-21st centuries)

Women’s movements have a long, diverse history. Yet, the diversity and plurality of these female voices and modes of action have been often occulted. Like in other areas of thought and action, western-centric theories and manifestations have been the most visible. These narratives quickly became universal. Many recognized theorists as well as the periodization of feminism into “waves” relate only to white, upper- and middle-class women. However, other forms of expression and action have also developed early on. North American Black feminism dates back to the 19th century and was part of the abolitionist movement. In Ibero-America, the political organization of black women started later but recent research has underlined the agency of enslaved women, notably through disobedience. Indigenous women’s political participation is important in their communities since the colonial era, as evidenced by the crucial actions of Gregoria Apaza, Bartolina Sisa and Micaela Bastidas during Túpac Amaru II’s revolution (1780-1782).

Any investigation of organization by women of color should take into account the socio-historical contexts that influence their development. Systems of colonial exploitation (plantocracy, slavery, latifundia) have conditioned forms of political action in the Americas. Bodies of Black and indigenous women were particularly subjected to control and repression. These circumstances limited possibilities for reunion and political engagement for a long time. Surviving oppression has been a full time job for many women. For all that, they never stopped to fight for justice. These struggles have been rather autonomous, numerous and varied over time and/or space. They have not yet resulted in the creation of global movements. These particular histories also explain the apparent “delay” in the integration of these actions in Herstory. This is why we want to re-evaluate the role and importance of these movements.
Given the dispersed and multifaceted nature of their forms of action, the theoretical importance of American women of color has been invisible, despite being rich and vigorous. For example, Black feminist thought in the United States has revolutionized theory by introducing new questions about the subject of feminism (“we, women”) and proposing new concepts to analyze forms of domination, like intersectionality (coined by law professor and leading critical theorist Kimberlé Crenshaw). Inspired by the concepts, histories and experiences unique to Black women, Ibero-American feminists have developed an equally rich critical thought called decolonial feminism. Feminists like Ochy Curiel, Lélia Gonzalez or Yuderkys Espinosa propose an antiracist feminist thinking rooted in indigenous and African-American history. Through their experience, these feminists also question gender relations and conceptualize the notion of political lesbianism.

The specificity of counterhegemonic feminisms is due to a unique articulation between theory and praxis. For instance, feminist ARTivists are increasingly expressing their demands across the continent, notably through hip hop or visual arts – like the collectives “Somos guerreras” or “Batallones femeninos”. These forms of action and activism are part of a global struggle that does more than questioning patriarchy only, that does more than many white and bourgeois feminist collectives. For Abya Yala feminists, it is necessary to fight against patriarchy, racism and the coloniality of power, all at the same time and by drawing on the specific history of indigenous and Black people. The body plays a fundamental role in both the issues raised and privileged forms of action. As a site of colonization, the body has to be reinvested and re-appropriated through arts and performance.

This edition will examine the plurality and the strengths of these movements across America. We invite papers that deal with the specific features of these feminisms and their contribution to the fight against race, gender, sexuality and class oppression. Comparative works are particularly encouraged.

We welcome papers on the following subjects:

Women and ARTivism
American ARTivists, be they mixed-race, indigenous, Black, Andean, Mesoamerican, chicanas, chingonas or cholas, develop multiple actions where art is an organizing strategy to fight oppression through decolonial resistance. Literature, press, music, performance, fine arts, visual, graphic, multimedia and urban arts, have become spaces of contestation. Xicana artists such as Daisy Salinas or Muchacha Fanzine, Crystal Galindo and Alma López; Brown chingonas women (Mexico); Guerrilla Girls (USA), art elaborated by women who were victims of armed conflicts, and by female political prisoners; women belonging to hip-hop movements; feminist batucadas; the Festival Nosotras Estamos en la Calle (Peru); Jovens Negras Movendo as Estruturas (Brazil) are all instances of these contestations. We invite authors to pay tribute to Marielle Franco, a Black lesbian feminist, and Rio de Janeiro city councillor, who was assassinated on March 14th 2018, and whose last project dealt with Rio traditional funk.

Afro-feminismsNorth American Black feminists first questioned hegemonic feminism by drawing from their own experiences. They integrated categories of race and sex to enrich Marxist critical theory and Materialist Feminism. We can mention, among others, bell hooks, Audre Lorde, Patricia Hill Collins and Angela Davis. Black Women’s movements in Ibero-America are more recent. They articulate their filiation with Africa to common claims they share with other movements of Latin-American women, especially indigenous ones. In Brazil, Lélia Gonzalez forged the term “amefrica ladina” to highlight these links. In the Hispanic world, other strong movements emerged from Cuba to Peru.

Feminisms on the Borders: Xicana Feminism
Given the plurality of American women’s movements, it is important to mention how experience, knowledge and practice have circulated throughout America. These interactions will be analyzed more through their actions than through theories. Chicana feminists or Women/lesbians of Color such as Gloria Anzaldúa, Cherrie Moraga, or the artists Judithe Hernandez and Judy Chicago, stand at the intersection of different cultures and references, between feminism and La Raza, and from communalism, embodied memory, but also materialist and anarchist thinking, they have politically redefined themselves as mestiza or “from the border”.

Indigenous activism and feminism
Women in indigenous communities never confined themselves to private spaces. However, since the conquest, they have been subjugated to the colonial patriarchal system. In the last third of the 20th century, they have mobilized indigenous groups politically in Chiapas, Guatemala, Ecuador and Bolivia. These movements claim to be the “original people” with specific rights in order to lift themselves out of their status of second-class citizens. But it is also a fight against capitalist and neoliberal expansion in their territories as shown by the examples of Berta Cáceres (lenca), Máxima Acuña (quechua) ou LaDonna Brave Bull Allard (sioux).

The papers, of 2000 to 6000 words, will be written in English, Spanish, Portuguese or French.
Submission Guidelines:
Please send an abstract (both in English and Spanish, Portuguese of French), and a brief author bio.

The deadline for papers, which should be emailed to Anouk Guiné ( and Emanuele de Maupeou (, is 20 August, 2018.

Anouk Guiné
Maître de Conférences

Faculté des Affaires Internationales
Université Le Havre Normandie

CFP : Premier Congrès International Etudes de Genre en France

Appel à communications, Congrès Institut du genre
Les études de genre sont depuis plusieurs décennies en plein développement à l’échelle internationale. Créé en janvier 2012 à l’initiative de l’InSHS-CNRS, l’Institut du Genre organise son premier congrès international des « Etudes de genre en France » les 3, 4 et 5 septembre 2014 à l’Ecole normale supérieure de Lyon.
Cette rencontre internationale a plusieurs objectifs : contribuer à la reconnaissance scientifique des études de genre en France et à leur visibilité internationale, faciliter la coordination institutionnelle de ces recherches et de nouvelles formes de coopération, encourager l’émergence de nouvelles thématiques ainsi que les approches interdisciplinaires et transversales au sein des Sciences humaines et sociales mais aussi entre SHS et autres domaines scientifiques.
Ouvert à toutes et à tous, jeunes chercheur.e.s ou chercheur.e .s confirmé.e.s, ce congrès articulera séances plénières et ateliers. Les propositions attendues peuvent prendre la forme de communications individuelles ou d’ateliers coordonnés par un-e ou deux responsables. Les propositions de posters sont bienvenues. Les propositions s’inscriront de façon privilégiée dans les dix axes thématiques définis par l’IdGenre – Épistémologie et théories du genre : genèse et généalogie du champ ; Catégories opéra­toires et modes d’analyse ; Politique, Care, Justice ; Territorialités, Espaces, Mondialisation ; Genre et Temporalités ; Genre, Production, Marché ; Création, Arts et Littératures ; Sexualités, Hétéronormativités et LGBT ; Genre, Famille, Parenté ; Genre, Religions et Sécularisations ; Corps, Santé, Société. Elles pourront aussi s’ouvrir à d’autres thématiques, disciplines et approches : droit, sciences du langage, archéologie, sciences cognitives etc. Les regards « croisés » sur une problématique ou une thématique sont encouragés.

Date limite d’envoi des propositions : 15 octobre 2013 à :

Réponse du comité : deuxième quinzaine de novembre.

Format des propositions individuelles : résumé d’une page en français (1500 caractères) ; brève présentation du ou des intervenant-e-s mentionnant leur rattachement institutionnel éventuel et leurs coordonnées ; si possible, deux ou trois de leurs publications.

Format des propositions d’ateliers : résumé de 500 caractères en français de la problématique générale de l’atelier ; résumés en 1500 caractères des quatre communications composant l’atelier ; brève présentation du ou des intervenant-e-s mentionnant leur rattachement institutionnel éventuel et leurs coordonnées ; si possible, deux ou trois de leurs publications.

Format des posters : résumé de 500 caractères en français de la problématique générale du poster. A0

Comité scientifique : Michel Bozon, Martine Bungener, Anne-Marie Devreux, Elsa Dorlin, Estelle Ferrarese, Agnès Fine,  Stephanie Hennette-Vauchez, Emmanuel Jaurand, Sandra Laugier, Juliette Rennes, Catherine Sofer, Séverine Sofio, Irène Théry.
Comité de pilotage : Christine Bard, Anne-Emmanuelle Berger, Nadine Cattan, Sandra Laugier, Pascale Molinier, Frédéric Regard, Florence Rochefort, Sylvie Steinberg, Priscille Touraille.
Comité d’organisation : Pascale Barthélémy, Claude Gautier, Violaine Sebillotte Cuchet, Isabelle Pastor-Sorokine.

CFP: La conception britannique de la citoyenneté: histoire, évolutions, transferts

Appel à communications pour le colloque international « La conception britannique de la citoyenneté : histoire, évolutions, transferts » qui se tiendra à l’Université de Toulouse 2 Le Mirail du 3 au 5 avril 2014.
Ce colloque sera organisé sous l’égide du CRECIB et du laboratoire Cultures Anglo-Saxonnes (EA801), et recevra le concours d’autres sociétés savantes réunissant des spécialistes de civilisation britannique et de French studies, dont la SAGEF. Une sélection des communications présentées lors de ce colloque fera l’objet d’une publication, dans un numéro spécial de la Revue Française de Civilisation Britannique.
Les propositions de communication devront être adressées à Nathalie Duclos (nathalieduclos(at) et à Vincent Latour (vincent.latour(at) avant le 31 septembre 2013.
Les organisateurs se tiennent à votre disposition pour tout renseignement supplémentaire.

Appel à communications, « La conception britannique de la citoyenneté : histoire, évolutions, transferts »
Colloque international co-porté par le CRECIB et le laboratoire CAS (EA801),
3-5 avril 2014, Université Toulouse 2 – Le Mirail
VERSION FRANCAISE (please scroll down for the English version)

Le terme, qui provient de l’anglo-normand, perdure pendant tout le Moyen-Age, et désigne le plus souvent l’habitant d’une ville possédant un certain nombre de droits et libertés (il est alors l’équivalent du burgess ou du freeman) ; mais, dès le XIVe siècle, le terme est utilisé pour désigner indifféremment l’habitant d’une ville ou d’un pays tout entier (Wyclif c. 1380, Starkey 1538 etc.). Les XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles apparaissent comme des moments charnières du fait des guerres civiles, qui révèlent que la monarchie n’est plus unanimement considérée comme un fait de nature, puis de la Glorious Revolution, qui met en œuvre des principes élaborés au cours des décennies précédentes : remise en cause de la monarchie de droit divin, apologie du droit de résistance contre un monarque qui prive les sujets de ses libertés et affirmation de la souveraineté du peuple à travers l’avènement d’une monarchie dite constitutionnelle.  La modernité politique, qu’incarne notamment Locke, se définit par ces principes ainsi que par une politique de tolérance. De fait, les dissenters obtiennent en 1689 la liberté de culte mais restent privés de droits civiques jusqu’en 1829. Liberté de culte ne signifie donc pas citoyenneté à part entière. Au XVIIIe siècle, on retrouve le terme de « citoyen » dans les écrits politiques de Hume qui l’emploie volontiers à propos des républiques antiques ou des cités-Etats d’Italie, sa réflexion prenant une dimension universelle (« A too great disproportion among the citizens weakens any state », « A continual succession of wars makes every citizen a soldier »-Essays Moral, Political and Literary, 1752). Par la suite, la Révolution américaine ravive la tradition républicaine et machiavélienne des citoyens-soldats. Citoyenneté et liberté politique vont de pair : les armes sont les moyens de la défendre.  La Révolution française renouvelle et renforce l’emploi du terme en Grande-Bretagne, illustrant ainsi la circulation du vocable et du concept de part et d’autre de la Manche. Au lendemain de 1789, un « citoyen » désigne expressément un membre de la République française. Les « Jacobins britanniques », comme on les appelle, ont deux revendications fondamentales : l’émancipation civique des dissenters et l’élargissement du droit de vote à une plus grande partie de la population, autrement dit l’augmentation du nombre de « citoyens » (abaissement des droits de propriété nécessaires pour être électeurs, suppression des bourgs pourris etc.). Ces revendications seront progressivement satisfaites entre 1832 et 1928, les femmes accédant progressivement au droit de vote entre le milieu de la période victorienne et l’entre-deux-guerres, grâce au talent, notamment, de John Stuart Mill, Millicent Fawcett et aux actions des suffragettes. Aujourd’hui encore, la parité réelle fait figure de chimère de part et d’autre de la Manche. Au-delà de la parité politique, le combat féministe pour que la citoyenneté des femmes puisse être véritablement une citoyenneté active  et à part entière poursuit son cours.
Dans le contexte de l’après-guerre, de la décolonisation et des débuts réels de l’immigration (post) coloniale, les modalités d’accession à la citoyenneté évoluent : accès universaliste à la nationalité et à la citoyenneté  pour les ressortissants du Commonwealth par le biais du British Nationality Act (1948), à contraster avec un accès plus limité des sujets coloniaux français, notamment des Français Musulmans d’Algérie, dans le cadre de l’Union Française puis de la Communauté Française. Aujourd’hui, la question de la « citoyenneté multiculturelle » ne va pas forcément de soi dans un Royaume-Uni où les avancées imputables au multiculturalisme semblent être remises en cause, tandis qu’en France, le droit de vote des étrangers et l’émergence d’une citoyenneté de résidence semblent être en passe, une nouvelle fois, d’être renvoyés aux calendes grecques. Depuis le rapport Cantle (2001), on a assisté à une utilisation inédite de la citoyenneté comme modalité d’intégration des migrants et de leurs descendants outre-Manche, notamment par le biais de la mise en place de dispositifs résultant, pour l’essentiel, du transfert de politiques publiques: citizenship education, citizenship tests, citizenship ceremonies… De même, les défis à l’Etat-nation suscités par le développement de citoyennetés transnationales ou postnationales (citoyennetés diasporiques ; intégration européenne ; développement d’allégeances transnationales) constituent une préoccupation grandissante, pour les gouvernements autant que pour l’opinion. Le lien entre citoyenneté et identité nationale (réflexion sur le concept de Britishness au Royaume-Uni ; débat avorté sur « l’identité nationale » en France) illustre, de part et d’autre de la Manche, les interrogations suscitées par l’intégration des populations issues de l’immigration, que ce soit dans une perspective multiculturaliste ou républicaine, interrogations qui ne sont pas exemptes de récupérations politiques. Les atermoiements relatifs à la compatibilité de certaines croyances religieuses avec la citoyenneté ne sont d’ailleurs pas nouveaux, si l’on se réfère à l’exclusion durable des dissenters, des catholiques et des Juifs des droits civiques, même après leToleration Act de 1689. Enfin, les réformes politiques et constitutionnelles récemment introduites (par exemple la dévolution) ont donné naissance à des conceptions diverses de la citoyenneté (sociale notamment, mais aussi politique) dans les différentes nations qui forment le Royaume-Uni, et selon les partis, mouvements et groupes de pression politiques. Les tentatives d’introduction d’éléments de démocratie participative, de réforme du traditionnel système représentatif et d’accroissement de la responsabilité politique des élus témoignent d’un désir de renouveau de la citoyenneté et de sa signification dans le Royaume-Uni contemporain. Il est aujourd’hui nécessaire d’établir la façon dont les réformes politiques récentes et les pressions pour de nouvelles réformes ont fait évoluer la conception britannique de la citoyenneté.
Les communications pourront porter sur les thèmes suivants :
-Définitions théoriques de la citoyenneté et évolutions historiques de sa signification
-Conceptions britannique et française de la citoyenneté comparées
-Citoyenneté, radicalisme et socialisme
-Citoyenneté, nationalité et identité nationale
-Citoyenneté et intégration sociale, droits sociaux, politiques sociales
-Citoyenneté multiculturelle, conceptions post-coloniales de la citoyenneté
-Genre et citoyenneté
-Citoyennetés postnationales et transnationales ; citoyenneté et UE ; migration et citoyenneté diasporique
-Citoyenneté et croyances religieuses
-Citoyenneté et représentation politique, régimes politiques, institutions et constitutions
-Compatibilité de la citoyenneté et de la monarchie, de la citoyenneté et de la souveraineté parlementaire ; relations entre les concepts de ‘sujet’ et de ‘citoyen’ ; citoyenneté et républicanisme
-Comment les partis/mouvements/clubs/groupes de pression conçoivent ou ont conçu la citoyenneté
-Nouvelles formes d’implication politique et nouveaux mouvements politiques; formes nouvelles ou alternatives de citoyenneté
-L’évolution de la démocratie représentative au Royaume-Uni et ses conséquences sur la conception britannique de la citoyenneté
-Citoyenneté et dévolution, différences dans la façon dont la citoyenneté sociale et la citoyenneté politique sont conçues dans les Iles britanniques ; quelle citoyenneté pour une Ecosse indépendante ?
-Impact de la codification de la loi sur les droits civiques

Comité scientifique :
-Florence Binard (Paris 7)
-Nathalie Duclos (Toulouse 2)
-Myriam-Isabelle Ducrocq (Paris Ouest-Nanterre)
-Vincent Latour (Toulouse 2)
-Michel Prum (Paris 7)
-Jean-Paul Révauger (Bordeaux 3)
Bibliographie indicative 
Deborah Cohler, Citizen, Invert, Queer, Lesbianism and War in Early Twentieth-Century Britain, University of Mineapolis Press, 2010.
Jurgen Habermas, Écrits politiques, Cerf, Paris, 1990.
Thomas Hobbes, De Cive: the Latin Version. Critical Edition by Howard Warrender. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1983
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 1996.
David Hume, Essays Moral, Political and Literary, 1752.
Will Kymlicka, Multicutural citizenship, A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights, Oxford University Press, 1995
T.H. Marshall, Citizenship and Social Class, 1950.
John Stuart Mill, The Subjection of Women, London: Longmans, Green, Reader & Dyer, 1869.

Tariq Modood, Multiculturalism, citizenship and national identity, Open Democracy, 2007.

Thomas Paine, A DIALOGUE BETWEEN GENERAL WOLFE AND GENERAL GAGE IN A WOOD NEAR BOSTON.1 -, The Writings of Thomas Paine,Collected and Edited by Moncure Daniel Conway (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1894). Vol. 1.

J. Rawls, A Theory of Justice, Oxford University Press, 1972
Dominique Schnapper, Qu’est-ce que la citoyenneté ?, Paris, Folio, 2000.
Call for Papers, “The British Conception of Citizenship: History, Changes and Transfers”
International Conference, co-organised by the CRECIB and by research laboratory CAS (EA801),
3-5 April 2014, Toulouse 2 – Le Mirail University, France

‘Citizen’, an Anglo-Norman derivation, was used throughout the Middle Ages; in most cases, it designated city dwellers endowed with certain rights and privileges and was virtually a synonym for ‘burgess’ or ‘freeman’. However, as early as the 14th century, the term came to designate the inhabitant either of a city, or of a country as a whole (cf. Wyclif c. 1380, Starkey 1538 etc.).  Major turning point came with the civil wars of the 17th century, which revealed that the monarchy could no longer be taken for granted, and later on with the Glorious Revolution, which saw the materialisation of political principles that had taken shape in the previous decades: the right to resist a monarch depriving his/her subjects of their liberties and the assertion of the people’s sovereignty through the emergence of a so-called Constitutional monarchy. Political modernity, notably embodied by Locke, came to be defined by such principles, as well as by ‘toleration.’ Yet freedom of worship, which was granted to dissenters in 1689, cannot be equated with full-fledged citizenship, as dissenters remained deprived of civic rights until 1829. In the 18th century, the word ‘citizen’ appeared in the political writings of Hume, who used it extensively in reference to the Republics of Classical Antiquity or to Italian city-states, his reflection acquiring a universal dimension (« A too great disproportion among the citizens weakens any state », « A continual succession of wars makes every citizen a soldier »- Essays Moral, Political and Literary, 1752). Later on, the American Revolution revived the Republican and Machiavellian tradition of citizen-soldiers. Citizenship and political liberties were intertwined, and weapons were the means by which political rights were defended. The French Revolution reinvigorated the term in Britain, thus illustrating the circulation of ‘citizen’ as a word and as a concept across the Channel.  After 1789, a ‘citizen’ explicitly designated a member of the French Republic. The so-called ‘British Jacobins’ had two chief grievances: the civic emancipation of dissenters and a broad extension of the franchise, i.e. an increase in the number of citizens (a lowering of property qualifications to take part in the electoral process; the abolition of ‘rotten boroughs’ etc.). Such demands were to be met between 1832 and 1928, with women being gradually enfranchised between the mid-Victorian period and the interwar years, notably thanks to the talent and persuasion of John Stuart Mill, Millicent Fawcett and the mobilisation of suffragettes. Even today male-female political ‘parity’ is still far from being a reality. Beyond that question, the feminist struggle continues, so that women’s citizenship may become a full-fledged, active one.
In the post-war period, decolonisation and the real beginning of (post) colonial immigration prompted changes in citizenship acquisition. While Britain opted for an open, universalist definition of nationality and citizenship for Commonwealth nationals  (British Nationality Act, 1948), France opted for a much narrower interpretation for its colonial subjects, within the framework of the ‘Union Française’ and later, of the ‘Communauté Française’. Nowadays, the question of ‘multicultural citizenship’ is no longer taken for granted in the UK, where progress achieved through multiculturalism seems to be questioned. Meanwhile in France, the right to vote for non-EU citizens (and therefore, the emergence of citizenship rights for permanent residents) is very likely to be put-off indefinitely. Since the Cantle Report (2001), one has witnessed a novel use of ‘citizenship’ as a mode of incorporation or indeed integration of immigrants and their descendants in Britain, notably through the setting up of measures initially devised abroad (e.g. citizenship education, citizenship tests, citizenship ceremonies). Moreover new challenges to the Nation-State have appeared. They stem notably from the emergence of transnational or postnational forms of citizenship (e.g. diasporic citizenships ; European integration ; development of transnational allegiances etc.). The link between citizenship and national identity (as shown in the on-going debate over ‘Britishness’ in the UK or in the failed attempt to launch a debate over ‘identité nationale’ in France in the later part of the Sarkozy years) illustrates the questions triggered by the integration of ‘minorities’ or ‘populations d’origine immigrée’, whether in a multiculturalist or ‘Republican’ framework. The use of different terms is by itself probably revealing, and has to be addressed. In recent years such questions have frequently given rise to unashamed attempts at political exploitation, both by mainstream and extremist political parties or groups. In both countries prevarications over the compatibility of certain religious beliefs with citizenship are not new if one bears in mind, for example, the long exclusion of dissenters, Roman Catholics and Jews from civic rights, even long after the passing of the Toleration Act (1689). Finally, political and constitutional reforms recently introduced (e.g. devolution) have given birth to diverse conceptions of citizenship (of social citizenship in particular, but also of political citizenship) in the nations that make up the UK, and according to the political parties, movements and pressure groups. Attempts to introduce elements of participatory democracy, to reform the traditional representative system and to increase elected representatives’ accountability arguably testify to a desire to renew the meaning of citizenship in contemporary Britain. The extent to which recent political reforms and pressure for further reform have led to a change in the British conception of citizenship needs to be assessed.
Papers could address the following topics:
-Theoretical definitions and historical changes in the meaning of citizenship
-British vs French conceptions of citizenship
-Citizenship, radicalism and socialism
– Citizenship, nationality and national identity
-Citizenship and social integration, social rights, social policies
-Multicultural citizenship, post-colonial conceptions of citizenship
-Gender and citizenship
-Postnational and transnational citizenship, citizenship and the EU, migration and diasporic citizenship
-Citizenship and religious beliefs
-Citizenship and political representation, citizenship and political regimes, institutions and constitutions
-Compatibility of ‘citizenship’ and ‘monarchy’, of ‘citizenship’ and ‘parliamentary sovereignty’; relationship between the ‘subject’ and ‘citizen’ concepts; citizenship and republicanism
-How parties/movements/clubs/pressure groups conceive citizenship in Britain
-New forms of political involvement and political movements; new or alternative forms of citizenship
-The evolution of representative democracy in Britain and its consequences on the meaning of citizenship
-Citizenship and devolution, differences in the way social and political citizenship is conceived in the British Isles; what citizenship for an independent Scotland?
-Extent to which the codification of law has an impact on civic rights
Scientific Committee
-Florence Binard (Paris 7)
-Nathalie Duclos (Toulouse 2)
-Myriam-Isabelle Ducrocq (Paris Ouest-Nanterre)
-Vincent Latour (Toulouse 2)
-Michel Prum (Paris 7)
-Jean-Paul Révauger (Bordeaux 3)
Selective bibliography
Deborah Cohler, Citizen, Invert, Queer, Lesbianism and War in Early Twentieth-Century Britain, University of Mineapolis Press, 2010.
Jurgen Habermas, Écrits politiques, Cerf, Paris, 1990.
Thomas Hobbes, De Cive: the Latin Version. Critical Edition by Howard Warrender. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1983
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 1996.
David Hume, Essays Moral, Political and Literary, 1752.
Will Kymlicka, Multicutural citizenship, A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights, Oxford University Press, 1995
T.H. Marshall, Citizenship and Social Class, 1950.
John Stuart Mill, The Subjection of Women, London: Longmans, Green, Reader & Dyer, 1869.

Tariq Modood, Multiculturalism, citizenship and national identity, Open Democracy, 2007.

Thomas Paine, A DIALOGUE BETWEEN GENERAL WOLFE AND GENERAL GAGE IN A WOOD NEAR BOSTON.1 -, The Writings of Thomas Paine,Collected and Edited by Moncure Daniel Conway (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1894). Vol. 1.

J. Rawls, A Theory of Justice, Oxford University Press, 1972

Dominique Schnapper, Qu’est-ce que la citoyenneté