Contenu du sommaire : Pourquoi coopérer

Why cooperate Our species is the only one where one finds forms of cooperation which are strong, regular, diverse, risky, extensive and implying sometimes costly sanctions directed towards non kin which. For this reason human cooperation is as much a challenge to the most orthodox of evolutionary theory, centrally attached as it is to the idea of competition amongst individuals for the purpose of reproduction as to classical economic theory based as it is on the concept of “selfish” individuals only motivated by the maximisation of their own interests. We are therefore faced with an anthropological fact in need of explanation. Our approach consists in contrasting two types of cooperation: one of which can be qualified as closed, i.e. restricted to kin or other group members, and another which can be called open, since it involves it is not restricted to these types of categories of individuals. The distinction enables us a) to sort out the mass of data on cooperation, b) to clarify the specificity of Homo sapiens and his ability for forms of more open cooperation, and c) to formulate central anthropological questions concerning the political choices that encourage open or closed forms of cooperation.

The primacy of kinship A Melanesian example of cooperation Among the Sulka of New Britain cooperation is so all pervasive that, excluding transgressions, there does not seem to be any type of behaviour which is not, in some way or another a matter of cooperation. This manifests itself in a prototypical way in the preparation of ceremonial exchanges which involve large scale cooperation necessary in order to gather together the goods that are to be exchanged. Mutual assistance takes two contrasted forms. One involves punctual mutual help while the other, believed to be based on inherited ties, is constitutive of kinship links and consequently involves food and marriage taboos. The paper shows how the meaning of cooperation implies specific concepts of persons and of kinship.

Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: an exemplary cooperation? Experiences and politics among scientists Nanoscience and nanotechnology (ns/t) constitute a scientific domain where the cooperative dynamics occurring between academic and industrial disciplines and ways of doing things are very strong. On the basis of research in physics' labs centrally involved in developing (ns/t) in Grenoble, this paper illustrates the variety of forms and stakes involved in the network of actors involved in research. In following the researchers in physics we can see that they envisage the type of cooperation involved, not only in individual and scientific terms, but also in terms of the collective and political implications of their work. On the basis of the research discussed at the beginning of the paper and bearing in mind the emphasis on these factors, the paper questions certain dominant theoretical approaches in the sociology of networks and more particularly in actor / network theory.

Getting rid off class, cast and indigeneity in Maoist India This paper explores the tensions created when a political project explicitly tries to restructure the ways in which people cooperate with each other, in ways that are different to established ways of organizing society. The focus is on the underground activities of the Communist Party of India (Maoist), commonly called the Naxalites, leading a more than forty year old armed struggle to seize power of the Indian state. The paper draws on long term ethnographic field research in guerilla zones in central and eastern India to explore not just the futuristic notions of cooperation that the Maoists seek to establish in their aims of achieving communism, but also the difficulties they have in establishing new relations of cooperation by rupturing and restructuring existing hierarchies of class, caste and indigeneity. The paper thus promotes an analysis that situates an understanding of forms of cooperation in relation to the political and economic projects which structure them.

Why cooperation does not always work out Trust, motivation and cognitive science Inequality, exploitation and corruption seem to be characteristic of human society. Some suffer more from these ills but none are completely spared. Even though injustice may seem inevitable it is nonetheless surprising from a certain point of view. This is because in recent years cognitive science has shown that humans are predisposed for cooperation and this is caused by universal cognitive and emotional mechanisms. How then can we explain that it fails so often? The explanation is that cooperation has evolved in a social milieu which is very different to that in which we live nowadays. Originally cooperation was adapted to life within small groups of nomadic hunter gatherers but, in order for it to be extended to larger groups, we have had to rely on institutions which can only ensure successful interactions imperfectly.

The stag beetle conductor The game of kwaang, between vibration and cooperation How can humans and beetles coordinate their actions when their perceptual, cognitive and motor capacities are so different? The paper attempts to answer this question by looking at the case of stag beetle fights (kwaang) in Thailand whose popular success seems to depend on such an improbable form of cooperation. In order to do this the paper attempts to describe the different ways by which the players establish and maintain contact with their insects. Based on a theory of communication enlarged so as to take in animals, the paper shows how the two species are able to cooperate by means of a vibratory field which carries signals while no one can be certain of its effects or even whether it can be interpreted. This cooperation occurs in spite of the impossibility of the two species sharing mental images, representations or even establishing frameworks of shared attention.

Nonetheless they do cooperate… A social sciences look at animal cooperation Behavioural biologist find it difficult to explain the evolution of cooperation among non kin from a strict natural selection point of view. Rather than questioning the paradigm itself, even though it only involves a part of the theory of evolution, they add variables to the theory as, for example, the fact that cheaters will be found out and punished. By contrast, on the basis of the studies of cooperation among primates, and in terms of the response of monkeys to the tests to which they are subjected, I stress how difficult it is to study cooperation among primates outside the social and emotional context which, in turn, it serves to define. Finally, I propose that primatology should be open to social science approaches when studying primates and more particularly the great apes, so that it considers them as actors in interactions rather than as organisms simply carrying out strategies which have been inscribed in them by evolution.

A very discreet cultural heritage : the case of the Manouches The attempts by European institutions to valorise Gipsy culture in order to protect them from the various forms of discrimination which they so often suffer comes up against the fact that their cultural inheritance is very difficult to identify. On the basis of observations of Manouche families living in the Pyrénées on housing, cooking, music and painting, I show that what is transmitted is rather a mode of appropriation of the social, cultural and economic environment which enables them to transform certain elements shared with the wider community by charging with new singular meanings by and for the people concerned. This privileging of modes of transmission over content or inherited products corresponds well with the notion of “immaterial cultural heritage” but it is developed in such a fundamental way that it escapes all the attempts at reification of Gipsy culture which the institutions are seeking.

The non-public and culture A suburbian case study Photographic exhibitions are organized since 2004 on the banks of the river Marne at Fleury-la-Rivière within the context of an annual event —the Festival de l'Oh!, initiated by the conseil général of the Val-de-Marne. This type of exhibition does not succeed in attracting the “non-public”. The representations held by the people concerned can block their interaction with the works presented on such a public space. This study is part of an on-going general study of the non-public and its relation to culture. This is a qualitative study carried out in various “stops” of the Festival de l'Oh! The paper is only concerned with immigrants met in housing estates in the upper districts of Fleury.