Contenu du sommaire : 50 ans d'Espaces et (de) sociétés

This reflection on the context of the launching of Espaces & Sociétés in 1970 analyses both factors tied to the itinerary, thought and influence of its co-founder, Henri Lefebvre, and the impetus coming from other approaches to Marxist sociology. The genesis of the journal is thus interpreted as a moment of fragile convergence between these differing visions, in particularly around a definition of ‘urban'. In order to generate a dialogue with the other contributions in this special issue, the author also examines the different conceptions of ‘urban' that have driven the journal's history and the debates sparked by their successive definitions.

Drawing on his personal history as a researcher, the author illustrates various ways of exploring the relationship between space and society. The study of the production of space in the tradition of Henri Lefebvre and Raymond Ledrut led him to investigate the actors and systems of action that produce space, along the lines of Michel Crozier and Erhard Friedberg. Other references (Irving Goffmann, Edward T. Hall, Jean Remy and Liliane Voyé, Georges Perec) raised his awareness of the uses of space, and then the existential dimension of our spatial experience. The concepts of place and ambience thus become essential.But the investigation of relations between space and society cannot avoid a radical questioning of the Euclidian definition of an immutable space. On the contrary, ‘the essence of space, as it is conceived today, is its many-sidedness, the infinite potentiality for relations within it' (Sigfried Gideon, Space, Time and Architecture, 1941: 356, as quoted by Martina Löw). These theoretical considerations have numerous implications for practice.

The relationships between space and time, between contemporary spatialities and temporalities, are constantly becoming more diverse, and the effects of globalisation cannot be limited solely to their compression (David Harvey). We are also far from past approaches – like that of Henri Lefebvre – envisioning a reconciliation of linear and cyclical time, for it is now necessary to consider far more complex temporal interconnections. Through an overview of recent anthropological studies on these issues, the article seeks to identify previously unrecognised temporal dimensions, the forms of colonisation of urban time, the impact of the event (previously neglected in anthropology) on the methods and stances of researchers who are increasingly involved in their investigations because of the co-presence with their subjects. In this context, what can the lockdowns resulting from the global health crisis tell us?

This article offers a look at the critical dimension of Espaces & Sociétés from the standpoint of a member of the present editorial board. It begins with an analysis of the board's own eclectic relationship to critique. On the basis of a questionnaire submitted to its members, two main positions can be discerned: one considers that the critical dimension is inherent in a scholarly approach, while the other maintains that this approach does not suffice to guarantee the integration of power relations, both in the production of knowledge and in the social world it analyses. To some extent, these divergences can be explained by the social backgrounds and political socialisation of the different members of the editorial board. In a second section, the author looks back over the journal's history to show that the tempering of critique is not a recent phenomenon. Indeed, the debate over its critical stance already enlivened its thirtieth-anniversary issue.

This article addresses the extent to which an ecological critique that unquestioningly restates the assumed autonomy of the dominated fails to define a political alternative. Rather, it is necessary to study the social conditions for access to politicisation (and activist knowledge) in order to understand the genesis and durability of forms of self-organisation likely to produce commons. Perhaps the problem has less to do with locating experiments in the self-government of people and resources than examining the ways of engaging those who do not participate in it. From such a standpoint, a sociology of domination calls for paying greater attention to the dominated, who are doomed to remain in the ‘damaged world' of a capitalism in ‘ruins' and without whom it is difficult to conceive of a global political project aimed at breaking with the existing order.

This article considers the limited reception of Espaces & Sociétés, as well as other French urban studies journals, in the English-speaking sociological and urban literature. There is a lack of data on the impact of citations from French journals in English-language publications and in international debates, which are often conducted in English. French articles are little-cited in international journals despite efforts to translate abstracts, as well as the accessibility of free translation systems (e.g., Google Translate). A large number of French contributors publish in English-language journals but they do not communicate about French journals. A small number of 20th-century French theoreticians are among the most cited authors, but through the English translations of their writings. Collective strategies, such as indexing French-language journals in international databases, would be a more effective policy.