Repolitisations féministes et queer du cerveau

L’histoire des relations entre biologie et politique féministe est tendue et contradictoire. Cela paraît d’autant plus flagrant aujourd’hui à l’âge d’or des neurosciences qui ramènent les arguments de supériorité masculine, le caractère inéluctable des différences de genre et la prédominance de l’hétérosexualité à une affaire de cerveau. Dans cet article, nous analysons les points d’intersection propres aux sciences du cerveau et du féminisme. Ces deux champs de recherche entretiennent selon nous des rapports conflictuels mais parfois aussi productifs, y compris dans leurs rapports à l’activisme politique. Ces rapports peuvent être caractérisés en référence à trois directions de recherche principales : des « déstabilisations », des « reconstructions » et des « recontextualisations ». En guise de conclusion, nous terminons par quelques réflexions sur les conditions sociologiques de l’engagement dans une économie politique des neurosciences.[1] [1]Traduit de l’anglais par Marc Gagnepain. Pour une brève présentation de l’article et du dossier thématique dans lequel il s’inscrit, nous renvoyons le/la lecteur/trice à l’article introductif de Bovet, Kraus, Panese, Pidoux et Stücklin, « Les neurosciences à l’épreuve de la clinique et des sciences sociales. Regards croisés ».

Agents, Trustees, and International Courts: Nomination and Appointment of Judicial Candidates in the WTO Appellate Body

Scholars have increasingly theorized, and debated, the decision by states to create and delegate authority to international courts, as well as the subsequent autonomy and behavior of those courts, with principal–agent and trusteeship models disagreeing on the nature and extent of states’ influence on international judges. This article formulates and tests a set of principal–agent hypotheses about the ways in which, and the conditions under which, member states are able use their powers of judicial nomination and appointment to influence the endogenous preferences of international judges. The empirical analysis surveys the record of all judicial appointments to the Appellate Body (AB) of the World Trade Organization over a 15-year period. We present a view of an AB appointment process that, far from representing a pure search for expertise, is deeply politicized and offers member-state principals opportunities to influence AB members ex ante and possibly ex post. We further demonstrate that the AB nomination process has become progressively more politicized over time as member states, responding to earlier and controversial AB decisions, became far more concerned about judicial activism and more interested in the substantive opinions of AB candidates, systematically championing candidates whose views on key issues most closely approached their own, and opposing candidates perceived to be activist or biased against their substantive preferences. Although specific to the WTO, our theory and findings have implications for the judicial politics of a large variety of global and regional international courts and tribunals.

Nation, Narration and Islam: Memory and Governmentality in Germany

This article analyses narrations of German memories in relation to the incorporation of Islam into Germany. Memory narratives are not approached from the angle of identity, but as part of the continuous business of rationalizing politics inside and beyond the state. The citational use of narratives authorizes interventions in the process of government by constituting its objects, determining the means and aims of government and defining its authority. Narratives are a governmental practice, i.e. they connect politics narrowly defined with individual conduct, since narratives allow determination of a social context and what constitutes adequate behaviour within it. In this way, they help to orient practices of freedom. Acts such as the cultivating of an ethics of interreligious competition, involvement in specific forms of dialogue, or activism against Islamophobia and anti-Semitism derive meaning in part through such narratives, while simultaneously contributing new meaning.

Catching Reality or Bowing Disciplines: How to Move the Study of Citizenship

In his contribution, Joppke justifies his selection of foundational scholars by linking each to what he sees as the three key facets of citizenship: status, rights and identity. Maarten Vink explicitly links his research agenda to the first, status, and outlines why it is so important. In identifying three facets of citizenship, Joppke acknowledges that some academics would include political participation, but he ultimately decides against it. But here we can, and should, broaden citizenship studies by bringing in insights from the behavioral politics tradition in domestic politics - when and why people engage in political acts - and from the social movements literature in sociology. I believe that the American debate on immigration reform, admittedly stalled, would not have advanced as far as it has without the social movement activism of DREAMers - unauthorized young people pushing for a path to citizenship - and the belief that Barack Obama won re-election in part because of the Latino vote. Importantly, one type of political activism demands formal citizenship, the other does not. As many contributors note, the “national models” approach has had a significant impact on citizenship studies. Whether one views such models through a cultural, institutional or historical lens, this tends to be a top-down, macro-level framework. What about immigrants’ agency? In Canada, although the ruling Conservative government is shifting citizenship discourse to a more traditional language - as Winter points out - it has not reduced immigration, ended dual citizenship, or eliminated multiculturalism, all goals of the Reform Party that the current prime minister once helped build. “Lock-in” effects (or policy feedback loops) based on high immigrant naturalization and the coming of age of a second-generation with citizenship also d emands study, in North America and elsewhere. Much of the research thus far suggests that political decisions over citizenship status and rights do not seem linked to immigrants’ political activism. State-centered decision-making may have characterized policy in the early post-World War II period in Europe (and East Asia?), but does it continue to hold today? Majority publics and immigrant-origin residents are increasingly politicized around citizenship and immigration. Does immigrant agency extend citizenship status, rights and identity to those born outside the polity? Is electoral power key, or is protest necessary? How is citizenship practiced, and contested, irrespective of formal status? These are important and understudied empirical questions, ones that demand theoretical creativity - across sub-fields and disciplines - in conceptualizing and understanding citizenship in contemporary times.