Vis-á-Vis-á-Vis. The Three-dimensional and artistic view of a problem

ANPO (A Non-predefined Outcome) is an an art-making methodology that employs structuralist theory of language (Saussure, Lacan, Foucault) combined with Hegel’s dialectic and the theory of creation of space by Lefebvre to generate spaces of dialogue and conversation between community members and different stakeholders. These theories of language are used to find artistic ways of representing a topic that community members have previously chosen. The topic is approached in a way that allows a visual, aural, performative and gustative form. To achieve this, the methodology is split in four main steps: step 1 ‘This is not a chair’, Step 2 ‘The topic’, Step 3 ‘ Vis-á-vis-á-vis’ and step 4. ‘Dialectical representation’ where the defined topic is used to generate artistic representations.The step 1 is a warm up exercise informed by the Rene Magritte painting ‘This is not a Pipe’. This exercise aims to help the participants to see an object as something else than an object but as a consequence of social implications. Step 2, participants choose a random topic and vote for it. The artist/facilitator does not predetermine the topic, participants are the one who propose it and choose it. Step 3, will be analysed in this publication and finally step 4, the broken down topic is taken to be represented and analysed in different ways. 

Laïcité is what Laïcité does: Rethinking the French cult controversy

France’s distinctive reaction towards “cults” is generally described as a result of laïcité’s consubstantial problems with religious diversity. The aim of this article is to present an alternative way of thinking about the French cult controversy and, ultimately, about the concept of “laïcité” as an explanatory framework for France’s response to religious diversity. It draws on empirical data to look at how notions such as “laïcité” and “cults” are used in official discourses and translated into administrative practice. This approach will underline that laïcité is not a driving force that predetermines a unilateral response to “cults”, but that laïcité is as laïcité does, in other words a highly claimed and contested value, reflecting divergent political and administrative approaches of the cult phenomenon. The framework “laïcité versus religious diversity” is also undermined by another crucial observation. While it sees the cult controversy as primarily a religious issue, it seems that the recent revitalisation of the combat against “cults” was made possible by its partial dissociation from the religious sphere and its extension to a wide range of practices and new areas.