{"id":83,"date":"2022-01-24T17:47:46","date_gmt":"2022-01-24T17:47:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/afea.fr\/bordeaux2022\/?p=83"},"modified":"2022-02-16T16:44:07","modified_gmt":"2022-02-16T16:44:07","slug":"legitimite-autorite-canons-bordeaux-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/afea.fr\/bordeaux2022\/2022\/01\/24\/legitimite-autorite-canons-bordeaux-2\/","title":{"rendered":"L\u00e9gitimit\u00e9, Autorit\u00e9, Canons – Bordeaux"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Th\u00e8me propos\u00e9 par<\/strong> Sylvie Bauer, Universit\u00e9 de Rennes 2 <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

S\u00e9bastien Mort, Universit\u00e9 de Lorraine (Site de Metz)<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Elizabeth Mullen, Universit\u00e9 de Bretagne Occidentale<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

La tension entre l\u2019autorit\u00e9 d\u2019une parole et d\u2019un pouvoir h\u00e9rit\u00e9s et la qu\u00eate d\u2019une ind\u00e9pendance l\u00e9gitime traverse l\u2019histoire et les cultures des \u00c9tats-Unis. Qu\u2019il s\u2019agisse de proclamer une ind\u00e9pendance politique, culturelle, intellectuelle, litt\u00e9raire ou artistique par rapport \u00e0 l\u2019Europe ou d\u2019affirmer une identit\u00e9 propre au territoire, les \u00c9tats-Unis n\u2019ont cess\u00e9 d\u2019entretenir un rapport trouble \u00e0 l\u2019autorit\u00e9 \u2013 entendue ici principalement au sens d\u2019auctoritas<\/em> \u2013, maintenant un \u00e9tat de crise dynamique soulign\u00e9e par le congr\u00e8s de 2019, qui s\u2019int\u00e9ressait aux notions de discipline et d\u2019indiscipline. Comme le rappelle le num\u00e9ro de la Revue Fran\u00e7aise d\u2019\u00c9tudes Am\u00e9ricaines<\/em> intitul\u00e9 \u00ab Qui a peur des nouveaux canons ? \u00bb (F\u00e9lix et Perrin-Chenour, 2006), la l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9 tant politique que culturelle du pays devait se parer d\u2019un canon. Celui-ci s\u2019est r\u00e9v\u00e9l\u00e9 ambivalent en raison de son rapport au pouvoir et d\u2019une \u00ab f\u00e9tichisation \u00bb qui lui a conf\u00e9r\u00e9 une l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9 contest\u00e9e, mais aussi parce qu\u2019il s\u2019est appropri\u00e9 les marges tout en les excluant. C\u2019est au prisme de la tension entre exclusion et appropriation que nous souhaiterions travailler les probl\u00e9matiques aff\u00e9rentes aux concepts de l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9, d\u2019autorit\u00e9 et de canon lors du 53\u00e8me<\/sup> congr\u00e8s de l\u2019AFEA.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

L\u2019\u00e9lection puis la pr\u00e9sidence de Donald Trump ont r\u00e9cemment projet\u00e9 ces questions \u00e0 l\u2019avant-sc\u00e8ne des d\u00e9bats politiques, culturels et intellectuels, mais aussi litt\u00e9raires et artistiques, en raison de l\u2019empreinte tr\u00e8s forte que sa pr\u00e9sidence a laiss\u00e9e dans l\u2019imaginaire collectif. Figure ext\u00e9rieure \u00e0 la sph\u00e8re politique, Trump a fond\u00e9 sa l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9 sur la persona<\/em> de magnat de l\u2019immobilier qu\u2019il a fa\u00e7onn\u00e9e gr\u00e2ce \u00e0 la t\u00e9l\u00e9r\u00e9alit\u00e9, alors qu\u2019il \u00e9tait en fait un homme d\u2019affaires en faillite. \u00c0 l\u2019inverse il s\u2019est impos\u00e9 dans la course \u00e0 l\u2019investiture et s\u2019est maintenu au pouvoir en contestant la l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9 de ses adversaires \u00e0 pr\u00e9tendre \u00e0 une quelconque autorit\u00e9 du fait de l\u2019insucc\u00e8s chronique qu\u2019ils conna\u00eetraient dans leurs domaines respectifs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Au-del\u00e0 des quatre ann\u00e9es de sa pr\u00e9sidence, Trump appara\u00eet comme symptomatique d\u2019un moment critique o\u00f9 la contestation des formes traditionnelles du politique, les mutations soci\u00e9tales et l\u2019acc\u00e9l\u00e9ration de l\u2019innovation technologique engendrent des bouleversements de grande ampleur qui se manifestent, entre autres, par une crise de l\u2019autorit\u00e9 et par la remise en cause des instances l\u00e9gitimantes traditionnelles. D\u2019une certaine mani\u00e8re, ce moment de crise peut s\u2019analyser comme la derni\u00e8re it\u00e9ration d\u2019un ph\u00e9nom\u00e8ne qui refl\u00e8te quelque chose d\u2019inh\u00e9rent \u00e0 la notion d\u2019am\u00e9ricanit\u00e9 et \u00e0 l\u2019identit\u00e9 \u00e9tasunienne, et qui surgit et ressurgit tout au long de l\u2019histoire du pays, dans tous les domaines de la culture. Au fond, toute l\u2019exp\u00e9rience am\u00e9ricaine peut \u00eatre lue comme une qu\u00eate de l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9 sans cesse renouvel\u00e9e, dont le projet am\u00e9ricain de \u00ab recommencer le monde \u00bb, ainsi que l\u2019\u00e9crit Thomas Paine au moment o\u00f9 s\u2019amorce le processus r\u00e9volutionnaire d\u00e9but 1776, semble condenser les enjeux.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

La th\u00e9matique invite \u00e0 s\u2019interroger sur la perp\u00e9tuelle remise en cause de l\u2019auctoritas<\/em> et des canons et sur la fa\u00e7on dont s\u2019\u00e9tablissent de nouvelles instances l\u00e9gitimantes, dans une culture o\u00f9 l\u2019ethos de l\u2019action fait de l\u2019initiative individuelle et de l\u2019\u00e9thique du travail des sources suffisantes de l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9 et o\u00f9 s\u2019\u00e9rigent et se construisent constamment des r\u00e9f\u00e9rences nouvelles. L\u2019examen des liens entre l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9, autorit\u00e9 et canon am\u00e8ne \u00e9galement \u00e0 se pencher sur la mani\u00e8re dont ces processus mettent en jeu les rapports de pouvoir, tout autant qu\u2019il invite \u00e0 explorer la crise des autorit\u00e9s, les questions de l\u2019autorit\u00e9 usurp\u00e9e et de l\u2019ill\u00e9gitimit\u00e9, les strat\u00e9gies de d\u00e9l\u00e9gitimation de l\u2019autre ainsi que le d\u00e9boulonnement des canons et la d\u00e9sacralisation des autorit\u00e9s \u00e9tablies. Plus globalement, le th\u00e8me appelle \u00e0 r\u00e9fl\u00e9chir \u00e0 la fa\u00e7on dont ces processus construisent et infl\u00e9chissent l\u2019exp\u00e9rience am\u00e9ricaine dans les domaines politique, litt\u00e9raire, artistique, social, culturel, soci\u00e9tal, historique, anthropologique, \u00e9conomique, ou encore \u00e9pist\u00e9mologique.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Au plan politique<\/strong>, ces probl\u00e9matiques sont intrins\u00e8ques au projet am\u00e9ricain car elles \u00e9mergent d\u00e8s l\u2019\u00e9tablissement des premi\u00e8res colonies britanniques, notamment dans les discours visant \u00e0 l\u00e9gitimer la pr\u00e9sence europ\u00e9enne et l\u2019\u00e9radication des autochtones. Au cours de la p\u00e9riode coloniale, la l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9 des gouvernements locaux et la contestation de l\u2019autorit\u00e9 du Parlement et de la couronne sont au c\u0153ur des enjeux politiques. Pendant la R\u00e9volution, c\u2019est \u00e0 une puissance \u00e9trang\u00e8re que la jeune nation demande le soutien pour l\u00e9gitimer son projet d\u2019ind\u00e9pendance ; plus tard, le syst\u00e8me de gouvernement et les institutions sont l\u00e9gitim\u00e9s par l\u2019appropriation et l\u2019adaptation des canons de la philosophie politique europ\u00e9enne, avec lesquels les P\u00e8res fondateurs entretiennent un rapport ambivalent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Au fil des d\u00e9cennies, l\u2019attachement croissant \u00e0 l\u2019autorit\u00e9 des \u00c9tats f\u00e9d\u00e9r\u00e9s vient souvent remettre en cause celle de l\u2019\u00c9tat f\u00e9d\u00e9ral, dont l\u2019intervention est d\u00e9nonc\u00e9e comme une immixtion ill\u00e9gitime. On pourra explorer les diff\u00e9rentes manifestations de l\u2019hostilit\u00e9 anti-f\u00e9d\u00e9rale, en examinant, entre autres, la rh\u00e9torique anti-Washington, le \u00ab f\u00e9tichisme f\u00e9d\u00e9raliste \u00bb, la nullification au cours de la p\u00e9riode antebellum<\/em> ou encore la r\u00e9sistance \u00e0 l\u2019int\u00e9gration ethnoraciale et l\u2019interposition lors de moments importants de la lutte pour les Droits civiques. Poser la question de la l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9 des formes de gouvernement, c\u2019est \u00e9galement s\u2019int\u00e9resser \u00e0 la mani\u00e8re dont le rapport de l’individu \u00e0 l\u2019\u00c9tat tel que le th\u00e9orise Henry David Thoreau dans Civil Disobedience <\/em>(1849) inscrit le dissensus au r\u00e9pertoire des valeurs socle de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 am\u00e9ricaine et l\u00e9gitime des exp\u00e9riences politiques qui \u00e9mergent \u00e0 la marge ou en dehors du p\u00e9rim\u00e8tre des institutions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On pourra s\u2019interroger par ailleurs sur la mani\u00e8re dont s\u2019imposent des courants id\u00e9ologiques endog\u00e8nes ou des manifestations endog\u00e8nes d\u2019id\u00e9ologies qui \u00e9mergent ailleurs. Comment se l\u00e9gitime un socialisme am\u00e9ricain dans une soci\u00e9t\u00e9 qui sacralise l\u2019individu et envisage toute exp\u00e9rience collectiviste comme unAmerican<\/em>, a fortiori dans la p\u00e9riode d\u2019apr\u00e8s-guerre ? Comment, dans une soci\u00e9t\u00e9 sans tradition conservatrice, la contre-sph\u00e8re publique qui se forme autour des revues telles que Human Events<\/em> et National Review <\/em>l\u00e9gitime-t-elle le \u00ab conservatisme nouveau \u00bb \u00e0 partir des ann\u00e9es 1940 ?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dans une perspective plus contemporaine, la th\u00e9matique invite \u00e0 r\u00e9fl\u00e9chir \u00e0 la fa\u00e7on dont la polarisation du jeu politique et les r\u00e9cits partisans mettent en forme des versions irr\u00e9conciliables du r\u00e9el qui sapent la l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9 de celles et ceux qui incarnent les institutions. Quelle est la l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9 de juges acc\u00e9dant \u00e0 la Cour supr\u00eame \u00e0 la faveur de processus de nomination et de confirmation d\u00e9faillants ? De quelle l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9 peut se pr\u00e9valoir la repr\u00e9sentation nationale lorsque celle-ci est en partie le fruit du gerrymandering<\/em> ? Comment des m\u00e9canismes \u00e9lectoraux pourtant inscrits dans la Constitution (vote du Coll\u00e8ge \u00e9lectoral, certification du vote des grands \u00e9lecteurs par le Congr\u00e8s) sont-ils remis en cause pour nier au vainqueur sa l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9 et asseoir celle du perdant ? Sous la question de l\u2019autorit\u00e9 affleure donc celle de l\u2019autoritarisme, d\u2019autant que l\u2019\u00e9poque contemporaine a vu \u00e9merger une figure ayant assis sa l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9 par le biais d\u2019attaques constantes contre le syst\u00e8me d\u00e9mocratique am\u00e9ricain et ses normes, \u00e9l\u00e9ments qui ancrent la l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9 de l\u2019exp\u00e9rience am\u00e9ricaine, tout en s\u2019appropriant par ailleurs les mythes fondateurs de la nation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dans le domaine de la religion<\/strong>, au-del\u00e0 de la multiplication des voix religieuses et de la capacit\u00e9 du Protestantisme am\u00e9ricain \u00e0 admettre le schisme, la r\u00e9flexion pourra porter sur l\u2019\u00e9tablissement de confessions sp\u00e9cifiquement am\u00e9ricaines (importation et d\u00e9veloppement du Baptisme ; cr\u00e9ation du Pentec\u00f4tisme, du Mormonisme, de l\u2019Adventisme) et sur la l\u00e9gitimation d\u2019autorit\u00e9s, de rituels et d\u2019exp\u00e9riences religieuses nouvelles (parler-en-langue ; t\u00e9l\u00e9vang\u00e9lisme ; bapt\u00eame \u00e9lectronique). La th\u00e9matique appelle par ailleurs une r\u00e9flexion sur la l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9 des confessions non-protestantes (hostilit\u00e9 historique envers le catholicisme ; regain de l\u2019antis\u00e9mitisme avec la r\u00e9\u00e9mergence et l\u2019activisme accru de groupes d\u2019extr\u00eame droite ; islamophobie exacerb\u00e9e depuis le 11 septembre) mais aussi des non-croyants, dans une soci\u00e9t\u00e9 o\u00f9 la foi en Dieu est identifi\u00e9e \u00e0 la foi dans le projet am\u00e9ricain. L\u2019attention pourra aussi se porter sur l\u2019instrumentalisation du religieux \u00e0 des fins de d\u00e9l\u00e9gitimation de l\u2019adversaire, notamment dans le domaine politique. A contrario, l\u2019intersection entre religion, sexualit\u00e9 et appartenance ethnoraciale pourra donner lieu \u00e0 une r\u00e9flexion sur la fa\u00e7on dont le religieux joue parfois le r\u00f4le d\u2019instance l\u00e9gitimante d\u2019exp\u00e9riences et de pratiques sociales non-h\u00e9g\u00e9moniques.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dans le domaine de la litt\u00e9rature<\/strong>, on pourra examiner comment s\u2019est construite la l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9 des textes am\u00e9ricains. Si la D\u00e9claration d\u2019ind\u00e9pendance marque un jalon dans l\u2019\u00e9mancipation des \u00c9tats-Unis, cette \u00e9mancipation passe aussi par une litt\u00e9rature et une pens\u00e9e propres, vaste projet maintes fois souhait\u00e9 et annonc\u00e9 et dont les ambigu\u00eft\u00e9s s\u2019affichent jusque dans la d\u00e9claration d\u2019ind\u00e9pendance intellectuelle qu\u2019est The American Scholar <\/em>de Ralph Waldo Emerson (1837). On pourra alors se demander comment s\u2019est impos\u00e9e une litt\u00e9rature d\u2019Am\u00e9rique et comment ont \u00e9merg\u00e9 des \u00ab voix am\u00e9ricaines \u00bb, pour reprendre le titre de la collection dont la vocation \u00e9tait de faire porter ces voix. Comment la litt\u00e9rature am\u00e9ricaine a-t-elle acc\u00e9d\u00e9 aux canons litt\u00e9raires au-del\u00e0 des \u00c9tats-Unis et comment s\u2019est-elle bien souvent nourrie de canons europ\u00e9ens dont elle a incorpor\u00e9 la l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9 pour mieux la d\u00e9tourner ? Comment lire la fascination pour cette litt\u00e9rature \u00e9tasunienne telle qu\u2019elle s\u2019incarne dans la diffusion de certains de ses textes en France, par l\u2019entremise de passeurs que sont les universitaires, les traducteurs, les maisons d\u2019\u00e9ditions (on pense \u00e0 Gallmeister, ou \u00e0 la collection d\u00e9di\u00e9e d\u2019Actes Sud) ou les revues, telles l\u2019\u00e9ph\u00e9m\u00e8re America<\/em>, qui, toutes, font emprunter aux lecteurs la grand-route tout autant que les chemins de traverse.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Plus largement qu\u2019est-ce qu\u2019un texte canonique et une voix l\u00e9gitime dans le contexte litt\u00e9raire et \u00e9ditorial \u00e9tasunien ? Comment l\u2019\u0153uvre fait-elle r\u00e9f\u00e9rence et comment se font entendre les voix multiples en marge du canon, \u00e0 contre-courant, ou en courant alternatif ? Qu\u2019il s\u2019agisse de la multiplicit\u00e9 de maisons d\u2019\u00e9ditions ind\u00e9pendantes, des festivals litt\u00e9raires, des voix singuli\u00e8res qui diffractent le paysage litt\u00e9raire, comment une litt\u00e9rature qui serait proprement \u00e9tasunienne fait-elle entrer en r\u00e9sonance canon et \u00ab exp\u00e9rimentation \u00bb ? \u00c0 l’inverse, qu\u2019en est-il de la d\u00e9sacralisation des \u0153uvres ?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Se pose alors la question de l\u2019auctorialit\u00e9 et des autorit\u00e9s narratives (Audi, 2002) : quelles sont les nouvelles pratiques narratives\/litt\u00e9raires qui \u00e9mergent en dehors des cadres institutionnels lorsque les \u0153uvres se font le reflet d\u2019un contemporain propice aux conflits sociaux et politiques ? Comment alors concilier une litt\u00e9rature parfois revendicative ou engag\u00e9e \u2013 mais aussi Native American<\/em>, African American<\/em>, Italian American<\/em>, Arab American<\/em> ou encore Women\u2019s literature<\/em> pour n\u2019en nommer que quelques-unes \u2013 et l\u2019id\u00e9e m\u00eame de litt\u00e9rature incarnant un universel am\u00e9ricain, d\u00e9li\u00e9e de toute cat\u00e9gorisation ? Ce questionnement met donc en jeu la l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9 de la parole, rapport\u00e9e \u00e0 un genre, une origine, une couleur de peau. La question du canon est li\u00e9e \u00e9galement \u00e0 celle de l\u2019institutionnalisation de la litt\u00e9rature, des choix \u00e9ditoriaux ou universitaires qui tracent les contours de ce que serait une litt\u00e9rature am\u00e9ricaine au singulier et dans ses multiples singularit\u00e9s. Enfin, \u00e0 quelle forme d\u2019autorit\u00e9 le critique litt\u00e9raire peut-il pr\u00e9tendre ou de quelle autorit\u00e9 peut-il se r\u00e9clamer alors qu\u2019il a pour objet de l\u2019interroger voir de la remettre en question ? Quelle est la port\u00e9e et la responsabilit\u00e9 du geste critique et th\u00e9orique dans la construction d\u2019une pens\u00e9e faite d\u2019entrecroisements et d\u2019intertextualit\u00e9 et susceptible de proposer un observatoire d\u2019une litt\u00e9rature am\u00e9ricaine elle-m\u00eame enrichie de traditions, de mim\u00e9tismes, et rapports \u00e0 une langue h\u00e9rit\u00e9e, m\u00e9tiss\u00e9e et revendiqu\u00e9e ?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Il en va de m\u00eame dans le domaine des arts visuels et de l\u2019architecture. Comment sont \u00e9rig\u00e9s des canons artistiques et architecturaux am\u00e9ricains ? Quel r\u00f4le jouent l\u2019appropriation et l\u2019adaptation de canons existants dans la l\u00e9gitimation d\u2019un art am\u00e9ricain ? La th\u00e9matique invite aussi \u00e0 une r\u00e9flexion sur le processus de mus\u00e9alisation et \u00e0 l\u2019inverse, sur la l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9 de canons qui s\u2019\u00e9laboreraient en dehors de l\u2019institution. La probl\u00e9matique est saillante par ailleurs dans le domaine de la musique et la danse. \u00c0 la faveur de quels processus les livrets d\u2019\u0153uvres op\u00e9ratiques nouvelles sont-ils inscrits au r\u00e9pertoire des grandes salles ?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Au plan historique<\/strong>, le sujet invite \u00e0 s\u2019interroger sur l\u2019\u00e9mergence des figures tut\u00e9laires, et plus particuli\u00e8rement sur les processus qui permettent \u00e0 certaines figures d\u2019int\u00e9grer le panth\u00e9on des personnages illustres, au contraire d\u2019autres qui auraient pourtant titre \u00e0 y acc\u00e9der. Ces enjeux rev\u00eatent une centralit\u00e9 toute particuli\u00e8re dans les probl\u00e9matiques aff\u00e9rentes \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9criture de l\u2019histoire des mouvements de r\u00e9forme et de la lutte pour les Droits civiques, dans lesquels les femmes jouent un r\u00f4le absolument crucial mais dont les r\u00e9cits semblent domin\u00e9s par les hommes. S\u2019interroger sur la l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9 des figures historiques invite donc \u00e0 se pencher sur les questions d\u2019historicit\u00e9, d\u2019autorit\u00e9 de l\u2019historien\u00b7ne et d\u2019\u00e9criture de l\u2019histoire. De quelle autorit\u00e9 l\u2019historien\u00b7ne peut-il ou elle se pr\u00e9valoir ? Qui a l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9 \u00e0 \u00e9crire les r\u00e9cits nationaux ? Comment les r\u00e9cits historiques de la marge se l\u00e9gitiment-ils ? Ces questions appellent, entre autres, une r\u00e9flexion sur le travail de l\u00e9gitimation historique des autochtones, des esclaves, des femmes, des groupes minoris\u00e9s, ainsi que leur place dans les r\u00e9cits nationaux et leur effort pour l\u00e9gitimer leur participation \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9criture de ces r\u00e9cits, tout en examinant l\u2019incidence des enjeux contemporains sur la fa\u00e7on dont sont \u00e9rig\u00e9es les figures historiques canoniques.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

La probl\u00e9matique de l\u2019inscription des figures de l\u2019autorit\u00e9 dans l\u2019espace public est centrale \u00e9galement \u2013 on pense \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9rection et au d\u00e9boulonnement des statues de figures conf\u00e9d\u00e9r\u00e9es. \u00c0 l\u2019inverse, poser la question de la l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9 historique invite \u00e0 se pencher sur \u00ab l\u2019offensive culturelle \u00bb (Offenstadt, 2014) que m\u00e8nent les commentateurs de la contre-sph\u00e8re publique conservatrice, notamment sur les r\u00e9seaux sociaux, pour remettre en cause les consensus historiques.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Du point de vue de la m\u00e9thodologie de l\u2019histoire, la th\u00e9matique sugg\u00e8re une r\u00e9flexion sur les archives et le processus d\u2019archivage (Quel document a titre \u00e0 devenir une archive ? Comment le statut d\u2019archive l\u00e9gitime est-il d\u00e9fini ?) ainsi que sur la question du t\u00e9moignage dans l\u2019\u00e9criture de l\u2019histoire (Comment se construit l\u2019autorit\u00e9 des t\u00e9moignages historiques ? Comment s\u2019\u00e9tablit la l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9 des acteurs historiques ?).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

L\u00e9gitimit\u00e9, autorit\u00e9 et canons sont \u00e9galement au c\u0153ur des enjeux qui entourent les mouvements de r\u00e9forme<\/strong>, ind\u00e9pendamment de leur mise en r\u00e9cit historique. Comment se l\u00e9gitiment les discours antiesclavagistes et abolitionnistes quand l\u2019esclavage est non seulement vital \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9conomie d\u2019une partie du pays mais sous-tend l\u2019\u00e9difice social ? Comment faire admettre la l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9 civique et politique des Africains-Am\u00e9ricains alors m\u00eame que leur humanit\u00e9 est en question ? De m\u00eame, comment se fait entendre la diversit\u00e9 des voix f\u00e9ministes, dans le sillage des militantes lesbiennes au sein de la National Organization for Women, face \u00e0 une opposition croissante des conservateurs et conservatrices ? Quelle est la place des femmes trans dans les r\u00e9cits f\u00e9ministes ? \u00c0 l\u2019\u00e9poque plus contemporaine, la remise en question de l\u2019autorit\u00e9 et des structures de pouvoir est un enjeu central de mouvements tels que #MeToo ou #TimesUp et #BlackLivesMatter, ses d\u00e9riv\u00e9s (#TransLivesMatter) et ses appropriations r\u00e9actionnaires (#AllLivesMatter ; #BlueLivesMatter). De m\u00eame, outre les avanc\u00e9es et r\u00e9gressions socioculturelles, l\u2019analyse des notions de genre, de sexualit\u00e9 et de binarit\u00e9 s\u2019articule aussi autour du statut \u00e9pist\u00e9mologique et ontologique de diff\u00e9rentes communaut\u00e9s (Black<\/em>, African American<\/em>, Person of Color<\/em>, BIPOC<\/em>, LGBTQIA+<\/em>).<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

La r\u00e9flexion pourra enfin porter sur les processus de l\u00e9gitimation de strat\u00e9gies de contestation d\u00e9ploy\u00e9es en dehors du cadre d\u00e9fini par la d\u00e9sob\u00e9issance civile, qui, envisag\u00e9e comme non-violente, respectueuse des institutions et de l\u2019autorit\u00e9 de l\u2019\u00c9tat, est g\u00e9n\u00e9ralement admise comme seul mode de protestation l\u00e9gitime (Delmas, 2020). Comment des formes de \u00ab d\u00e9sob\u00e9issance non-civile \u00bb (anonymes, irrespectueuses, potentiellement violentes, et visant pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment \u00e0 contester la l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9 de l\u2019\u00c9tat) ont-elles cherch\u00e9 \u00e0 s\u2019imposer comme strat\u00e9gies de contestation l\u00e9gitimes ? Des \u00ab sextr\u00eamistes \u00bb aux activistes de la lutte contre le SIDA en passant par le culture jamming<\/em>, l\u2019histoire des \u00c9tats-Unis est ponctu\u00e9e d\u2019exp\u00e9riences contestataires non-civiles visant \u00e0 permettre aux minoris\u00e9\u00b7e\u00b7s de se r\u00e9approprier leur agentivit\u00e9 et qui viennent compliquer la fa\u00e7on d\u2019envisager l\u2019expression et la mise en \u0153uvre du dissensus.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Les questions d\u2019authenticit\u00e9, de l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9 et de canons pourront \u00e9galement \u00eatre explor\u00e9es en termes de canons cin\u00e9matographiques \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e2ge classique hollywoodien, au moment du nouvel Hollywood, o\u00f9 dans le domaine du cin\u00e9ma ind\u00e9pendant ou du film documentaire, tout comme les questions d\u2019hybridation g\u00e9n\u00e9rique (ZomComs, Western gai, SF Queer) et transm\u00e9diatique (adaptation, remake, reboot<\/em>, sequel<\/em>, prequel<\/em>, coquel<\/em>), ainsi que leurs univers adjacents. Ces questions se posent aussi quand on aborde les probl\u00e9matiques d\u2019identit\u00e9, de genre et de sexualit\u00e9 et de leurs repr\u00e9sentations (aux \u00e9crans, dans les textes). Dans les arts visuels<\/strong> et la production m\u00e9diatique, il pourrait s\u2019agir par exemple de se pencher sur les liens entre autorit\u00e9 et censure (code Hays, Mapplethorpe obscenity trial<\/em>) ou entre autorit\u00e9 et production (white\/cis\/straight\/able casting et diversity riders <\/em>; choix de la sortie en salles ou en streaming <\/em>; signification politique du choix des lieux de tournage).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

En termes de repr\u00e9sentation \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9cran, l\u2019articulation du pouvoir de la repr\u00e9sentation et de la l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9 (\u201cSee It to Be It<\/em>\u201d) m\u00e9rite r\u00e9flexion \u00e9galement, notamment dans l\u2019\u00e9volution de la production t\u00e9l\u00e9visuelle et filmique ainsi que dans ses modalit\u00e9s de r\u00e9ception, de plus en plus actives\/activistes. Des mouvements comme #OscarsSoWhite et la pol\u00e9mique autour des Golden Globes mettent en lumi\u00e8re le manque structurel de personnes autres que blanches devant et derri\u00e8re la cam\u00e9ra, ainsi que dans les jurys qui d\u00e9terminent quelles productions seront canonis\u00e9es. Les questions d\u2019intersectionnalit\u00e9 et de privil\u00e8ge (racial, \u00e9conomique, genr\u00e9) ainsi que la r\u00e9action qu\u2019ils suscitent sont au c\u0153ur de ces enjeux.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dans le domaine des m\u00e9dias et du journalisme<\/strong>, le \u00ab moment Trump \u00bb jette une lumi\u00e8re crue sur des mutations syst\u00e9miques qui remettent en cause la l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9 des discours et normes journalistiques ainsi que l\u2019autorit\u00e9 culturelle des journalistes professionnels. La g\u00e9n\u00e9ralisation de la portabilit\u00e9 des outils de communication et l\u2019av\u00e8nement des r\u00e9seaux sociaux num\u00e9riques au tournant des ann\u00e9es 2010 n\u2019ont fait qu\u2019accentuer la \u00ab multiaxialit\u00e9 \u00bb de l\u2019environnement m\u00e9diatique qui \u00e9merge \u00e0 la fin de la d\u00e9cennie 1980 (Williams et Delli Carpini, 2011). \u00c0 la faveur de ce ph\u00e9nom\u00e8ne, de nouveaux supports et formats s\u2019imposent et viennent remettre en cause la fa\u00e7on d\u2019envisager les fronti\u00e8res entre genres m\u00e9diatiques ainsi que la mani\u00e8re de d\u00e9terminer la valeur informationnelle et politique des contenus. En corollaire, les journalistes professionnels se voient ravir le monopole qu\u2019ils exer\u00e7aient de longue date dans la d\u00e9finition des contours de l\u2019environnement discursif et l\u2019\u00e9laboration de l\u2019ordre du jour m\u00e9diatique. Sous le r\u00e9gime m\u00e9diatique \u00ab hybride \u00bb que ces mutations ont fait advenir, ces tendances s\u2019exacerbent et les logiques propres aux m\u00e9dias traditionnels int\u00e8grent celles des nouveaux m\u00e9dias pour \u00e9branler les hi\u00e9rarchies informationnelles, brouiller les fronti\u00e8res en producteur et r\u00e9cepteur de l\u2019information et mettre en crise le consensus autour de la notion de \u00ab fait \u00bb (Chadwick, 2017). Dans ce processus, de nouvelles voix \u00e9mergent qui remettent en cause voire supplantent l\u2019autorit\u00e9 de voix \u00e9tablies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Enfin, en lien avec la crise de l\u2019autorit\u00e9 culturelle des journalistes professionnels, la th\u00e9matique invite \u00e0 se pencher sur la remise en cause de la l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9 des intellectuels et des universit\u00e9s dans les d\u00e9bats de soci\u00e9t\u00e9 contemporains tout autant qu\u2019elle place au centre de la conversation les enjeux de l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9 \u00e9pist\u00e9mologique<\/strong>. Qu\u2019est-ce qu\u2019un domaine de recherche l\u00e9gitime ? Comment les champs et les disciplines s\u2019imposent-ils comme tels ? Comment s\u2019\u00e9tablissent les canons th\u00e9oriques et m\u00e9thodologiques ? Comment se n\u00e9gocient et se maintiennent les fronti\u00e8res entre disciplines ? Dans le domaine sp\u00e9cifique des \u00e9tudes anglophones et am\u00e9ricaines en France, on pourra s\u2019interroger sur le statut \u00e9pist\u00e9mologique contest\u00e9 de la \u00ab civilisation \u00bb en tant que discipline. Au-del\u00e0 du contexte universitaire fran\u00e7ais, si certains domaines \u00e9tablis ne font l\u2019objet d\u2019aucune remise en cause, qu\u2019en est-il des champs d\u2019\u00e9tudes (\u00e9mergents) tels que les game studies<\/em>, les AIDS studies<\/em>, les porn studies<\/em> ou les disability studies<\/em> ? De quelle forme d\u2019autorit\u00e9 scientifique se pr\u00e9vaut-on quand on \u00e9tudie un sujet \u00e9mergent ? Des enqu\u00eates sur l\u2019apparition de ces nouveaux champs et des \u00e9tudes comparatives entre les \u00c9tats-Unis et d\u2019autres pays pourront nourrir la r\u00e9flexion de fa\u00e7on tr\u00e8s \u00e0 propos.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

R\u00e9f\u00e9rences<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Amedegnato, Ozouf S\u00e9namin, Gbanou, S\u00e9lom Komlan et Ngalasso-Mwatha, Musanji (2011). L\u00e9gitimit\u00e9, l\u00e9gitimation<\/em>. Presses Universitaires de Bordeaux.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Alasuutari, Pertti (2018). \u201cAuthority as epistemic capital,\u201d Journal of Political Power<\/em>, vol.11, n\u00b02, 165-190.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Arendt, Hannah (1956). \u201cWhat is authority?\u201d In Arendt, Hannah. Between Past and Future: Six Exercises in Political Thought.<\/em> The Viking Press.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Audi, Paul (2002). \u00ab S\u00e9mantique de l\u2019autorit\u00e9 (quelques remarques) \u00bb, La lettre de l\u2019enfance et de l\u2019adolescence<\/em>, vol. 4, n\u00b050, 15-22.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Beetham, David (2013). The Legitimation of Power<\/em>. Palgrave Macmillan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chadwick, Andrew (2017). The Hybrid Media System: Politics and Power. <\/em>Oxford University Press.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cottereau, Alain et Paul Ladri\u00e8re (1992). Pouvoir et l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9 : Figures de l\u2019espace public<\/em>. \u00c9ditions de l\u2019\u00c9cole des Hautes \u00c9tudes en Sciences Sociales. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Delmas, Candice, \u201cUncivil Disobedience.\u201d In Schwartzberg, Melissa (Ed.) (2020). Protest & Dissent<\/em>, Nomos LXII, NYU Press; pp.9-61.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

F\u00e9lix, Brigitte et Perrin-Chenour, Marie-Claude (2006). \u00ab Qui a peur des nouveaux canons ? \u00bb Revue Fran\u00e7aise d\u2019\u00c9tudes Am\u00e9ricaines<\/em>. Belin.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Gavoille, Elisabeth (2019). Qu\u2019est-ce qu\u2019un auctor? Auteur et autorit\u00e9 du latin au fran\u00e7ais<\/em>. Ausonius \u00c9ditions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kahn, Paul W. (1992). Legitimacy and History: Self-Government in American Constitutional Theory<\/em>. Yale University Press.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, Sylvia. (2016). \u201cLegitimacy,\u201d In Ansell, C. et Torfing, J. (dir.) Handbook of Theories of Governance<\/em>, Edward Elgar, 194-204.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Maini, Irma (2012). Multiethnic Literature and Canon Debates<\/em>. State University of New York Press.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Offenstadt, Nicolas (2014). L\u2019Histoire, un combat au pr\u00e9sent<\/em>. \u00ab Conversation pour demain \u00bb. \u00c9ditions Textuel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Patell, Cyrus (2014). Emergent U.S. Literatures: From Multiculturalism to Cosmopolitanism in the Late Twentieth Century<\/em>. New York University Press.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Patterson, Mark R. (1988). Authority, Autonomy, and Representation in American Literature, 1776-1865<\/em>. Princeton University Press.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Revault d’Allonnes, Myriam (2009). Le Pouvoir des commencements : Essai sur l\u2019autorit\u00e9.<\/em> Editions du Seuil.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sevel, Michael et Kevin Walton (2019). Legitimacy: The State and Beyond<\/em>. Oxford University Press.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Smith, R.W. (1970). \u201cThe Concept of Legitimacy,\u201d Theoria: A Journal of Social and Political Theory<\/em>, n\u00b035, 17-29.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Vila-Henninger, Luis Antonio (2020). Social Justification and Political Legitimacy: How Voters Rationalize Direct Democratic Economic Policy in America<\/em>. Springer International Publishing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Williams, Bruce et Michael X. Delli Carpini (2011). After Broadcast News: Media Regimes, Democracy, and the New Information Environment. <\/em>Cambridge University Press.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Williams, Daniel G. (2005). Ethnicity and Cultural Authority: From Arnold to Du Bois<\/em>. Edinburgh University Press.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Calendrier<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

18 octobre 2021<\/strong><\/td>Date limite d\u2019envoi des propositions d\u2019ateliers <\/td><\/tr>
25 octobre 2021<\/strong><\/td>Publication des ateliers et appel \u00e0 communications<\/td><\/tr>
17 janvier 2022<\/strong><\/td>Date limite d\u2019envoi des propositions de communication aux responsables d\u2019ateliers <\/td><\/tr>
14 f\u00e9vrier 2022<\/strong><\/td>Date limite d\u2019envoi de la composition des ateliers aux organisateurs scientifiques<\/td><\/tr>
01 mars 2022<\/strong><\/td>Publication du programme <\/td><\/tr>
31 mai \u2013 3 juin 2022<\/strong><\/td>Congr\u00e8s<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Les propositions d\u2019atelier doivent \u00eatre adress\u00e9es conjointement \u00e0 Sylvie Bauer (<\/strong>sylvie.bauer@wanadoo.fr<\/strong><\/a>), S\u00e9bastien Mort (<\/strong>sebastien.mort@univ-lorraine.fr<\/strong><\/a>) et Elizabeth Mullen (<\/strong>elizabeth.mullen@univ-brest.fr<\/strong><\/a>). <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Legitimacy, Authority, Canons<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Call for Papers<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The tension between the authority of inherited power and discourse on the one hand and the legitimate quest for independence on the other pervades every aspect of US history and culture. Whether in the nation\u2019s claim to political, cultural, intellectual, literary, or artistic independence from Europe or in its insistence upon the unique nature of its territory, the United States has maintained a vexed relationship with authority\u2014understood in the present context as \u201cauctoritas<\/em>.\u201d This constant state of dynamic crisis was underscored at the AFEA annual conference in 2019, Discipline\/Indiscipline<\/em>. As suggested in the issue of the Revue Fran\u00e7aise d\u2019\u00c9tudes Am\u00e9ricaines<\/em> entitled \u00ab Qui a peur des nouveaux canons ? \u00bb (\u201cWho\u2019s Afraid of New Canons?\u201d) (F\u00e9lix and Perrin-Chenour, 2006), in order to establish political and cultural legitimacy, the country had to define its own canon. This process of codifying what is (and is not) an essential part of the \u201cAmerican\u201d canon remains an ambivalent one, conferring a legitimacy bordering on fetishization upon certain aspects, while simultaneously appropriating and excluding other elements at the margins.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is through a more detailed analysis of this tension between exclusion and appropriation that we would like to invite participants in the 53rd<\/sup> edition of the AFEA annual congress to address issues related to the concepts of legitimacy, authority, and canon.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Because of the very strong imprint his presidency has left on the collective imagination, Donald Trump\u2019s election and administration have recently brought these issues to the forefront of political, cultural, intellectual, literary, and artistic debates. A figure outside the political sphere, Trump\u2019s legitimacy was largely based on his own \u201cself-made\u201d persona\u2014that of an outspoken, wildly successful real estate mogul\u2014fueled by his performance on \u201creality\u201d TV, despite the fact that many of Trump\u2019s various business ventures had ended in bankruptcy. Conversely, he won the Republican nomination and held on to power by challenging the legitimacy of his opponents, draining them of their authority through a theatrical barrage of insults, (often false) claims, and derogatory nicknames.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Looking beyond his four-year presidential term, Donald Trump\u2019s rise to power can be seen as symptomatic of a critical juncture in US history\u2014one where hostility to traditional politics, profound social and societal changes, and the acceleration of technological innovation have all led to major upheavals across the US, made manifest through unprecedented challenges to traditional sources of authority and traditional legitimizing institutions. In a way, this critical moment can be analyzed as the latest iteration of a phenomenon that reflects something inherent to Americanness and American identity, something that ebbs and flows throughout the country\u2019s history in all areas of US culture. Ultimately, the American experiment can be read as a perpetual quest for legitimacy, whose stakes seem to be condensed in Thomas Paine\u2019s American project of \u201cbegin[ning] the world over again.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This year\u2019s congress theme is an invitation to explore the perpetual questioning of auctoritas<\/em> and canons, and the ways in which new legitimizing institutions are established in a culture where, in keeping with the American ethos of action, individual initiative and a strong work ethic are sufficient sources of legitimacy, and where social, political, cultural, literary, and artistic leaders are constantly endeavoring to legitimize themselves, question authorities and canons, and reinvent new references. Exploring the interaction between legitimacy, authority, and canon also implies examining the ways in which these processes bring power relations into play, as much as it invites us to address questions of usurped authority and illegitimacy, strategies of delegitimization of the Other, as well as the debunking of canons and the de-consecration\/desecration of established authorities. More broadly, the theme calls for a reflection on how these processes construct and shape the American experiment in the political, literary, artistic, social, cultural, societal, historical, anthropological, economic, and epistemological fields.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the realm of politics<\/strong>, these issues are consubstantial to the American project as they arose as early as the establishment of the first British colonies, particularly in discourses designed to legitimize the European presence and to justify the eradication of indigenous populations. During the colonial period, the legitimacy of local governments and challenges to the authority of Parliament and the Crown were at the heart of political debates. During the Revolution, the young nation sought the support of a foreign power to legitimize its project of independence; later, the system of government and institutions were legitimized by appropriating and adapting the canons of European political philosophy, with which the Founding Fathers had an ambivalent relationship.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Over the decades, growing attachment to the authority of individual states has often resulted in challenges to the authority of the federal government, whose interventions have been denounced as a form of illegitimate infringement. Possible topics include the various manifestations of anti-federal hostility\u2014including anti-Washington rhetoric, \u201cfederalist fetishism,\u201d nullification during the Antebellum Period, resistance to abandoning segregationist practices and to federal intervention during key moments in the Civil Rights struggle. Interrogating the legitimacy of various forms of government also implies analyzing how the individual\u2019s relationship to the State (as theorized in 1849 by Henry David Thoreau in Civil Disobedience<\/em>) foregrounds dissent in the repertoire of US core values and legitimizes political experiments that emerge at the margins or outside the perimeter of institutions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Panels exploring how endogenous ideological tendencies or endogenous manifestations of ideologies emerging elsewhere take center stage would also be welcome. How can a form of American socialism become legitimate in a society that sanctifies the individual and considers any collectivist experience as un-American, particularly in the post-war period? How, in a society without a conservative tradition, does the public counter-sphere that coalesces around publications such as Human Events<\/em> and National Review<\/em> legitimize \u201cnew conservatism\u201d from the 1940s onward?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From a more contemporary perspective, this theme is an invitation to reflect on how the polarization of the political landscape and partisan narratives shape irreconcilable versions of reality that undermine the legitimacy of the individuals who serve in revered institutions. For instance, what is the legitimacy of justices who come to serve on the Supreme Court through flawed nomination and confirmation processes? How legitimate can elected officials be when they come into office partly thanks to gerrymandering? How are constitutionally enshrined electoral mechanisms (the Electoral College, the certification of the electoral vote by Congress) called into question so as to deny winners their legitimacy and establish that of the losers? Underneath the question of authority lies the question of authoritarianism, especially in light of the emergence of a figure claiming legitimacy through constant attacks against American democracy and its norms\u2014elements that ground the legitimacy of the American experiment\u2014while also appropriating the nation\u2019s founding myths.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the field of religion<\/strong>, beyond the increasing number of religious voices and the capacity of American Protestantism to accommodate dissent, analysis could focus on the establishment of specifically American denominations (importation and development of Baptism; creation of Pentecostalism, Mormonism, 7th<\/sup> Day Adventism) and on the legitimization of new authorities, rituals, and religious experiences (speaking in tongues; televangelism; electronic baptism). The theme also calls for a reflection on the legitimacy of non-Protestant faiths (historical hostility towards Catholicism; renewed anti-Semitism through the emergence and increased activism of extreme right-wing groups; increasing Islamophobia in post-9\/11 America); it also invites us to reflect on the (contested) authority of non-believers in a society where faith in God is equated with faith in the American project. Scholars may also examine the instrumentalization of religion for the purpose of delegitimizing rivals, particularly in politics. Conversely, the intersection between religion, sexuality, and ethno-racial identity forces us to reflect on whether and how religion legitimizes non-hegemonic social experiments and practices.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the field of literature<\/strong>, we can explore how the legitimacy of American texts was first established, and how it is changing. While the Declaration of Independence marked a milestone in US emancipation from Europe, this process also required Americans to invent a new kind of literature and a specific way of thinking\u2014a vast project whose ambiguities can be seen even in Ralph Waldo Emerson\u2019s The American Scholar<\/em> (1837), a declaration of intellectual independence. We can then ask ourselves how \u201cAmerican voices\u201d emerged, to use the title of the collection whose purpose was to make these voices heard. How did American literature enter literary canons beyond the United States, and how did it often feed on established European canons in order to gain its own legitimacy? How can we interpret continuing French fascination for American texts, as evidenced in the work of scholars and translators and in publishing houses like Gallmeister or Actes Sud<\/em>\u2019s special collections, as well as in periodicals (such as the ephemeral America<\/em>), which lead readers along the main road as often as the \u201croad less traveled by\u201d (Frost)?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

More broadly, what makes\/defines a canonical text and a legitimate voice in the context of the American literary and publishing industry? What endows a given work with authority, and how are the many voices on the margins of the canon\u2014those which go against the current of the mainstream or those which explore alternative paths\u2014heard? Whether it is the multiplicity of independent publishing houses, literary festivals, or the singular voices that diffract the literary landscape, how does a literature that is properly American resonate with the canon and with \u201cexperimentation?\u201d Conversely, what about the deconsecration of formerly canonical works?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The question of authoriality and narrative authority then arises (Audi, 2002): what are the new narrative\/literary practices that emerge outside of institutional frameworks when texts reflect a contemporary reality that is rife with social and political conflict? How then can we reconcile literature focusing on specific forms of protest or committed to specific issues\u2014but also Native American, African American, Italian American, Arab American or \u201cWomen\u2019s Literature,\u201d to name but a few\u2014with the very idea of literature as the embodiment of a universal American identity, free of any categorization? These avenues of enquiry call into question the legitimacy of discourse relating to gender, ethnic origin, or skin color. The notion of the Canon is also linked to the institutionalization of literature and the editorial or academic choices that delineate the contours of what an American literature \u201cshould\u201d be, in the singular and in its multiple singularities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, what form of authority can literary critics claim, especially when their purpose is to question or even challenge literary canon? What is the role and responsibility of critical and theoretical endeavors in constructing schools of thought stemming from multiple intersections (among which literary, critical, and philosophical intertextuality) likely to serve as an observatory of American literature\u2014a literature rich in mimesis and tradition(s), written in a language marked by and proud of its multiple and mixed heritage?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The same line of thinking is true of architecture and the visual arts. How have American artistic and architectural canons been established? What role do the appropriation and adaptation of existing canons play in the legitimization of American art? This theme is also an invitation to examine processes of \u201cmuseumization\u201d and, conversely, the legitimacy of canons that are developed outside the institution, including in the fields of music and dance. Through what processes are the librettos of new operatic works included in the repertoire of distinguished opera houses or concert halls?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the field of history<\/strong>, this year\u2019s theme is an invitation to examine the emergence of tutelary guides or figureheads and more particularly the processes that allow certain major voices to enter the pantheon of illustrious personages\/leaders, as opposed to others who could also legitimately claim their place in the pantheon. These issues are particularly central to overwhelmingly masculine accounts of the history of reform movements and the struggle for Civil Rights, when women also played a crucial role. Interrogating the legitimacy of historical figures brings us to address questions of historicity, the authority of the historian, and the writing of history. What authority can the historian claim? Who has legitimacy to write national narratives? How do historical narratives from the margins gain legitimacy? Among others, these questions call for a reflection on the historical legitimization of indigenous people, enslaved people, women, and minority groups, as well as their place in national narratives and efforts to legitimize their participation in writing these narratives, while examining how contemporary issues influence the way canonical historical figures are established.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Debates around the place of authority figures in the public space are also central\u2014one thinks, for example, of the raising and removal of statues of Confederate figures. Conversely, posing the question of historical legitimacy requires examining the \u201ccultural offensive\u201d (Offenstadt, 2014) waged by commentators from the conservative public counter-sphere, particularly on social networks, to challenge historical consensus.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From the point of view of historical methodology, the theme suggests a reflection on archives and the archiving process (What documents should be archived? How is the status of a \u201clegitimate\u201d archive defined?) as well as on the question of testimonies in the writing of history (How is the authority of historical testimonies constructed? How is the legitimacy of historical actors established?).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Legitimacy, authority, and canons are also very much at stake in reform movements<\/strong>, regardless of the way they are narrativized. How did anti-slavery and abolitionist discourses gain legitimacy when slavery was not only vital to the economy of an entire part of the country but was the foundation of its society? How can the civil and political legitimacy of African Americans gain acceptance when historically their very humanity has been called into question? Similarly, following lesbian activists within the National Organization for Women, how can the diversity of feminist voices make themselves heard in the face of growing opposition from conservatives? What is the place of trans women in feminist narratives? More recently, the questioning of authority and power structures has been a key objective for movements such as #MeToo or #TimesUp and #BlackLivesMatter, its offshoots (#TransLivesMatter) and its reactionary appropriations (#AllLivesMatter; #BlueLivesMatter). Similarly, beyond social and cultural advances and regressions, analyses of notions of gender, sexuality, and (non)binarity are also contingent upon the epistemological and ontological statuses of different communities (Black, African American, Person of Color, BIPOC, LGBTQIA+).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, reflection could focus on legitimization processes of protest strategies deployed outside the framework defined by civil disobedience\u2014understood as non-violent, respectful of institutions and the authority of the State\u2014which is generally accepted as the only legitimate mode of protest (Delmas, 2020). How have forms of \u201cuncivil disobedience\u201d (anonymous, disrespectful, potentially violent, and designed precisely to challenge the legitimacy of the state) sought to establish themselves as legitimate protest strategies? From sextremists to AIDS activists to culture jammers, US history is replete with experiments in non-civil protest designed to enable marginalized groups to reclaim their agency, and which complicate the ways we think about how dissent is expressed and implemented.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Questions of authenticity, legitimacy, and canon can also be explored in terms of the cinematic canons of the classical Hollywood age, in the New Hollywood era, or in the field of independent cinema or documentary films, or focusing on generic hybridization (ZomComs, Gay Westerns, Queer SF) and transmedial processes (adaptation, remake, reboot, sequel, prequel, coquel) and their adjacent worlds. These questions also arise when addressing issues of identity, gender, and sexuality and their representations (on screen, in texts). In the visual arts and media production<\/strong>, this could mean exploring the links between authority and censorship (the Hays code, the Mapplethorpe obscenity trial, etc.) or between authority and production (white\/cis\/straight\/able casting and diversity riders; theatrical release v. streaming; political significance of shooting locations, etc.).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In terms of representation on screen, the articulation of the power of representation and legitimacy (\u201cSee It to Be It\u201d) also deserves our attention, particularly the evolution of television and film production and its increasingly active\/activist reception. Movements like #OscarsSoWhite and the recent controversy around the Golden Globes highlight the structural underrepresentation of nonwhite people in front of and behind the camera, as well as in the juries that determine which productions will be canonized. Questions of intersectionality and privilege (racial, economic, gendered) and various reactions to these questions are central to these issues.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the field of news media and journalism<\/strong>, the \u201cTrump moment\u201d sheds a harsh light on systemic changes that challenge the legitimacy of journalistic discourses and norms as well as the cultural authority of professional journalists. The widespread portability of communication tools and the advent of social platforms at the turn of the 2010s have enhanced the \u201cmultiaxiality\u201d of the post-broadcast media regime that had taken shape at the end of the 1980s (Williams and Delli Carpini, 2011). As a result, new media and formats have emerged, which challenge the way we think about the boundaries between media genres and the way we determine the newsworthiness and political value of content. As a corollary, professional journalists have been losing their exclusive influence on how the contours of the discursive environment are shaped and on how the agenda is set. Under the \u201chybrid\u201d media regime that these changes have brought about, these tendencies are exacerbated as the logics of \u201cold media\u201d are integrated into those of \u201cnew media;\u201d these changes shake up informational hierarchies, blur the boundaries between news producers and recipients, and question the consensus around the notion of \u201cfact\u201d (Chadwick, 2017). In this process, new voices emerge which challenge, or even displace, the authority of established voices.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, in connection with the crisis of professional journalists\u2019 cultural authority, the theme invites us to examine challenges to the legitimacy of intellectuals and universities in contemporary social debates as much as it foregrounds issues of epistemological legitimacy<\/strong>. What is a legitimate field of research? How do fields and disciplines establish themselves as such? How are theoretical and methodological canons defined? How are the boundaries between disciplines negotiated and maintained? In France, the epistemological status of \u201ccivilization\u201d as a discipline has been placed at the forefront of academic debates within the specific fields of English and American Studies. Beyond the French academic context, while traditional (canonical?) fields are not challenged, what about (emerging) fields of study such as game studies, AIDS studies, porn studies, or disability studies? What form of scientific authority is claimed when studying an emerging subject? Surveys of the emergence of these new fields and comparative studies between the United States and other countries will provide valuable food for thought.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

R\u00e9f\u00e9rences<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Amedegnato, Ozouf S\u00e9namin, Gbanou, S\u00e9lom Komlan et Ngalasso-Mwatha, Musanji (2011). L\u00e9gitimit\u00e9, l\u00e9gitimation<\/em>. Presses Universitaires de Bordeaux.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Alasuutari, Pertti (2018). \u201cAuthority as epistemic capital,\u201d Journal of Political Power<\/em>, vol.11, n\u00b02, 165-190.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Arendt, Hannah (1956). \u201cWhat is authority?\u201d In Arendt, Hannah. Between Past and Future: Six Exercises in Political Thought.<\/em> The Viking Press.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Audi, Paul (2002). \u00ab S\u00e9mantique de l\u2019autorit\u00e9 (quelques remarques) \u00bb, La lettre de l\u2019enfance et de l\u2019adolescence<\/em>, vol. 4, n\u00b050, 15-22.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Beetham, David (2013). The Legitimation of Power<\/em>. Palgrave Macmillan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chadwick, Andrew (2017). The Hybrid Media System: Politics and Power. <\/em>Oxford University Press.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cottereau, Alain et Paul Ladri\u00e8re (1992). Pouvoir et l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9 : Figures de l\u2019espace public<\/em>. \u00c9ditions de l\u2019\u00c9cole des Hautes \u00c9tudes en Sciences Sociales. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Delmas, Candice, \u201cUncivil Disobedience.\u201d In Schwartzberg, Melissa (Ed.) (2020). Protest & Dissent<\/em>, Nomos LXII, NYU Press; pp.9-61.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

F\u00e9lix, Brigitte et Perrin-Chenour, Marie-Claude (2006). \u00ab Qui a peur des nouveaux canons ? \u00bb Revue Fran\u00e7aise d\u2019\u00c9tudes Am\u00e9ricaines<\/em>. Belin.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Gavoille, Elisabeth (2019). Qu\u2019est-ce qu\u2019un auctor? Auteur et autorit\u00e9 du latin au fran\u00e7ais<\/em>. Ausonius \u00c9ditions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kahn, Paul W. (1992). Legitimacy and History: Self-Government in American Constitutional Theory<\/em>. Yale University Press.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, Sylvia. (2016). \u201cLegitimacy,\u201d In Ansell, C. et Torfing, J. (dir.) Handbook of Theories of Governance<\/em>, Edward Elgar, 194-204.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Maini, Irma (2012). Multiethnic Literature and Canon Debates<\/em>. State University of New York Press.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Offenstadt, Nicolas (2014). L\u2019Histoire, un combat au pr\u00e9sent<\/em>. \u00ab Conversation pour demain \u00bb. \u00c9ditions Textuel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Patell, Cyrus (2014). Emergent U.S. Literatures: From Multiculturalism to Cosmopolitanism in the Late Twentieth Century<\/em>. New York University Press.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Patterson, Mark R. (1988). Authority, Autonomy, and Representation in American Literature, 1776-1865<\/em>. Princeton University Press.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Revault d’Allonnes, Myriam (2009). Le Pouvoir des commencements : Essai sur l\u2019autorit\u00e9.<\/em> Editions du Seuil.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sevel, Michael et Kevin Walton (2019). Legitimacy: The State and Beyond<\/em>. Oxford University Press.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Smith, R.W. (1970). \u201cThe Concept of Legitimacy,\u201d Theoria: A Journal of Social and Political Theory<\/em>, n\u00b035, 17-29.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Vila-Henninger, Luis Antonio (2020). Social Justification and Political Legitimacy: How Voters Rationalize Direct Democratic Economic Policy in America<\/em>. Springer International Publishing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Williams, Bruce et Michael X. Delli Carpini (2011). After Broadcast News: Media Regimes, Democracy, and the New Information Environment. <\/em>Cambridge University Press.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Williams, Daniel G. (2005). Ethnicity and Cultural Authority: From Arnold to Du Bois<\/em>. Edinburgh University Press.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Submission<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

October 25th<\/sup>, 2021<\/strong><\/td>Submission deadline, panel proposals <\/td><\/tr>
November 2nd<\/sup>, 2021<\/strong><\/td>Selected panels announced; CFP launch for individual panels<\/td><\/tr>
January 17th<\/sup>, 2022<\/strong><\/td>Deadline for CFP submissions to panel organizers<\/td><\/tr>
February 14th<\/sup>, 2022<\/strong><\/td>Deadline for panel organizers to send panel descriptions (speakers, abstracts) to scientific organizers (Bauer, Mort, Mullen)<\/td><\/tr>
March 2022<\/strong><\/td>Program published<\/td><\/tr>
May 31st<\/sup> \u2013 June 3rd<\/sup>,2022<\/strong><\/td>Conference<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Panel proposals should be submitted jointly to Sylvie Bauer (<\/strong>sylvie.bauer@wanadoo.fr<\/strong><\/a>), S\u00e9bastien Mort (<\/strong>sebastien.mort@univ-lorraine.fr<\/strong><\/a>) and Elizabeth Mullen (<\/strong>elizabeth.mullen@univ-brest.fr<\/strong><\/a>). <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lien de t\u00e9l\u00e9chargement de cet appel \u00e0 ateliers https:\/\/afea.fr\/annualconference\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2021\/07\/Theme-AFEA-2022.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

La tension entre l\u2019autorit\u00e9 d\u2019une parole et d\u2019un pouvoir h\u00e9rit\u00e9s et la qu\u00eate d\u2019une ind\u00e9pendance l\u00e9gitime traverse l\u2019histoire et les cultures des \u00c9tats-Unis. Qu\u2019il s\u2019agisse de proclamer une ind\u00e9pendance politique, culturelle, intellectuelle, litt\u00e9raire ou artistique par rapport \u00e0 l\u2019Europe ou d\u2019affirmer une identit\u00e9 propre au territoire, les \u00c9tats-Unis n\u2019ont cess\u00e9 d\u2019entretenir un rapport trouble \u00e0 l\u2019autorit\u00e9 \u2013 entendue ici principalement au sens d\u2019auctoritas \u2013, maintenant un \u00e9tat de crise dynamique soulign\u00e9e par le congr\u00e8s de 2019, qui s\u2019int\u00e9ressait aux notions de discipline et d\u2019indiscipline. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_uag_custom_page_level_css":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-83","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-texte-du-cadrage","entry"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","uagb_featured_image_src":{"full":false,"thumbnail":false,"medium":false,"medium_large":false,"large":false,"1536x1536":false,"2048x2048":false,"post-thumbnail":false},"uagb_author_info":{"display_name":"David Lipson","author_link":"https:\/\/afea.fr\/bordeaux2022\/author\/davidl\/"},"uagb_comment_info":0,"uagb_excerpt":"La tension entre l\u2019autorit\u00e9 d\u2019une parole et d\u2019un pouvoir h\u00e9rit\u00e9s et la qu\u00eate d\u2019une ind\u00e9pendance l\u00e9gitime traverse l\u2019histoire et les cultures des \u00c9tats-Unis. Qu\u2019il s\u2019agisse de proclamer une ind\u00e9pendance politique, culturelle, intellectuelle, litt\u00e9raire ou artistique par rapport \u00e0 l\u2019Europe ou d\u2019affirmer une identit\u00e9 propre au territoire, les \u00c9tats-Unis n\u2019ont cess\u00e9 d\u2019entretenir un rapport trouble \u00e0\u2026","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/afea.fr\/bordeaux2022\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/83"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/afea.fr\/bordeaux2022\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/afea.fr\/bordeaux2022\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/afea.fr\/bordeaux2022\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/afea.fr\/bordeaux2022\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=83"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/afea.fr\/bordeaux2022\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/83\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":93,"href":"https:\/\/afea.fr\/bordeaux2022\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/83\/revisions\/93"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/afea.fr\/bordeaux2022\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=83"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/afea.fr\/bordeaux2022\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=83"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/afea.fr\/bordeaux2022\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=83"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}