[tags: television, series, disciplines, epistemological, perspectives]<\/p>\n
Ch\u00e8res et chers coll\u00e8gues,<\/p>\n
Vous trouverez ci-dessous un rappel du CFP pour le colloque "Repenser les disciplines \u00e0 travers les s\u00e9ries t\u00e9l\u00e9vis\u00e9es. Perspectives \u00e9pist\u00e9mologiques".<\/p>\n
Plus d\u2019informations sur le site du colloque: https:\/\/tvseries-discip.sciencesconf.org\/<\/a><\/p>\n Bien cordialement,<\/p>\n Monica Michlin pour le comit\u00e9 d’organisation<\/p>\n Repenser les disciplines \u00e0 travers les s\u00e9ries t\u00e9l\u00e9vis\u00e9es. Perspectives \u00e9pist\u00e9mologiques<\/strong><\/p>\n 7-8 avril 2022<\/strong><\/p>\n Universit\u00e9 Paul-Val\u00e9ry \u2013 Montpellier 3<\/strong><\/p>\n Site Saint Charles \u2013 salle des colloques 2<\/strong><\/p>\n Scroll down for the English version<\/p>\n Dans leur reflet ou r\u00e9fraction du monde, les s\u00e9ries t\u00e9l\u00e9vis\u00e9es marquent les perceptions de celles et ceux qui les regardent, qu\u2019elles repr\u00e9sentent des \u00e9v\u00e9nements ultra-contemporains, au plus pr\u00e8s de l\u2019actualit\u00e9, ou historiques, ouvrant des mondes sociaux ferm\u00e9s ou \u00e9voquant des scenarii catastrophes (sur fond de crise politique et environnementale) dans des mondes dystopiques ou uchroniques. Contribuant \u00e0 fa\u00e7onner des imaginaires collectifs, ces fictions peuvent en retour influer sur le r\u00e9el, en particulier lorsque les spectateurs-citoyens s\u2019emparent de mouvements socio-politiques et culturels pour agir dans le monde (d\u00e9fil\u00e9s de spectatrices en costumes tir\u00e9s de la s\u00e9rie The<\/em> Handmaid\u2019s Tale<\/em> (Hulu, 2017- )lors des Women\u2019s Marches sur fond de mouvement #MeToo aux \u00c9tats-Unis).<\/p>\n C\u2019est cette m\u00eame agentivit\u00e9<\/strong> de l\u2019objet \u00ab s\u00e9rie \u00bb que l\u2019on entend interroger dans une perspective \u00e9pist\u00e9mologique<\/strong> en faisant un pas de c\u00f4t\u00e9 disciplinaire. En effet, de nombreux.ses chercheur.e.s en lettres, langues, arts, sciences humaines et sociales ont vu dans les s\u00e9ries t\u00e9l\u00e9vis\u00e9es un nouveau terrain d\u2019exploration sur lequel ils\/elles ont apport\u00e9 le regard m\u00e9thodologique et les outils conceptuels relevant de leurs champs disciplinaires respectifs. Ce colloque entend interroger les chercheur.e.s sur un possible \u00ab effet de retour \u00bb de l\u2019objet \u00e0 la discipline, c\u2019est-\u00e0-dire se demander si ce nouveau terrain d\u2019\u00e9tude permet de repenser quelque peu la discipline elle-m\u00eame. L\u2019objet \u00ab s\u00e9ries \u00bb a-t-il catalys\u00e9 de nouveaux concepts, ouvert de nouveaux horizons, permis des analyses qui auraient \u00e9t\u00e9 plus difficiles \u00e0 envisager, voire inenvisageables sans lui ?<\/p>\n C\u2019est en d\u00e9finitive l\u2019influence r\u00e9ciproque entre objet et disciplines<\/strong> qui nous int\u00e9ressera dans ce colloque afin de mesurer l\u2019impact de cet objet culturel, qui conna\u00eet un engouement croissant, sur les approches scientifiques des chercheur.e.s en Humanit\u00e9s. L\u2019objet \u00ab s\u00e9ries \u00bb reliant texte, langue, regards, gestes, images, cam\u00e9ra, contexte sur le temps long des saisons, n\u2019invite-t-il pas \u00e9galement, dans sa multimodalit\u00e9 m\u00eame, \u00e0 redessiner les lignes disciplinaires ? En amenant parfois les chercheur.e.s \u00e0 lire en dehors de leur champ, ne conduit-il pas \u00e0 une red\u00e9finition (inter)disciplinaire ? Si chaque discipline tend \u00e0 construire ses objets, ses terminologies et ses instruments d\u2019analyse, l\u2019objet constitu\u00e9 des \u00ab s\u00e9ries \u00bb invite-t-il r\u00e9ciproquement \u00e0 repenser la souverainet\u00e9 de son domaine disciplinaire, \u00e0 adopter un \u00ab autre regard \u00bb, pour reprendre l\u2019expression de Jean-Paul Resweber (2011 :<\/em> 179), \u00ab sans pour autant renoncer \u00e0 la logique sp\u00e9cifique de sa discipline, le chercheur en vient \u00e0 adopter un autre regard qui subvertit le sien propre et peut l\u2019amener \u00e0 se positionner diff\u00e9remment au sein m\u00eame de sa discipline \u00bb ?<\/p>\n C\u2019est ce nouveau regard<\/strong> sur sa propre discipline, cette forme d\u2019 \u00ab impens\u00e9 \u00bb disciplinaire, sur lesquels nous souhaitons interroger les chercheur.e.s dans les divers champs qui se sont empar\u00e9s de l\u2019objet, que l\u2019on pense \u00e0 la philosophie (Laugier 2019), \u00e0 l\u2019histoire (Faure et Ta\u00efeb 2017), \u00e0 la science politique (Faure et Ta\u00efeb 2015, 2020), \u00e0 la linguistique (Bednarek 2018, Sorlin 2016), \u00e0 la narratologie (Favard et Machinal 2019, Hatchuel 2015, Mittell 2015), aux \u00e9tudes culturelles et \u00e0 la sociologie (Bacqu\u00e9 et al. 2014, Susca 2015), aux \u00e9tudes sur le genre (Lef\u00e8vre-Berthelot 2020) et aux queer<\/em> studies (Chambers 2009), voire \u00e0 la musicologie (Carayol et Rossi 2015). Parce que les s\u00e9ries sont si souvent des adaptations, ou r\u00e9adaptations (Wells-Lassagne 2017), remakes<\/em> ou reboots<\/em> d\u2019\u0153uvres litt\u00e9raires (Bronfen 2020), de films, ou de s\u00e9ries plus anciennes, elles n\u2019augmentent pas simplement le corpus des adaptations mais le renouvellent, interrogeant le cloisonnement entre \u00e9tudes audiovisuelles, cin\u00e9matographiques, litt\u00e9raires, et \u00e9tudes des m\u00e9dias.<\/p>\n On se demandera ainsi non seulement ce que font les s\u00e9ries aux \u00e9tudes cin\u00e9matographiques (Hudelet et Cr\u00e9mieux 2021), mais comment elles ont particip\u00e9 \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9laboration de nouveaux concepts : si elles n\u2019\u00e9taient pas \u00e0 l\u2019origine du concept de \u00ab rem\u00e9diatisation \u00bb (remediation<\/em>) \u00e9labor\u00e9 par Bolter et Grusin en 1998, Grusin a bien pens\u00e9 la \u00ab pr\u00e9-m\u00e9diatisation \u00bb (premediation<\/em>, Grusin 2010) en partie autour d\u2019elles. N\u2019obligent-elles pas \u00e0 repenser aussi, du fait de leur diffusion contemporaine, l\u2019id\u00e9e m\u00eame de s\u00e9rie \u00ab t\u00e9l\u00e9vis\u00e9e \u00bb et ne r\u00e9volutionnent-elles pas les television studies<\/em> (Leverette, Ott et Buckley 2008, Lodz 2014), puisque nous les recevons d\u00e9sormais \u00e9galement via des plateformes de streaming, et sur des \u00e9crans de toutes tailles (du home cin\u00e9ma au t\u00e9l\u00e9phone portable), ce qui oblige \u00e0 repenser toute l\u2019\u00e9cologie des m\u00e9dias, dans une convergence culture<\/em> (Jenkins 2006) impact\u00e9e par leur prolif\u00e9ration? Peut-on encore imaginer les \u00e9tudes transm\u00e9dia<\/em> (Cornillon 2018) sans elles ? Si les s\u00e9ries interrogent \u00e0 la fois les \u00e9tudes s\u00e9curitaires (Takacs 2012) comme les surveillance studies<\/em> (Lefait 2013) dans leur mise en abyme de dispositifs scopiques notamment, ne sont-elles pas aussi devenues incontournables dans les \u00e9tudes de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 de l\u2019\u00e9cran, du sujet digital, et du sujet posthumain (Machinal et Michlin 2018, Machinal 2020) ? Peut-on, de fait, continuer de penser les humanit\u00e9s num\u00e9riques sans les s\u00e9ries ?<\/p>\n Enfin les s\u00e9ries, trop souvent encore rel\u00e9gu\u00e9es au statut d\u2019objets populaires \u00ab non s\u00e9rieux \u00bb, donnent pourtant une \u00e9paisseur sociale, politique et institutionnelle \u00e0 ce qui est souvent inaccessible aux citoyen.ne.s (les coulisses du pouvoir, le fonctionnement des agences de renseignements, des univers sociaux et professionnels auxquels ils\/elles ne sont jamais confront\u00e9.e.s, des existences \u00ab incarn\u00e9es \u00bb qui ne sont pas les leurs). A ce titre elles semblent fonctionner comme passeurs de connaissances \u00e0 l\u2019endroit de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 civile. Conscient du pont qu\u2019elles incarnent entre connaissance scientifique et connaissance commune, l\u2019enseignant.e-chercheur.se<\/a> puise parfois dans ces mises en sc\u00e8ne des r\u00e9alit\u00e9s sociales complexes pour en nourrir ses enseignements (les rouages et arrangements cach\u00e9s derri\u00e8re le fonctionnement des institutions politiques am\u00e9ricaines peuvent-ils \u00eatre expos\u00e9s avec autant de force dans un cours magistral que dans un \u00e9pisode de The West Wing<\/em> ?). L\u2019on pourra \u00e9galement d\u00e8s lors s\u2019interroger sur ce qu\u2019elles apportent \u00e0 la transmission des savoirs.<\/p>\n Nous accueillerons des propositions d\u2019\u00e9tudes critiques focalis\u00e9es sur ce que les s\u00e9ries \u00ab font \u00bb aux disciplines, \u00e0 la constitution des savoirs et la transmission des connaissances.<\/p>\n Merci d\u2019adresser vos propositions d\u2019environ 300 mots accompagn\u00e9es de 5 lignes de bio-biblio pour le 30 septembre 2021<\/strong> \u00e0 tvseries-discip<\/p>\n Retour des avis aux auteurs : 30 octobre 2021<\/strong><\/p>\n Langue de la conf\u00e9rence : anglais et fran\u00e7ais<\/p>\n Une publication est pr\u00e9vue chez un \u00e9diteur anglophone \u00e0 partir d\u2019une s\u00e9lection des communications.<\/p>\n Invit\u00e9.e.s d\u2019honneur<\/strong> :<\/p>\n Monika Bednarek (University of Sidney)<\/p>\n Elisabeth Bronfen (University of Zurich)<\/p>\n Sam Chambers (Johns Hopkins University, sous r\u00e9serve)<\/p>\n Ariane Hudelet (Universit\u00e9 de Paris)<\/p>\n Comit\u00e9 scientifique<\/strong><\/p>\n Julien Achemchame (Universit\u00e9 Paul-Val\u00e9ry Montpellier 3)<\/p>\n Marjolaine Boutet (Universit\u00e9 de Picardie Jules Verne)<\/p>\n Kristy Beers F\u00e4gersten (S\u00f6dert\u00f6rn University, Stockholm)<\/p>\n Marianne Celka (Universit\u00e9 Paul-Val\u00e9ry Montpellier 3)<\/p>\n Claire Cornillon (Universit\u00e9 de N\u00eemes)<\/p>\n Camille Debras (Universit\u00e9 Paris Nanterre)<\/p>\n Florent Favard (Universit\u00e9 de Lorraine)<\/p>\n Sarah Hatchuel (Universit\u00e9 Paul-Val\u00e9ry Montpellier 3)<\/p>\n S\u00e9bastien Lefait (Aix-Marseille Universit\u00e9)<\/p>\n Sandrine Oriez (Universit\u00e9 Rennes 2)<\/p>\n H\u00e9l\u00e8ne Machinal (UBO Brest)<\/p>\n Herv\u00e9 Mayer (Universit\u00e9 Paul-Val\u00e9ry Montpellier 3)<\/p>\n Monica Michlin (Universit\u00e9 Paul-Val\u00e9ry Montpellier 3)<\/p>\n David Roche (Universit\u00e9 Paul-Val\u00e9ry Montpellier 3)<\/p>\n Sandrine Sorlin (Universit\u00e9 Paul-Val\u00e9ry Montpellier 3)<\/p>\n Vincenzo Susca (Universit\u00e9 Paul-Val\u00e9ry Montpellier 3)<\/p>\n Emmanuel Ta\u00efeb (Sciences po Lyon)<\/p>\n Delphine Texier (Universit\u00e9 Rennes 2)<\/p>\n Comit\u00e9 d\u2019organisation<\/strong><\/p>\n Claire Cornillon (Universit\u00e9 de N\u00eemes, RIRRA21), Sarah Hatchuel (Universit\u00e9 Paul-Val\u00e9ry Montpellier 3, RIRRA21), Monica Michlin (Universit\u00e9 Paul-Val\u00e9ry Montpellier 3, EMMA), Sandrine Sorlin (Universit\u00e9 Paul-Val\u00e9ry Montpellier 3, EMMA)<\/p>\n Call for papers<\/strong><\/p>\n Rethinking disciplines with Television series. An epistemological perspective<\/strong><\/p>\n In their reflection or refraction of the world, television series seem to affect the perceptions of those who watch them, whether they represent ultra-contemporary ripped-from-the-headline events or historical events, either opening up closed social worlds or offering dystopian scripts in uchronic or alternate worlds as in the real world, political and environmental crises loom large. In their activation of the collective imaginary, these fictions can in turn influence reality, in particular when spectator-citizens translate their viewing into real-life socio-political and cultural movements (for instance, demonstrators dressing up in costumes taken from the series The Handmaid’s Tale <\/em>[Hulu, 2017-] during the Women’s Marches in the USA or within the #MeToo movement globally).<\/p>\n It is this agency<\/strong> of series taken as an object that we intend to question from an epistemological perspective<\/strong> by reversing our disciplinary lens. Indeed, numerous researchers in literature, the arts, humanities and social sciences have seen in television series new fields to explore, and they have brought the methodological perspective and the conceptual tools of their respective disciplines to them. This conference intends to question researchers on a possible \u201creturn effect\u201d of the object on the discipline, i.e., to ask if this new field of study allows to rethink somewhat each discipline itself. Have series catalyzed new concepts, opened up new horizons, allowed analysis that would have been more difficult to envision, or that might even be unthinkable without them?<\/p>\n It is ultimately the reciprocal influence between object and disciplines<\/strong> that this conference will focus on, in order to measure the impact of this increasingly ubiquitous cultural object on the scientific approaches of researchers in the Humanities. In its multimodality which combines text, language, camera, musical soundtrack, actors\u2019 performance and a viewer\u2019s gaze over the course of entire seasons and years of real-life context, does not the very object \u201cseries\u201d invite us to redraw disciplinary boundaries?<\/p>\n By inviting researchers to step outside their field to \u201cdecipher\u201d them, do series not lead to forms of (inter)disciplinary redefinition? If each discipline tends to construct its objects, its terminologies and its instruments of analysis, this object invites us, in turn, to rethink the sovereignty of the disciplinary field, and to adopt a \u201cdifferent perspective,\u201d to quote Jean-Paul Resweber (2011: 179): \u201cwithout renouncing the specific logic of his discipline, the researcher comes to adopt another perspective which subverts his own and can lead him to position himself differently within that discipline\u201d.<\/p>\n We will therefore wonder not only how series as an object impact film studies (Hudelet and Cr\u00e9mieux 2021), but how they have participated in the development of new concepts. Although remediation<\/em> (Bolter and Grusin 1998) did not emerge conceptually from a corpus of audiovisual series, Grusin has since elaborated his concept premediation<\/em> (Grusin 2010) partly around these digital narratives. Given their contemporary distribution through online platforms, series also incite us to rethink the very idea of \u201ctelevision\u201d, revolutionizing television studies as a field (Leverette, Ott and Buckley 2008, Lodz 2014). As content watched (downloaded, streamed) on screens of all sizes (from widescreen sets to computers and mobile phones), contemporary series may prompt us to rethink the entire ecology of media, in a convergence culture (Jenkins 2006) affected by their proliferation. Can we still imagine transmedia studies (Cornillon 2018) without them? If series interrogate both security studies (Takacs 2012) and surveillance studies (Lefait 2013) in their mise en abyme<\/em> of scopic devices in particular, have they not also become essential in screen studies, as well as in studies of the digital and\/or posthuman subject (Machinal and Michlin 2018)? Can we, in fact, continue to imagine the field of digital humanities without series?<\/p>\n Finally, although they are still too often relegated to the status of \u201cunserious\u201d popular objects, series nevertheless give social, political and institutional depth to what is often beyond citizens\u2019 actual scrutiny or experience: the backstage of power politics, the secret workings of intelligence agencies, social and professional universes and embodied lives other than their own. As such, they seem to convey forms of knowledge to civil society. In their lectures or seminars, academics are well aware of how series bridge the gap between scientific fact and common knowledge, and they often draw from series\u2019 staging of complex social realities (can the cogs of the US political system or backchannel communication be exposed with as much force in a traditional lecture as in an episode of The West Wing?<\/em>). How series can facilitate the transfer of knowledge will therefore also be a focus of the conference.<\/p>\n Please send your proposals<\/strong> (approx. 300 words + 5 lines of bio-bibliography), by September 30, 2021 <\/strong>to tvseries-discip<\/p>\n Authors will be notified by October 30, 2021<\/strong>. Papers can be delivered either in English or French.<\/p>\n An international publication will gather a selection of papers given at the conference.<\/p>\n Guest speakers<\/strong>:<\/p>\n Monika Bednarek (University of Sydney)<\/p>\n Elisabeth Bronfen (University of Zurich)<\/p>\n Sam Chambers (Johns Hopkins University, to be confirmed)<\/p>\n Ariane Hudelet (Universit\u00e9 de Paris)<\/p>\n References<\/strong><\/p>\n Bacqu\u00e9, Marie-H\u00e9l\u00e8ne, Am\u00e9lie Flamand, Anne-Marie Paquet-Deyris, Julien Talpin, dir. (2014), The Wire :<\/em> L\u2019Am\u00e9rique sur \u00e9coute<\/em>. Paris : La D\u00e9couverte.<\/p>\n Bataille, Sylvaine et Florence Cabaret, dir. (2013), TV\/Series 3 <\/em>: \u00c9cho et reprise dans les s\u00e9ries t\u00e9l\u00e9vis\u00e9es (I): Reprise et interm\u00e9dialit\u00e9<\/em>.<\/p>\n Bednarek, Monica (2018), Language and Television Series: A Linguistic Approach to TV Dialogue<\/em>. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.<\/p>\n Bolter, J. David and Richard Grusin (1998), Remediation: Understanding New Media<\/em>. MIT Press.<\/p>\n Bronfen, Elizabeth (2020), Serial Shakespeare: An Infinite Variety of Appropriations in American TV Drama<\/em>. Manchester : Manchester University Press.<\/p>\n Carayol, C\u00e9cile et J\u00e9r\u00f4me Rossi, dir. (2015), Musiques de s\u00e9ries t\u00e9l\u00e9vis\u00e9es<\/em>. Rennes, PUR.<\/p>\n Chambers, Samuel A. (2009), The Queer Politics of Television<\/em>. London: IB Tauris.<\/p>\n Cornillon, Claire (2018), S\u00e9rialit\u00e9 et transm\u00e9dialit\u00e9 : Infinis des fictions contemporaines<\/em>, Paris, Honor\u00e9 Champion.<\/p>\n Faure, Antoine et Emmanuel Ta\u00efeb (dir.) (2015), \u00ab Les s\u00e9ries, politique fiction \u00bb, Quaderni<\/em>, n\u00b0 88.<\/p>\n Faure, Antoine et Emmanuel Ta\u00efeb (dir) (2020), \u00ab L\u2019Histoire \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9preuve des s\u00e9ries \u00bb, TV\/S\u00e9ries<\/em> 17, https:\/\/doi.org\/10.4000\/tvseries.3838<\/a><\/p>\n Favard, Florent et H\u00e9l\u00e8ne Machinal (dir.) (2019), La S\u00e9rialit\u00e9 en questions<\/em>. TV\/Series<\/em> 15, https:\/\/journals.openedition.org\/tvseries\/3377<\/a><\/p>\n Grusin, Richard (2010), Premediation. Affect and Mediality after 9\/11<\/em>. Palgrave MacMillan.<\/p>\n Guilbert, Georges-Claude et Shannon Wells-Lassagne (dir.) (2014), Television Series and Narratology: New Avenues in Storytelling<\/em>. GRAAT<\/em> online 15, http:\/\/www.graat.fr\/backissuetvnarratology.htm<\/a><\/p>\n Hatchuel, Sarah. (2015), R\u00eaves et s\u00e9ries am\u00e9ricaines. La fabrique d\u2019autres mondes<\/em>. Aix-en-Provence : Rouge Profond.<\/p>\n Hudelet, Ariane et Anne Cr\u00e9mieux, dir. (2021), Exploring Seriality on Screen: Audiovisual Narratives in Film and Television<\/em>. Londres et New York : Routledge.<\/p>\n Jenkins, Henry (2006), Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide<\/em>. New York : New York University Press.<\/p>\n Laugier, Sandra (2019), Nos vies en s\u00e9ries: Philosophie et morale d\u2019une culture populaire<\/em>. Paris: Flammarion.<\/p>\n Lefait, S\u00e9bastien (2013), Surveillance on Screen: Monitoring Contemporary Films and Television Programs<\/em>. Plymouth : Scarecrow Press.<\/p>\n LeF\u00e8vre-Berthelot, Ana\u00efs. (2020) Speak up! Des coulisses \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9cran, voix des femmes dans les s\u00e9ries t\u00e9l\u00e9vis\u00e9es am\u00e9ricaines \u00e0 l\u2019or\u00e9e du XXIe si\u00e8cle.<\/em> Paris : Presses de la Sorbonne-Nouvelle.<\/p>\n Leverette, Marc, Brian L. Ott, Cara Louise Buckley. (2008) It\u2019s Not TV: Watching HBO in the Post-Television Era<\/em>. New York : Routledge.<\/p>\n Lotz, Amanda D. (2014) The Television Will Be Revolutionized<\/em>. New York : New York University Press.<\/p>\n Machinal, H\u00e9l\u00e8ne et Monica Michlin (dir.) (2018), Posthumains en s\u00e9ries<\/em>, TV\/Series<\/em> 14, https:\/\/journals.openedition.org\/tvseries\/2757<\/a><\/p>\nIt is this turning of one\u2019s gaze upon one's discipline<\/strong> to reveal potential disciplinary blind spots that this conference invites, in the various fields that have embraced research on series \u2013 from philosophy (Laugier 2019), to history (Faure and Ta\u00efeb 2017), political science (Faure and Ta\u00efeb 2015, 2020), linguistics (Bednarek 2018, Sorlin 2016), narratology (Favard and Machinal 2019, Hatchuel 2015, Mittell 2015), cultural studies and sociology (Bacqu\u00e9 et al. 2014), gender studies (LeF\u00e8vre-Berthelot 2020) and queer studies (Chambers 2009), to musicology (Carayol andRossi 2015). Because series are so often adaptations, or re-adaptations (Wells-Lassagne 2017), remakes or reboots of literary works (Bronfen 2020), of films or of older series, they do not simply increase the body of adaptations, but renew it, calling into question the demarcations between film studies, literary studies, and media studies.<\/pre>\n
<\/pre>\n
We will welcome proposals focused on the critical study of what series \u201cdo\u201d to established disciplines; on how series affect the constitution of knowledge; and on how they allow the transmission of knowledge.<\/pre>\n