Bio: Michel Pinçon is an academic researcher from Centre national de la recherche scientifique. The author has contributed to research in topics: Bourgeoisie & Aristocracy (class). The author has an hindex of 14, co-authored 39 publications receiving 550 citations.
01 Jan 2005
TL;DR: In this article, Pincon Michel, Pincon-Charlot Monique, and Michel Offerle describe the construction of syndicalisme in l'aristocratie and la grande bourgeoisie and the conditions specifiques of l'entretien semi-directif.
Abstract: Pincon Michel, Pincon-Charlot Monique. Pratiques d'enquete dans l'aristocratie et la grande bourgeoisie : distance sociale et conditions specifiques de l'entretien semi-directif. In: Geneses, 3, 1991. La construction du syndicalisme, sous la direction de Michel Offerle. pp. 120-133.
TL;DR: In this article, the authors report on two decades of research extending Bourdieu's model of social space to study the territories and strategies of the French high bourgeoisie and aristocracy, and report on the existence of a hierarchy of familial dynasties.
Abstract: Urban sociology has long ignored districts of wealth and privilege in cities because they harbor few ‘social problems’ and the class background of sociologists has not inclined them to venture there. In France after 1968, the continued attraction of Marxism and the sulfurous reputation of sociology conspired to make such investigation difficult. Pierre Bourdieu pioneered it with his landmark book on the bourgeoisie. This essay reports on two decades of research extending Bourdieu's model of social space to study the territories and strategies of the French high bourgeoisie and aristocracy. The dominant class lives in reserved upscale districts and this seclusion, resulting from the elective spatial aggregation of familial dynasties, is a fundamental characteristic of the group. Segregative isolation is strengthened by specific institutions, such as society balls and social clubs, entrusted with effecting class closure and perpetuation. But, in the greater Paris region, the best districts also attract businesses (corporate headquarters, luxury firms), and thus employment that prompts the established bourgeoisie to migrate westwards in an endless search for social exclusivity. In addition to their Paris homes, upper‐class dynasties possess family properties (a castle or a large manor house) in the provincial hinterland that serve as a basis for paternalistic forms of sociability, linking them to the local lower class via such institutions as riding to hounds. Spaces reserved by and for the high bourgeoisie are major vectors of social reproduction and, along with family and elite schools, help to train heirs suited to safeguarding and valorizing their inherited assets. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
TL;DR: Artistic labor markets are puzzling ones as discussed by the authors, where employment as well as unemployment are increasing simultaneously, and uncertainty acts not only as a substantive condition of innovation and self-achievement, but also as a lure.
Abstract: ▪ Abstract Artistic labor markets are puzzling ones. Employment as well as unemployment are increasing simultaneously. Uncertainty acts not only as a substantive condition of innovation and self-achievement, but also as a lure. Learning by doing plays such a decisive role that in many artworlds initial training is an imperfect filtering device. The attractiveness of artistic occupations is high but has to be balanced against the risk of failure and of an unsuccessful professionalization that turns ideally non-routine jobs into ordinary or ephemeral undertakings. Earnings distributions are extremely skewed. Risk has to be managed, mainly through flexibility and cost reducing means at the organizational level and through multiple job holding at the individual level. Job rationing and an excess supply of artists seem to be structural traits associated with the emergence and the expansion of a free market organization of the arts. Reviewing research done not only by sociologists, but also by economists, histo...
TL;DR: Beaud Stephane as discussed by the authors, L'usage de l'entretien en sciences sociales, et al., 1996, vol. 9, n°35, Troisieme trimestre 1996, pp. 226-257.
Abstract: Beaud Stephane. L'usage de l'entretien en sciences sociales. Plaidoyer pour l'«entretien ethnographique». In: Politix, vol. 9, n°35, Troisieme trimestre 1996. pp. 226-257.
01 Jan 2007
TL;DR: In this article, a survey of usages of the notion of participation observante is presented, with a focus on three main usages: simple recherche d'originalite and usages finement argumentes, and the seduction operee par ce terme alternatif and l'effet de mode semblent.
Abstract: La notion de participation observante est frequemment mobilisee au sein de la terminologie propre aux enquetes de terrain. Les justifications du recours a ce terme sont plurielles, oscillant entre simple recherche d’originalite et usages finement argumentes. Apres avoir rappele la diversite des formes d’observation participante, nous procedons dans cet article a un examen des usages de la notion de participation observante, au croisement de cinq justifications methodologiques. Au-dela de cette diversite, trois cas de figure apparaissent. Certains usages attestent d’une acception retrecie de la notion d’observation participante; d’autres traduisent une volonte de precision methodologique, en reaction aux delimitations floues et au caractere tres general de la demarche d’observation participante; enfin, la seduction operee par ce terme alternatif et l’effet de mode semblent constituer un element explicatif non negligeable.
TL;DR: The authors argue that the use of the term "gentrification" is highly dependent on contextual causality and its generalized use will not remove its contextual attachment to the Anglo-American metropolis, and that looking for gentrification in increasingly varied contexts displaces emphasis from causal mechanisms to similarities in outcomes across contexts.
Abstract: This article argues against the allegedly inter-contextual character of gentrification within the new gentrification research agenda. The main argument is that gentrification is a concept highly dependent on contextual causality and its generalized use will not remove its contextual attachment to the Anglo-American metropolis. The second argument is that looking for gentrification in increasingly varied contexts displaces emphasis from causal mechanisms to similarities in outcomes across contexts, and leads to a loss of analytical rigour. The third argument refers to the ideological and political impact of equating ‘gentrification’ with, and projecting its neoliberal frame on, the different forms of urban regeneration across various geographical and historical contexts. As gentrification becomes quasi synonymous with urban regeneration, it becomes less useful to the analysis of urban socio-spatial change and, since the use of this term seems no longer avoidable in academic and broader discourse, its impli...
TL;DR: For instance, the authors argues that it is only once neoliberalism is implemented and its associated practices and language affect our understanding of human beings, modifying social relations, institutions, and their functioning, that it becomes a proper subject for anthropology.
Abstract: Over the last fifteen years or so anthropology has been engaged in the study of neoliberalism, with a growing quantity of research into the implementation and consequences of neoliberal policies (cf. Kipnis 2007). Why should a subject that has generated, and continues to generate so many debates in other disciplines have such belated success in anthropology? In principle the reasons are solid, good, and simple. It is only once neoliberalism is implemented and its associated practices and language affect our understanding of human beings, modifying social relations, institutions, and their functioning, that it becomes a proper subject for anthropology. Once it becomes involved in the concrete structuration of the world of social interaction and experience, and exerts a real influence over the way that agents think and problematise their lives, investigations can be undertaken in the field, and theories emerge that seek to analyse it and establish its effects, while avoiding its reification. In the debates broadly shaped by economics and the political sciences, the importance and particularity of the anthropological approach is to highlight dimensions that these other disciplines leave in shadow. The impact of neoliberalism is not confined to aspects directly linked to the market, institutional reforms, or political practices. One of the main questions the anthropologists seek to explore is that of how what can be termed neoliberal practices and representations are produced and disseminated on the global scale. Starting from this question, this article shows that, beyond their great diversity, these different investigations are built on three forms of anthropological knowledge. Each documents the phenomenon empirically in its own way and proposes theoretical advances that enable us to look with new eyes at neoliberalism and its expansion across the globe. This article highlights the conception of neoliberalism and the epistemology on which the three approaches are based, also considering their shared presuppositions. It then goes on to examine these approaches critically and analyses the way that they have theorised the spread of neoliberalism. In this way, the article shows that, beyond describing known effects (such as deregulation, flexible working, the liberalisation of capital, restriction of public spending, and erosion of the social state), anthropological analysis has a real contribution to make to multidisciplinary discussions in which it sometimes has difficulty making its voice heard.