RÉSUMÉ L’émergence d’un évènement aussi critique que la pandémie de Covid-19 a forcé les sciences sociales et humaines à remettre en question les concepts et les idées sur lesquelles s’établit la complexité de notre monde. Par exemple, si l’on réfléchit au « penser global », phrase d’Edgar Morin, n’appartiennent-ils pas à un moment précis, une phase dans l’histoire ? Ne faut-il pas se débarrasser de cet penser global et déglobaliser les sciences humaines, politiques et sociales, partiellement au moins ? La réponse de la Chine à la pandémie a renforcé sa présence en tant qu’hégémonie dans les relations contemporaines du pouvoir sur la scène internationale, ce qui a fourni des arguments pour la déglobalisation : la réduction en masse de certaines activités économiques directement liées à un monde ouvert, par exemple, ou la création de logiques de claustration, et a aussi mis en valeur les relations locales et concrètes qui ont lieu dans un entourage limité. Les connaissances scientifiques, qui circulent aussi à l’échelle globale, doivent faire face aux vicissitudes de la pandémie ; c’est le penser global qui structure les technologies modernes de communication qui permettent la réflexion immédiate et interactive, et c’est ainsi que le traitement de la Covid-19 s’est ajouté aux procès historiques de réflexion antérieurs ; les sciences humaines, politiques et sociales restent liées à la multidisciplinarité, mais en ce moment elles se trouvent face à la pandémie.

ABSTRACT As a result of the outbreak of a such a critical event as the Covid-19 pandemic, social and human sciences have begun to rethink the concepts and ideas that established the complexity of the world in which we live. For instance, wouldn’t “global thinking,” a term coined by Edgar Morin, correspond to a certain historical phase or moment? Isn’t it necessary to at least partially discard that global thinking and deglobalize human, political and social sciences? China’s response to the pandemic reinforced its position of established hegemony in contemporary international power relations, which provided arguments in favor of deglobalization such as the massive reduction of some economic activities directly linked to an open world or the creation of cloistered logics and it valued concrete local relations within a limited environment. Scientific knowledge, also circulating on a global scale, must face the vicissitudes of the pandemic; global thinking structures the modern communication technologies that allow for immediate, interactive reflection, so addressing Covid-19 joined the existing historical thought processes; human, political and social sciences remain linked to multidisciplinarity, but they now must face the pandemic.

RESUMEN Como consecuencia de la irrupción de un evento tan crítico como la Covid-19, las ciencias sociales y humanas han comenzado a repensar los conceptos e ideas que establecían la complejidad del mundo en que habitamos. Por ejemplo, reflexionando sobre el “pensar global”, expresión acuñada por Edgar Morin, ¿no será que corresponde a un momento preciso o a una fase histórica? ¿No habría que deshacerse, al menos en parte, de ese pensar global y desglobalizar las ciencias humanas, políticas y sociales? Por su parte, la respuesta de China a la pandemia reforzó su presencia como una hegemonía establecida en las relaciones contemporáneas de poder internacional. Este suceso aportó argumentos a la desglobalización, como la reducción masiva de algunas actividades económicas ligadas directamente a un mundo abierto o la creación lógicas de enclaustramiento y valorizó las relaciones locales concretas dentro de un entorno limitado. El conocimiento científico, que circula también a escala mundial, debe hacer frente a las vicisitudes que la pandemia plantea; el pensar global estructura las tecnologías modernas de comunicación que permiten que las reflexiones sean inmediatas e interactivas y, por lo tanto, abordar la Covid-19 vino a sumarse a procesos históricos de pensamiento anteriores; las ciencias humanas, políticas y sociales siguen unidas a la multidisciplinariedad, pero ahora se encuentran confrontadas con la pandemia.

Abstract Memorialising or commemoration? Fifty years after May ‘68 it is difficult to distinguish between history and memory but one thing is clear: the movement of May ’68 signals a clean break at global level, the end of the industrial era, and the entry into another age, in which culture is a decisive factor. The article shows how the actors have nevertheless frequently preferred to consider their action in the categories of the world to be left behind. This has not prevented the humanities and social sciences, dominated as they also were by categories which belong to the world on the wane, to endeavor here and there to break free of these, sometimes in a conservative, if not reactionary, manner. This article examines the theoretical issues which took shape or form influenced by May ’68 in these disciplines; it outlines the spaces and approaches which confronted one another at the time and identifies lessons for present-day discussions in which the subjectivity of the actors and the processes of subjectivation and de-subjectivation have a significant impact.

RESUMEN ¿Rememoración, conmemoración? Cincuenta años después del Mayo de 68 resulta difícil diferenciar entre historia y memoria, pero una cosa es muy clara: el movimiento de mayo marcó a escala mundial una ruptura, el fin de una época -industrial- y el ingreso a otra, en la que la cultura es fundamental. Sin embargo, el artículo muestra que los actores a menudo prefirieron concebir su acción dentro de las categorías del mundo del que se estaba queriendo salir. Ello no impidió que las ciencias humanas y sociales, también dominadas por categorías pertenecientes a ese mundo agonizante, intentaran aquí y allá liberarse de ellas, algunas veces de una forma conservadora, incluso reaccionaria. Este artículo examina los asuntos teóricos que se esbozaron o precisaron a partir de Mayo del 68 para esas disciplinas; dibuja el espacio de los enfoques u orientaciones que así se confrontaron y extrae algunas lecciones para los debates contemporáneos en los que la subjetividad de los actores y los procesos de subjetivación y de desubjetivación ocupan un lugar importante.

The analysis of violence is a broad field of human and social sciences in which almost all of their paradigms can be differentiated, and are even opposed. Together with the paradigm of religion -which in fact is not precisely strange to violence-, it constitutes a central epistemic register, one of the main concerns of research in these areas. Leaving violence is far less examined than violence in itself. It constitutes a political, juridical and ethical concern, almost always practical and concrete, even applied. Examining the way out violence demands working simultaneously in several domains. This article focuses on the analysis of the ways out of social or political violence -even geopolitical- when it has been extremely deadly, mainly expressed as genocide, mass massacres, civil war or terrorism. We shall leave aside symbolic violence, criminal or delinquent violence -though often all may be embedded or may seem indistinguishable- usually favored by civil war, guerrilla or terror contexts, so that in many contemporary experiences it has become impossible to sever organized crime from political violence.

El análisis de la violencia es un amplio campo de las ciencias humanas y sociales en el que se distinguen, e incluso se oponen, casi todos sus paradigmas. Junto con el de la religión -que de hecho no le es necesariamente extraño-, constituye un registro central, una de las principales preocupaciones de la investigación en estas áreas. El salir de la violencia es mucho menos estudiado que la violencia en sí misma. Constituye una preocupación política, jurídica y ética, casi siempre práctica y concreta, incluso aplicada. Analizar el salir de la violencia exige trabajar simultáneamente en varios registros. En este caso, nos abocaremos a analizar el salir de la violencia social o política -incluso geopolítica- cuando ésta ha sido en extremo mortífera, manifestada sobre todo en la forma de genocidios, masacres en masa, guerra civil o terrorismo. Dejaremos de lado el tema de la violencia simbólica, la violencia criminal o delincuencial -aunque frecuentemente todo esté imbricado o parezca indiferenciable- en tanto que ésta usualmente se ve favorecida en el contexto de guerra civil, de guerrilla o de terror, de modo que en muchas experiencias contemporáneas se ha vuelto imposible separar el crimen organizado de la violencia política.

Ao considerar a existência de diferentes tipos de violência e priorizando a violência coletiva, o artigo apresenta um breve exame de algumas teorias sociológicas sobre a violência, consideradas a partir de três paradigmas clássicos, aí compreendidas as análises que privilegiam a dimensão instrumental, as que veem na violência resposta ou reação a situações de crise e, finalmente, aquelas que insistem na ideia de uma cultura da violência. Os três paradigmas guardam um viés determinista, dificultando às ciências sociais melhor se capacitarem para esclarecer as condições que tornam a violência possível. O artigo ressalta ainda a importância de evitar o psicologismo e o sociologismo na análise da violência, apresentando duas outras orientações: na primeira, discute o interacionismo - com o componente da intersubjetividade - indicando alguns de seus aspectos positivos e, sobretudo, seus limites; na segunda, ressalta a orientação teórica centrada no sujeito, na subjetividade e, principalmente, nos processos de subjetivação e dessubjetivação. Postula a necessidade de definir os conceitos de subjetividade, sujeito, subjetivação e dessubjetivação, definindo, com esse propósito, quatro figuras de sujeito que podem até mesmo coexistir no mesmo ator. Demonstra, enfim, a insuficiência do conceito de sujeito e propõe passar, na análise, do enfoque no sujeito e na subjetividade ao enfoque nos processos de subjetivação e dessubjetivação, evitando a essencialização ou naturalização do sujeito.

This paper examines briefly some sociological theories about violence, taking into account that there are different types of violence, and focusing specifically on collective violence. The analysis departs from three classic paradigms: the instrumental dimension; the interpretation of violence as an answer or a reaction to some situation, especially a crisis; and finally those studies that insist on the idea of a culture of violence. These three paradigms contain a deterministic bias which postulates a causality or a collection of causes to explain violence, thus making it difficult for the social sciences to clarify the conditions that make violence possible. The paper also emphasizes the importance of avoiding "psychologisms" and "sociologsms" in the analysis of violence, introducing instead two other perspectives: in the first one, interactionism is discussed - with the intersubjectivity component - indicating some of its positive aspects, and, above all its limits; the focus of the second one is a theoretical view centered on the subject (actor, individual), the subjectivity and the desubjectivity. The need for a definition of the concepts of subjectivity, subject, subjectivation and desubjectivation is postulated, whilst four types of subject hat may co-exist within the same actor are proposed. Finally, the paper shows the shortcoming of the concept of subject and proposes an analysis based instead on the subjectivity and the subjectivation and desubjectivation processes, avoiding the essentialization or naturalization of the subject.

Étant donné l'existence de différents types de violence et, surtout, en mettant en relief la violence collective, cet article présente un bref examen de quelques théories sociologiques au sujet de la violence, considérées à partir de trois paradigmes classiques, y inclus les analyses qui privilégient la dimension instrumentale, celles qui voient dans la violence une réponse ou une réaction a des situations de crise et, à la fin, celles qui insistent sur l'idée d'une culture de violence. Les trois paradigmes renferment un biais déterministe qui fait obstacle à que les sciences sociales soient bien préparées afin de montrer les conditions qui rendent la violence possible. Cet article met en relief aussi l'importance d'éviter le psychologisme et le sociologisme lorsque l'on fait l'analyse de la violence. Il présente deux orientations différentes: dans la première, il discute l'interaccionisme - y inclus l'intersubjectivité - et montre quelques aspects positifs, surtout, quelques limites; dans la seconde, Il met en relief l'orientation théorique centrée dans le sujet, dans la subjectivité et, surtout, dans le processus de subjectivation et de désubjectivation. Il postule le besoin de définir les concepts de subjectivité, de sujet, de subjectivation et de désubjectivation et il définit, au moyen de ce propos, quatre types de sujet qui peuvent même coexister dans un seul acteur. Il explicite, à la fin, l'insuffisance du concept de sujet et Il propose passer, dans cette analyse, de l'évidence sur le sujet et sur la subjectivation à l'évidence sur les processus de subjectivation et de désubjecvation et, par conséquence, éviter l'essencialisation ou la naturalisation du sujet.

Traditionally, social sciences have studied migrations from the view point of integration within the framework of nation states, with more interest in integration into society than in real people, their culture and subjectivity. They have barely studied the country of origin, or the difficulties involved in transit. Nowadays, the migratory phenomenon is diverse and changes continuously. Identities undergo a constant process of transformation, even when they are connected to migration while social scientists have developed such notions as panethnicity and transnationalism. The time has finally come to put an end to the so-called sociology of integration, and seriously consider the point of view migrants as subjects in a global world. In several societies, however, many people like to speak in terms of integration. But "integration models" are now a failure.

Las ciencias sociales clásicas han estudiado las migraciones desde el punto de vista de la integración dentro del marco de los Estados-nación y con un interés más dirigido hacia la integración de la sociedad que hacia la gente real, su cultura y su subjetividad. Se ha estudiado poco, tanto los países de origen como las dificultades en el tránsito. En la actualidad, los fenómenos migratorios son diversos y cambiantes. Las identidades se encuentran en constante proceso de cambio, incluyendo las que se vinculan con la migración, por lo que algunos científicos sociales han desarrollado conceptos tales como el de la panetnicidad y el transnacionalismo. Finalmente, ha llegado el momento de acabar con la llamada sociología de la integración y de tomar seriamente en cuenta el punto de vista de los migrantes como personas en un mundo global. En muchas sociedades, sin embargo, a la gente le gusta hablar en términos de integración. Pero en la actualidad los modelos de integración son un fracaso.

Classical sociology reached its zenith with parsonian functionalism, was then prey to destructuring, to end up in disintegration. The discussions on posmodernity, and later, globalization, reflect the crucial steps in this disintegration, succeeded by the emergence of a major event: the reappearance of the subject, promising to confer meaning to the sociological project anew. Indeed, the hypothesis of the subjects contibutes to the conditions for the aggiornamento of the institutions, social movements, or else violence and behaviors induced by oppression, rejection, the difficulty to build up an existence, to bring forth one's own choices. It also enables to consider sociology's future and the sociologist's status and possible commitment, divided as he or she is between the role of the expert or an immediately professional practice, on the one hand, and hypercritical positions, on the other.

La sociología clásica alcanzó su apogeo con el funcionalismo parsoniano; luego se des-estructuró hasta desintegrarse. Los debates sobre la posmodernidad (a los que siguieron los de la globalización) constituyen etapas decisivas de esta descomposición, donde surge un fenómeno de primera importancia: el regreso al sujeto, un concepto susceptible de devolver un sentido al proyecto sociológico. En efecto, la hipótesis del sujeto aporta una perspectiva renovada que se interesa por el sujeto corporal, las condiciones de aggiornamento de las instituciones, los movimientos sociales e, incluso, por comprender la violencia y las condiciones definidas por la opresión, el rechazo y la dificultad de los individuos para construir su existencia, así como para producir sus propias decisiones. La hipótesis del sujeto permite reflexionar también sobre el futuro de la sociología y el eventual lugar del compromiso del sociólogo en la sociedad, con frecuencia dividido entre, por un lado, el rol de experto, absorbido por la práctica profesional y, por el otro, las posiciones hipercríticas.

Abstract In this article, the author explains racism in general and specially in France. After commenting on the changes of racism during the years 70-90 of the Twentieth Century, he explores its modalities, that is: institutional, cultural, religious, classical and scientific as well as neo-racism. With these in mind, the author asks himself a series of questions that will provide conducting threads of his exposition. Also, he complements this analysis by placing the new racism as a product of the globalization process characterized by its national and international dimensions. He concludes that racism is more problematic today than ever before, since it grows in function of the internal evolution of societies and cultural fragmentations of different groups with respect to identity, memory, culture, ethnic and religious memberships, amongst other factors.

Resumen En este artículo, el autor explica el racismo en general y en Francia en particular. Después de comentar los cambios del racismo de los años 70 a los 90 del siglo XX, explora las modalidades del mismo, a saber: institucional, cultural, religiosa, clásica y científica, así como también el neoracismo. A partir de ello, el autor se cuestiona una serie de preguntas que servirán como hilos conductores de su exposición. Además, complementa este análisis al ubicar al nuevo el racismo como un producto de los procesos de globalización caracterizados por sus dimensiones nacionales e internacionales. Concluye que el racismo es más problemático hoy que antes, ya que crece en función de la evolución interna de las sociedades y de las fragmentaciones culturales de grupos diferentes con respecto a identidad, memoria, cultura, pertenencia étnica y religiosa, entre otros factores.

Neste artigo o autor busca conceituar a violência contemporânea mostrando as mais diferentes perspectivas com que ela aparece, inclusive como terrorismo e suas novas formas de expressão que utilizam os mais recentes desenvolvimentos da biologia, da bacterologia, da química e da física nuclear. A idéia central é de que a violência muda, mudam suas percepções e os comportamentos em realação a ela. No texto, além de uma contextualização histórica, são analisadas 1) as grandes transformações do mundo: o fim da guerra fria, a reestruturação produtiva e suas conseqüências para o declínio do movimento operário e a globalização e as novas formas de vitimização; 2) a seguir são apontadas as novas formas de abordagem e a caracterização de novos sujeitos, consonantes com a contemporaneidade.

In this paper, the author seeks to approach contemporary violence in its most different expressions, including the use of the most recent developments in biology, bacteriology, chemistry and nuclear physics. The central idea is that violence changes, and with it the way it is perceived and how we react to it. The text, besides putting violence into a historical context, analyzes 1) the big transformation(s) in the world: the end of the cold war, the new industrial structure and its consequences for the decline of the labor movement, globalization and the new forms of victimization; 2) in the second part, the author points to new approaches and characterizes novel contemporary subjects.

Neste artigo o autor busca conceituar a violência contemporânea mostrando as mais diferentes perspectivas com que ela aparece, inclusive como terrorismo e suas novas formas de expressão que utilizam os mais recentes desenvolvimentos da biologia, da bacterologia, da química e da física nuclear. A idéia central é de que a violência muda, mudam suas percepções e os comportamentos em realação a ela. No texto, além de uma contextualização histórica, são analisadas 1) as grandes transformações do mundo: o fim da guerra fria, a reestruturação produtiva e suas conseqüências para o declínio do movimento operário e a globalização e as novas formas de vitimização; 2) a seguir são apontadas as novas formas de abordagem e a caracterização de novos sujeitos, consonantes com a contemporaneidade.

In this paper, the author seeks to approach contemporary violence in its most different expressions, including the use of the most recent developments in biology, bacteriology, chemistry and nuclear physics. The central idea is that violence changes, and with it the way it is perceived and how we react to it. The text, besides putting violence into a historical context, analyzes 1) the big transformation(s) in the world: the end of the cold war, the new industrial structure and its consequences for the decline of the labor movement, globalization and the new forms of victimization; 2) in the second part, the author points to new approaches and characterizes novel contemporary subjects.

Neste artigo o autor busca conceituar a violência contemporânea mostrando as mais diferentes perspectivas com que ela aparece, inclusive o terrorismo e suas novas formas de expressão que utilizam os mais recentes desenvolvimentos da biologia, da bacterologia, da química e da física nuclear. A idéia central é de que a violência muda, mudam suas percepções e os comportamentos em realação a ela. No texto, além de uma contextualização histórica, são analisadas 1) as grandes transformações do mundo: o fim da Guerra Fria, a reestruturação produtiva e suas conseqüências para o declínio do movimento operário e a globalização e as novas formas de vitimização; 2) a seguir são apontadas as novas formas de abordagem e a caracterização de novos sujeitos, consonantes com a contemporaneidade.

In this paper, the author seeks to approach contemporary violence in its most different expressions, including the use of the most recent developments in biology, bacteriology, chemistry and nuclear physics. The central idea is that violence changes, and with it the way it is perceived and how we react to it. The text, besides putting violence into a historical context, analyzes 1) the big transformation(s) in the world: the end of the Cold War, the new industrial structure and its consequences for the decline of the labor movement, globalization and the new forms of victimization; 2) in the second part, the author points to new approaches and characterizes novel contemporary subjects.