At the crossroads of possibilities: Social innovations against social, environmental and epistemic injustices?

The CRISES international conference call for papers is now closed.

At the crossroads of possibilities: Social innovations against social, environmental and epistemic injustices ?

Call for papers

This conference aims to understand the link between the various crises currently underway (environmental, socio-economic, sanitary, political) and the role of social innovations that are emerging to address them. It also aims to identify those innovations that contribute to the fight against social, environmental and epistemic injustices.

The crisis of COVID-19 strikes each and everyone in their private lives insofar as it disrupts the social, economic, health and political organization of our societies. It reveals older structural fractures, such as the fragility of health care systems, globalized supply chains, solidarity networks, and how we negotiate necessary trade-offs when having to decide between life and death. Beyond the singularities of its sanitary characteristics and its fast eruption, the COVID-19 crisis and the modalities of managing it for the collectivity are embedded in a set of longer-term crises, such as those of financialized global capitalism (Alvaredo et al., 2018; Milanovic, 2016) or the ecological crisis (IPCC, 2019). Production, consumption and lifestyle patterns that generate unsustainable environmental footprints and social inequalities become intertwined (Chancel, 2017; Piketty, 2019). The difficulty of constructing collective narratives that include unheard, dissonant or forgotten voices also highlights the structural crisis of representative democracy in many societies (Blondiaux, 2008).

Solutions for facing these crises (economic, ecological, political and health) abound. Political elites, activists, researchers, entrepreneurs and citizens all agree on the need for change, for a transition to another development model in our societies. In that context, might the current situation become a breeding ground for social innovations with a view to social transformation? On closer examination, the scope, modalities and purposes of these social innovations and the desired transformations are very diverse, even antagonistic (Juan et al., 2020). Far from facing a clear-cut path toward a new world, we are rather at a crossroads of possibilities, which we organize into two main streams of social innovations.

The first stream comprises mainly technocentric innovations, often driven by entrepreneurs, in forms that articulate an economic aim and a social or environmental ambition. Artificial intelligence, a certain digital platform economy and the so-called 4th industrial revolution promise not only sources of economic wealth but also solutions to social, political and even health or cultural issues. Some of the proposed solutions also address the ecological crisis and involve technological substitution, energy planning as well as the determination of a price and a market for the rights to pollute. Philanthrocapitalism funds research and experimentation to “solve” the many societal problems by transferring and adapting market and technological devices in a wide variety of fields (McGoey, 2015). These solutions are therefore often technology-based, their conception is steered by the ingenuity or strategy of a visionary entrepreneur, and their deployment is intended to solve the problem once implemented in society.

One of the challenges is to grasp how this technocentric and solutionist vision, often communicated with terms such as “rupture” and “inventiveness”, reproduces the very structures of the status quo of the world to be changed. Indeed, these innovations may even exacerbate the current crises, namely by increasing existing inequalities and further concentrating power, as do the GAFAMs, for example, who dodge fiscal or other social obligations. This conception of the link between innovation and social transformation may also accommodate authoritarian regimes who readily dispense with the more time-consuming democratic deliberation and impose the primacy of achieving fast results, as is done in environmental authoritarianism (Beeson, 2010) or surveillance capitalism (Zuboff, 2019).

The second stream is based on a strong conception of social innovation which focuses on the emancipatory power of grassroots communities, the co-construction of knowledge and practices as well as social justice (Fraser, 2011) and environmental justice (Schlosberg, 2003; Agyeman et al., 2010). From this perspective, social innovations seek to eliminate institutionalized barriers that deprive the most fragile segments of the population of the resources, recognition, and opportunity to express themselves on an equal footing with others, so that they can fully participate in the social as well as ecological transformation. The struggle against “epistemic injustices” refers to this attention to inequalities in access, recognition and production of knowledge, especially for those belonging to marginalized and oppressed social groups (Fricker, 2007; Santos, 2016).

Capturing this emancipatory potential involves studying the participation of more fragile segments of the population as well as of social movements in the socio-ecological transition (Avelino et al., 2019). Moreover, this conception implies politicizing the analysis of social innovations by “denaturalizing” the problems to be addressed (e.g., poverty, environment) and by analyzing the social relationships at work in the architecture of the proposed solutions, including the share of conflictuality and dissensus within the collectives and organizations mobilized. This politicization also requires an understanding of social innovations within the political and economic framework that governs their existence, even if the latter may also be challenged by those innovations (Gibson-Graham et al., 2013; Dardot & Laval, 2014; Wright, 2017). Finally, in this strong conception of social innovation, the need for the co-construction of knowledge and practices calls for contributions from researchers in the light of epistemic injustices, the role of universities as well as “non-academic” knowledge in the socio-ecological transition.

This theoretical division into two streams serves to clarify a number of differences. Nevertheless, a continuum of practices and an intermingling of hybrid logics exists across these divides. In the world of “the makers,” the boundaries between market/non-market, leisure/work and proximity/distance to the industrial and institutional spheres, to name but a few, are porous while nevertheless serving to distinguish between the many initiatives within the social innovation movement, if only to allow the makers to position themselves (Berrebi-Hoffmann et al., 2018). The trajectories of social innovations are also marked by transformations and appropriations, sometimes far removed from the theoretical blueprint of their beginnings (Klein et al., 2019). Determining the capacity of social innovations to combat social, environmental or epistemic injustices requires close observation of practices, modes of institutionalization and ties to collective action and social movements rather than postulating a priori what the effects of the latter might be based on their declared intentions or their belonging to one or the other pole.

Researchers wishing to submit a paper to this conference are invited to cover the various aspects discussed above, in particular by responding to one of the following questions:

What social justice might there be in socio-ecological transition processes? What place is there for the most precarious and most dominated populations in these mobilizations?
What forms of collective ownership or management of the “commons” contribute to social and environmental justice?
What recognition and revaluation might there be for the activities and professions, usually invisible and devalued but now relegitimized by the sanitary crisis, in other words, for the “dirty jobs” that have become “essential” (health, logistics, maintenance) and overexposed to risks? How might the sanitary crisis lead to a revaluation of the hierarchies of occupations?
What might be the role of care in a perspective of social and environmental justice? What recognition might there be for those working in the caring professions in the domestic and professional spheres? How are care and contestation connected?
What kinds of relations might we envisage between the actors who bring about social innovations and the public authorities in the context of the recomposition of the political space (crisis of political representation, rise of authoritarianism, contestation of globalization, call for the relocation of activities)? What forms of power might we see for organized civil society?
To what extent are certain emancipatory social innovations being built to counteract those deemed regressive? Conversely, beyond a clear-cut distinction between the two streams, how might we analyze the trajectories of hybridization or the continuum between these different practices?
What links are there between organizations and social movements fighting for social and environmental justice? Which meta-organizations could compensate for the fragmentation of singular contributions? What ecosystems of social innovation are there? How is democracy in these organizational forms exercised?
What social innovations are there to ensure digital sovereignty and an emancipatory use of algorithmic potentials at the onset of the “4th industrial revolution”? What collective data governances are there now or conceivably in the future?
How might we conceive the roles of researchers, collective organizations and citizens, especially the most precarious and dominated, in the co-construction of knowledge and the co-production of emancipatory practices, support, accompaniment or socio-political empowerment as well as the establishment of programs or policies for social justice? What social innovations are needed to combat epistemic injustices? What roles might the university, from a research, teaching and institutional point of view, take on in the socio-ecological transition?

Submit a proposal

Proposals for papers must be submitted using the electronic form. They must include the following:

• a title (maximum 180 characters including spaces)

• an abstract in French or English (2,400 to 3,500 characters including spaces)

• a list of authors, including their affiliation and contact information

• the question addressed among those proposed above

Proposals will be evaluated by a peer review committee.

Important dates

• Deadline for submitting a proposal:September 21, 2020

• Response of the evaluation committee:October 26, 2020

• Registration opens:November 23, 2020

• Submission of the text of the paper (maximum 3,500 words including bibliography, notes and tables):March 1, 2021

All texts will be published as digital proceedings. Of these texts, some will be selected for publication in a collective work in the Innovation sociale collection of Presses de l'Université du Québec. In that case, a 5,000-word text will be requested from the authors concerned by May 10, 2021.

For more information about CRISES, please visit our website at:www.crises.uqam.ca.

Select bibliography

Agyeman J., Cole, P., Haluza-DeLay, R., & O’Riley, P. (Eds.) (2010). Speaking for ourselves: Environmental justice in Canada. University of British Columbia Press.

Alvaredo, F., Chancel, L., Piketty, T., Saez, E., & Zucman, G. (2018).Rapport sur les inégalités mondiales. Le Seuil.

Avelino, F., Wittmayer, J. M., Pel, B., Weaver, P., Dumitru, A., Haxeltine, A., Kemp, R., Jørgensen, M., Bauler, T., Ruijsink, S., & O’Riordan, T. (2019).Transformative social innovation and (dis)empowerment.Technological forecasting and social change, 145, 195–206.

Beeson, M. (2010). The coming of environmental authoritarianism.Environmental Politics, 19(2), 276–294.

Berrebi-Hoffmann, I., Bureau, M.-C., & Lallement, M. (2018). Makers. Enquête sur les laboratoires du changement social. Seuil.

Blondiaux, L. (2008). Le nouvel esprit de la démocratie. Actualité de la démocratie participative. In La république des idées. Seuil.

Callorda Fossati, E., Degavre, F., & Lévesque, B. (2018). L’innovation sociale : retour sur les marches d’une construction théorique et pratique. Entretien avec Benoît Lévesque. Revue de la régulation, 23(1), 1–23.

Chancel, L. (2017). Insoutenables inégalités : pour une justice sociale et environnementale. Éditions Les petits matins.

Dardot, P., & Laval, C. (2014). Commun : essai sur la révolution au XXIe siècle. La Découverte.

Dobson A. (2003). Social justice and environmental sustainability. In J. Agyeman, R. D. Bullard, & B. Evans (Eds.), Just sustainability. Development in an unequal world(pp. 83–95). Earthscan.

Fraser, N. (2011) Qu'est-ce que la justice sociale ? Reconnaissance et redistribution. In La Découverte/Poche,La Découverte.

Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice.Oxford University Press.

Gibson-Graham, J. K., Cameron, J., & Healy, S. (2013). Take back the economy: An ethical guide for transforming our communities. University of Minnesota Press.

Godrie, B., & Dos Santos, M. (Eds.)(2017). Injustices épistémiques. Sociologie et Sociétés.(special issue), 49(1).

International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2019). Climate change and land.IPCC.https://www.ipcc.ch/report/srccl/

Klein J.-L., Boucher, J., Camus, A., Champagne, C., & Noiseux, Y. (2019). Trajectoires d’innovation. Des émergences à la reconnaissance. Presses de l’Université du Québec.

Juan, M., Laville, J.-L., & Subirats, J. (2020). Du social business à l’économie solidaire: Critique de l’innovation sociale.ERES.

McGoey L. (2015). no such thing as a free gift: The Gates Foundation and the price of philanthropy. Verso.

Milanovic, B. (2016). Global inequality: A new approach for the age of globalization.Harvard University Press.

Piketty, T. (2019). Capital et idéologie. Seuil.

Santos, B. de S. (2016). Épistémologies du Sud : mouvements citoyens et polémique sur la science.Desclée de Brouwer.

Schlosberg, D. (2003). The justice of environmental justice: Reconciling equity, recognition and participation in a political movement. In A. Light, & A. de-Shalit (Eds.), Moral and political reasoning in environmental practice (pp. 77–106).MIT Press.

Wright, E. O. (2017). Utopies réelles. La Découverte.

Zuboff, S. (2019).The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power.Profile Books.

<h2>The CRISES international conference call for papers is now closed.</h2> <h4>At the crossroads of possibilities: Social innovations against social, environmental and epistemic injustices ?</h4><h4> </h4><h4>Call for papers</h4>This conference aims to understand the link between the various crises currently underway (environmental, socio-economic, sanitary, political) and the role of social innovations that are emerging to address them. It also aims to identify those innovations that contribute to the fight against social, environmental and epistemic injustices.The crisis of COVID-19 strikes each and everyone in their private lives insofar as it disrupts the social, economic, health and political organization of our societies. It reveals older structural fractures, such as the fragility of health care systems, globalized supply chains, solidarity networks, and how we negotiate necessary trade-offs when having to decide between life and death. Beyond the singularities of its sanitary characteristics and its fast eruption, the COVID-19 crisis and the modalities of managing it for the collectivity are embedded in a set of longer-term crises, such as those of financialized global capitalism (Alvaredo et al., 2018; Milanovic, 2016) or the ecological crisis (IPCC, 2019). Production, consumption and lifestyle patterns that generate unsustainable environmental footprints and social inequalities become intertwined (Chancel, 2017; Piketty, 2019). The difficulty of constructing collective narratives that include unheard, dissonant or forgotten voices also highlights the structural crisis of representative democracy in many societies (Blondiaux, 2008).Solutions for facing these crises (economic, ecological, political and health) abound. Political elites, activists, researchers, entrepreneurs and citizens all agree on the need for change, for a transition to another development model in our societies. In that context, might the current situation become a breeding ground for social innovations with a view to social transformation? On closer examination, the scope, modalities and purposes of these social innovations and the desired transformations are very diverse, even antagonistic (Juan et al., 2020). Far from facing a clear-cut path toward a new world, we are rather at a crossroads of possibilities, which we organize into two main streams of social innovations.The first stream comprises mainly technocentric innovations, often driven by entrepreneurs, in forms that articulate an economic aim and a social or environmental ambition. Artificial intelligence, a certain digital platform economy and the so-called 4th industrial revolution promise not only sources of economic wealth but also solutions to social, political and even health or cultural issues. Some of the proposed solutions also address the ecological crisis and involve technological substitution, energy planning as well as the determination of a price and a market for the rights to pollute. Philanthrocapitalism funds research and experimentation to “solve” the many societal problems by transferring and adapting market and technological devices in a wide variety of fields (McGoey, 2015). These solutions are therefore often technology-based, their conception is steered by the ingenuity or strategy of a visionary entrepreneur, and their deployment is intended to solve the problem once implemented in society.One of the challenges is to grasp how this technocentric and solutionist vision, often communicated with terms such as “rupture” and “inventiveness”, reproduces the very structures of the status quo of the world to be changed. Indeed, these innovations may even exacerbate the current crises, namely by increasing existing inequalities and further concentrating power, as do the GAFAMs, for example, who dodge fiscal or other social obligations. This conception of the link between innovation and social transformation may also accommodate authoritarian regimes who readily dispense with the more time-consuming democratic deliberation and impose the primacy of achieving fast results, as is done in environmental authoritarianism (Beeson, 2010) or surveillance capitalism (Zuboff, 2019).The second stream is based on a strong conception of social innovation which focuses on the emancipatory power of grassroots communities, the co-construction of knowledge and practices as well as social justice (Fraser, 2011) and environmental justice (Schlosberg, 2003; Agyeman et al., 2010). From this perspective, social innovations seek to eliminate institutionalized barriers that deprive the most fragile segments of the population of the resources, recognition, and opportunity to express themselves on an equal footing with others, so that they can fully participate in the social as well as ecological transformation. The struggle against “epistemic injustices” refers to this attention to inequalities in access, recognition and production of knowledge, especially for those belonging to marginalized and oppressed social groups (Fricker, 2007; Santos, 2016).Capturing this emancipatory potential involves studying the participation of more fragile segments of the population as well as of social movements in the socio-ecological transition (Avelino et al., 2019). Moreover, this conception implies politicizing the analysis of social innovations by “denaturalizing” the problems to be addressed (e.g., poverty, environment) and by analyzing the social relationships at work in the architecture of the proposed solutions, including the share of conflictuality and dissensus within the collectives and organizations mobilized. This politicization also requires an understanding of social innovations within the political and economic framework that governs their existence, even if the latter may also be challenged by those innovations (Gibson-Graham et al., 2013; Dardot & Laval, 2014; Wright, 2017). Finally, in this strong conception of social innovation, the need for the co-construction of knowledge and practices calls for contributions from researchers in the light of epistemic injustices, the role of universities as well as “non-academic” knowledge in the socio-ecological transition.This theoretical division into two streams serves to clarify a number of differences. Nevertheless, a continuum of practices and an intermingling of hybrid logics exists across these divides. In the world of “the makers,” the boundaries between market/non-market, leisure/work and proximity/distance to the industrial and institutional spheres, to name but a few, are porous while nevertheless serving to distinguish between the many initiatives within the social innovation movement, if only to allow the makers to position themselves (Berrebi-Hoffmann et al., 2018). The trajectories of social innovations are also marked by transformations and appropriations, sometimes far removed from the theoretical blueprint of their beginnings (Klein et al., 2019). Determining the capacity of social innovations to combat social, environmental or epistemic injustices requires close observation of practices, modes of institutionalization and ties to collective action and social movements rather than postulating a priori what the effects of the latter might be based on their declared intentions or their belonging to one or the other pole.Researchers wishing to submit a paper to this conference are invited to cover the various aspects discussed above, in particular by responding to one of the following questions:<ol><li>What social justice might there be in socio-ecological transition processes? What place is there for the most precarious and most dominated populations in these mobilizations?</li><li>What forms of collective ownership or management of the “commons” contribute to social and environmental justice?</li><li>What recognition and revaluation might there be for the activities and professions, usually invisible and devalued but now relegitimized by the sanitary crisis, in other words, for the “dirty jobs” that have become “essential” (health, logistics, maintenance) and overexposed to risks? How might the sanitary crisis lead to a revaluation of the hierarchies of occupations?</li><li>What might be the role of care in a perspective of social and environmental justice? What recognition might there be for those working in the caring professions in the domestic and professional spheres? How are care and contestation connected?</li><li>What kinds of relations might we envisage between the actors who bring about social innovations and the public authorities in the context of the recomposition of the political space (crisis of political representation, rise of authoritarianism, contestation of globalization, call for the relocation of activities)? What forms of power might we see for organized civil society?</li><li>To what extent are certain emancipatory social innovations being built to counteract those deemed regressive? Conversely, beyond a clear-cut distinction between the two streams, how might we analyze the trajectories of hybridization or the continuum between these different practices?</li><li>What links are there between organizations and social movements fighting for social and environmental justice? Which meta-organizations could compensate for the fragmentation of singular contributions? What ecosystems of social innovation are there? How is democracy in these organizational forms exercised?</li><li>What social innovations are there to ensure digital sovereignty and an emancipatory use of algorithmic potentials at the onset of the “4th industrial revolution”? What collective data governances are there now or conceivably in the future?</li><li>How might we conceive the roles of researchers, collective organizations and citizens, especially the most precarious and dominated, in the co-construction of knowledge and the co-production of emancipatory practices, support, accompaniment or socio-political empowerment as well as the establishment of programs or policies for social justice? What social innovations are needed to combat epistemic injustices? What roles might the university, from a research, teaching and institutional point of view, take on in the socio-ecological transition?</li></ol><h4>Submit a proposal</h4>Proposals for papers must be submitted using the <a href="https://framaforms.org/paper-submission-crises-international-conference-2021-1593121661">electronic form</a>. They must include the following:• a title (maximum 180 characters including spaces)• an abstract in French or English (2,400 to 3,500 characters including spaces)• a list of authors, including their affiliation and contact information• the question addressed among those proposed aboveProposals will be evaluated by a peer review committee.<h4>Important dates</h4>• Deadline for submitting a proposal:September 21, 2020• Response of the evaluation committee:October 26, 2020• Registration opens:November 23, 2020• Submission of the text of the paper (maximum 3,500 words including bibliography, notes and tables):March 1, 2021All texts will be published as digital proceedings. Of these texts, some will be selected for publication in a collective work in the Innovation sociale collection of Presses de l'Université du Québec. In that case, a 5,000-word text will be requested from the authors concerned by May 10, 2021.For more information about CRISES, please visit our website at:<a href="https://crises.uqam.ca/">www.crises.uqam.ca</a>. Select bibliographyAgyeman J., Cole, P., Haluza-DeLay, R., & O’Riley, P. (Eds.) (2010). Speaking for ourselves: Environmental justice in Canada. University of British Columbia Press.Alvaredo, F., Chancel, L., Piketty, T., Saez, E., & Zucman, G. (2018).Rapport sur les inégalités mondiales. Le Seuil.Avelino, F., Wittmayer, J. M., Pel, B., Weaver, P., Dumitru, A., Haxeltine, A., Kemp, R., Jørgensen, M., Bauler, T., Ruijsink, S., & O’Riordan, T. (2019).Transformative social innovation and (dis)empowerment.Technological forecasting and social change, 145, 195–206.Beeson, M. (2010). The coming of environmental authoritarianism.Environmental Politics, 19(2), 276–294.Berrebi-Hoffmann, I., Bureau, M.-C., & Lallement, M. (2018). Makers. Enquête sur les laboratoires du changement social. Seuil.Blondiaux, L. (2008). Le nouvel esprit de la démocratie. Actualité de la démocratie participative. In La république des idées. Seuil.Callorda Fossati, E., Degavre, F., & Lévesque, B. (2018). L’innovation sociale : retour sur les marches d’une construction théorique et pratique. Entretien avec Benoît Lévesque. Revue de la régulation, 23(1), 1–23.Chancel, L. (2017). Insoutenables inégalités : pour une justice sociale et environnementale. Éditions Les petits matins.Dardot, P., & Laval, C. (2014). Commun : essai sur la révolution au XXIe siècle. La Découverte.Dobson A. (2003). Social justice and environmental sustainability. In J. Agyeman, R. D. Bullard, & B. Evans (Eds.), Just sustainability. Development in an unequal world(pp. 83–95). Earthscan.Fraser, N. (2011) Qu'est-ce que la justice sociale ? Reconnaissance et redistribution. In La Découverte/Poche,La Découverte.Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice.Oxford University Press.Gibson-Graham, J. K., Cameron, J., & Healy, S. (2013). Take back the economy: An ethical guide for transforming our communities. University of Minnesota Press.Godrie, B., & Dos Santos, M. (Eds.)(2017). Injustices épistémiques. Sociologie et Sociétés.(special issue), 49(1).International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2019). Climate change and land.IPCC.<a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/srccl/">https://www.ipcc.ch/report/srccl/</a>Klein J.-L., Boucher, J., Camus, A., Champagne, C., & Noiseux, Y. (2019). Trajectoires d’innovation. Des émergences à la reconnaissance. Presses de l’Université du Québec.Juan, M., Laville, J.-L., & Subirats, J. (2020). Du social business à l’économie solidaire: Critique de l’innovation sociale.ERES.McGoey L. (2015). no such thing as a free gift: The Gates Foundation and the price of philanthropy. Verso.Milanovic, B. (2016). Global inequality: A new approach for the age of globalization.Harvard University Press.Piketty, T. (2019). Capital et idéologie. Seuil.Santos, B. de S. (2016). Épistémologies du Sud : mouvements citoyens et polémique sur la science.Desclée de Brouwer.Schlosberg, D. (2003). The justice of environmental justice: Reconciling equity, recognition and participation in a political movement. In A. Light, & A. de-Shalit (Eds.), Moral and political reasoning in environmental practice (pp. 77–106).MIT Press.Wright, E. O. (2017). Utopies réelles. La Découverte.Zuboff, S. (2019).The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power.Profile Books.

<h2>L'appel à communications pour la 6e édition du colloque international du CRISES est maintenant clos.</h2> <h4>Au carrefour des possibles. Quelles innovations sociales contre les injustices sociales, environnementales et épistémiques ?</h4> <h4>Appel à communications</h4>Ce colloque vise à comprendre l’articulation entre les différentes crises actuellement en cours (environnementale, socio-économique, sanitaire, politique) et le rôle des innovations sociales qui naissent pour y faire face. L’objectif est également de mieux distinguer, parmi ces dernières, celles qui contribuent à lutter contre les injustices sociales, environnementales et épistémiques.La crise de la COVID-19 percute chacun et chacune dans son intimité comme elle met à l’épreuve l’organisation sociale, économique, sanitaire et politique de nos sociétés. Elle révèle des fractures structurelles plus anciennes : fragilité des systèmes de santé, des filières d’approvisionnement mondialisées, des architectures de solidarité, des arbitrages sur la valeur des vies et le prix des morts. Par-delà les singularités de ses caractéristiques sanitaires et la temporalité courte de son irruption, la crise de la COVID-19 et les modalités de sa prise en charge collective s’inscrivent dans un ensemble de crises de plus long terme, comme celles du capitalisme financiarisé et globalisé (Alvaredo et al., 2018 ; Milanovic, 2016)ou de la crise écologique (GIEC, 2019).S’y entrecroisent un mode de production, de consommation et de vie générant une empreinte environnementale et des inégalités sociales insoutenables (Chancel, 2017 ; Piketty, 2019). La difficulté de construire des récits collectifs qui incluent les voix inaudibles, dissonantes ou oubliées met également en lumière la crise structurelle de la démocratie représentative dans de nombreuses sociétés (Blondiaux, 2008).Face à ces crises (économique, écologique, politique et sanitaire), les solutions foisonnent. Élites politiques, activistes, chercheuses et chercheurs, entrepreneures et entrepreneurs, citoyennes et citoyens ; tous s’accordent sur la nécessité de changer, de réaliser une transition vers un autre modèle de développement dans nos sociétés. La situation actuelle peut-elle devenir un terreau propice pour les innovations sociales dans une perspective de transformation sociale ? À y regarder de plus près, la portée, les modalités et les finalités de ces innovations sociales et des transformations souhaitées sont très diverses, voire antagonistes (Juan et al., 2020). Loin d’être face à une voie toute tracée vers un monde nouveau, nous sommes plutôt au carrefour des possibles, que nous pouvons schématiser, dans un premier temps, à travers deux pôles principaux d’innovations sociales.Un premier pôle regroupe des innovations principalement technocentristes, souvent impulsées par des entrepreneurs, dans des formes qui articulent une visée économique et une ambition sociale ou environnementale. L’intelligence artificielle, une certaine économie de plateforme numérique et la « 4erévolution industrielle » promettent non seulement des gisements de richesse économique mais aussi des solutions à des enjeux sociaux, politiques et même sanitaires ou culturels. Pensons aussi, pour répondre à la crise écologique, aux solutions proposées en termes de substitution technologique, de planification énergétique ou encore de fixation d’un prix et d’un marché des droits à polluer. Le philanthrocapitalisme finance la recherche et l’expérimentation de telles solutions pour « régler » de nombreux problèmes sociétaux par le transfert et l’adaptation de dispositifs marchands et technologiques, dans des domaines très divers (McGoey, 2015). Ces solutions sont donc souvent basées sur la technologie, leur conception est liée à l’ingéniosité ou la stratégie d’un entrepreneur visionnaire et leur déploiement réglerait le problème, une fois mises en œuvre dans la société.Un des enjeux est de saisir comment cette vision technocentriste et solutionniste, sous un langage de « rupture » et « d’inventivité », reproduit les structures même du statu quo d’un monde à changer. Ces innovations peuvent même approfondir les crises en cours, que ce soit en redoublant des inégalités existantes et en concentrant encore les pouvoirs, à l’image des domaines de compétences revendiqués par les GAFAM (tout en s’abstrayant des injonctions de solidarité, notamment fiscale). Cette conception du lien entre innovation et transformation sociale peut aussi s’accommoder de régimes autoritaires au nom de la primauté de la solution trouvée, en privilégiant l’urgence et l’expertise contre la perte de temps de la délibération démocratique, à l’image de l’autoritarisme environnemental (Beeson, 2010) ou du capitalisme de surveillance (Zuboff, 2019).Un second pôle repose sur une conception forte de l’innovation sociale. Celle-ci mise au contraire sur le pouvoir émancipateur des communautés à la base, sur la coconstruction des connaissances et des pratiques et enfin sur un horizon de justice sociale (Fraser, 2011) et de justice environnementale (Schlosberg, 2003 ;Agyeman et al., 2010). Dans cette perspective, les innovations sociales cherchent à éliminer les obstacles institutionnalisés qui privent les plus fragiles des ressources, de la reconnaissance et de la possibilité de s’exprimer sur un pied d’égalité avec les autres, afin qu’ils puissent pleinement participer à la transformation sociale mais aussi écologique. La lutte contre les « injustices épistémiques » désigne cette attention portée aux inégalités dans l’accès, la reconnaissance et la production des savoirs, en particulier pour ceux et celles qui appartiennent à des groupes sociaux marginalisés et opprimés(Fricker, 2007 ; Santos, 2016).Saisir ce potentiel émancipateur implique d’étudier, par exemple, la participation des populations plus fragiles et également des mouvements sociaux à la transition socio-écologique (Avelino et al., 2019). De plus, cette conception implique de politiser l’analyse des innovations sociales en « dénaturalisant » les problèmes à traiter (« la pauvreté », « l’environnement ») et en analysant les rapports sociaux à l’œuvre dans l’architecture des solutions proposées, y compris la part de conflictualité et de dissensus au sein des collectifs et des organisations mobilisés. Cette politisation exige aussi d’appréhender les innovations sociales au sein de cadres politiques et économiques qui régissent leur existence, mais qui est aussi remis en question par elles (Gibson-Graham et al., 2013 ; Dardot et Laval, 2014 ; Wright, 2017). Enfin, dans cette conception forte de l’innovation sociale, l’exigence de coconstruction des connaissances et des pratiques interpelle la contribution des chercheuses et des chercheurs, à la lumière des injustices épistémiques, du questionnement actuel sur le rôle des universités, mais aussi des savoirs « hors universités », dans la transition socio-écologique.<a></a>Ce découpage théorique entre deux pôles a l’avantage de clarifier un certain nombre de différences. Mais on observe fréquemment un continuum de pratiques où s’entremêlent des éléments relevant de logiques hybrides. Dans l’univers des makers, les frontières entre marchand/non-marchand, loisir/travail, proximité/distance aux sphères industrielles et institutionnelles, pour n’en citer que quelques-unes, sont à la fois poreuses et l’objet d’un fort travail de distinction entre les initiatives à l’intérieur du mouvement, ne serait-ce que pour se nommer et se positionner (Berrebi-Hoffmann et al., 2018). Les trajectoires d’innovations sociales sont également marquées par des transformations et des appropriations, parfois fort éloignées de l’épure théorique que portait leur genèse (Klein et al., 2019). Interroger la capacité des innovations sociales à lutter contre des injustices sociales, environnementales ou épistémiques suggère de raffiner l’analyse par une observation au plus près des pratiques, des trajectoires d’institutionnalisation comme des liens à l’action collective et aux mouvements sociaux, plutôt que de postuler a priori leurs effets, à partir de leurs intentions ou de leurs appartenances présumées à l’un ou l’autre pôle.Les chercheuses et les chercheurs souhaitant soumettre une communication à ce colloque sont invités à couvrir les divers aspects abordés ci-dessus, notamment en répondant à l’une des questions suivantes :<ol><li>Quelle justice sociale dans les processus de transition socio-écologique ? Quelle place pour les populations les plus précaires, les plus dominées, dans ces mobilisations ?</li><li>Quelles formes de propriété collective ou de gestion des « communs » contribuent à la justice sociale et environnementale ?</li><li>Quelle reconnaissance et quelle revalorisation pour les activités et professions, d’ordinaire invisibilisées et dévalorisées, aujourd’hui relégitimées par la crise sanitaire, ces « sales boulots » devenus « essentiels » (santé, logistique, entretien) surexposés aux risques ? À travers eux, quelle réévaluation des hiérarchies des occupations ?</li><li>Quel rôle pour le soin (care) dans une perspective de justice sociale et environnementale ? Quelle reconnaissance pour celles et ceux qui le prennent en charge, dans la sphère domestique comme professionnelle ? Quelle articulation entre soin et contestation ?</li><li>Quelles relations entre les acteurs porteurs d’innovations sociales et les pouvoirs publics, dans le contexte de recomposition de l’espace politique (crise de la représentation politique, montée des autoritarismes, contestation de la mondialisation, appel à la relocalisation des activités) ? Quel pouvoir et quels contours pour la société civile organisée ?</li><li>Dans quelles mesures certaines innovations sociales émancipatoires se construisent contre des innovations jugées régressives ? À l’inverse, au-delà d’une distinction nette et étanche entre deux pôles, comment analyser les trajectoires d’hybridation ou encore le continuum entre ces différentes pratiques ?</li><li>Quelles articulations entre les organisations et mouvements sociaux luttant pour la justice sociale et environnementale ? Quelles méta-organisations pour pallier l’émiettement des contributions singulières ? Quels écosystèmes d’innovations sociales ? Quels exercices de la démocratie dans ces formes organisationnelles ?</li><li>Quelles innovations sociales pour la souveraineté numérique et un usage émancipatoire des potentiels algorithmiques à l’heure de la « 4e révolution industrielle » ? Quelles gouvernances collectives des données ?</li><li>Quels rôles pour les chercheuses et chercheurs, les organisations collectives, les citoyennes et citoyens, notamment les plus précaires et dominés, dans la coconstruction de connaissances et la co-production de pratiques émancipatoires, de soutien, d’accompagnement ou de capacitation sociopolitiques de même que pour l’établissement de programmes ou de politiques favorables à la justice sociale ? Quelles innovations sociales pour lutter contre les injustices épistémiques ? Quels rôles pour l’Université du point de vue de la recherche, de l’enseignement et institutionnel, dans le processus de transition socio-écologique ?</li></ol><h4>Soumettre une proposition de communication</h4>Les propositions de communication doivent être déposées au moyen du <a href="https://framaforms.org/proposition-de-communication-colloque-international-du-crises-2021-1592613655">formulaire électronique</a>. Elles doivent inclure les éléments suivants :· Un titre (maximum de 180 caractères espaces comprises)· Un résumé en français ou en anglais (2 400 à 3 500 caractères espaces comprises)· La liste des autrices et des auteurs, affiliation et leurs coordonnées· La question abordée parmi celles proposées plus hautLes propositions seront évaluées par un comité de pairs.<h4>Dates importantes</h4>· Date limite pour soumettre une proposition : 21 septembre 2020· Réponse du comité d’évaluation : 26 octobre 2020· Ouverture des inscriptions : 23 novembre 2020· Remise du texte de la communication (maximum 3 500 mots incluant la bibliographie, les notes et les tableaux) : 1er mars 2021.Tous les textes seront publiés sous la forme d’actes numériques. Parmi ces textes, certains seront sélectionnés pour publication dans un ouvrage collectif dans la collection « Innovation sociale » des Presses de l’Université du Québec. Un texte de 5 000 mots sera alors demandé aux autrices et auteurs concernés pour le 10 mai 2021.Pour plus d’informations concernant le CRISES, voir :<a href="https://crises.uqam.ca/">www.crises.uqam.ca</a>Bibliographie indicativeAgyeman J., P. Cole, R. Haluza-DeLay et P. O’Riley (dir.)(2010). Speaking for Ourselves: Environmental Justice in Canada, Vancouver, University of British Columbia Press.Alvaredo, F., L. Chancel, T. Piketty, E. Saez et G. Zucman (2018).Rapport sur les inégalités mondiales, Paris, Le Seuil.Avelino, F., J. M. Wittmayer, B. Pel, P. Weaver, A. Dumitru, A. Haxeltine, R. Kemp, M. Jørgensen, T. Bauler S. Ruijsink et T. O’Riordan (2019).« Transformative social innovation and (Dis)empowerment », Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 145, p. 195-206.Beeson M. (2010). “The coming of environmental authoritarianism”, Environmental Politics, vol. 19, no 2, p. 276-294.Berrebi-Hoffmann, I., M.-C. Bureau et M. Lallement (2018). Makers. Enquête sur les laboratoires du changement social, Paris, Seuil.Blondiaux, L. (2008). Le nouvel esprit de la démocratie. Actualité de la démocratie participative, coll. « La république des idées », Paris, Seuil.Callorda Fossati, E., F. Degavre et B. Lévesque (2018). « L’innovation sociale : retour sur les marches d’une construction théorique et pratique. Entretien avec Benoît Lévesque », Revue de la régulation, vol. 23, no 1, p. 1-23.Chancel, L. (2017). Insoutenables inégalités : pour une justice sociale et environnementale, Paris, Éditions Les petits matins.Dardot, P. et C. Laval (2014). Commun : essai sur la révolution au XXIe siècle, Paris, La Découverte.Dobson A. (2003). « Social justice and environmental sustainability », dans J. Agyeman, R. D. Bullard et B. Evans (dir.), Just sustainability. Development in an unequal world, Londres, Earthscan, p. 83-95.Fraser N. (2011) Qu'est-ce que la justice sociale ? Reconnaissance et redistribution, Paris, La Découverte, coll. « La Découverte/Poche ».Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic Injustice, Oxford, Oxford University Press.Gibson-Graham, J. K., J. Cameron et S. Healy (2013).Take Back the Economy : An Ethical Guide for Transforming our Communities, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press.Groupe d'experts intergouvernemental sur l'évolution du climat (GIEC) (2019). Climate Change and LandGenève,GIEC, <https://www.ipcc.ch/report/srccl/>, consulté le 30 octobre 2019.Godrie, B. et M. Dos Santos (dir.) (2017). « Injustices épistémiques », Sociologie et Sociétés, (numéro thématique), vol. 49, no 1.Klein J.-L., J. Boucher, A. Camus, C. Champagne et Y. Noiseux (2019). Trajectoires d’innovation. Des émergences à la reconnaissance, Québec, Presses de l’Université du Québec.Juan, M., J.-L. Laville, et J. Subirats (2020). Du social business à l’économie solidaire: Critique de l’innovation sociale, Toulouse, France, ERES.McGoey L. (2015). No Such Thing As A Free Gift: The Gates Foundation and The Price of Philanthropy, New York, Verso.Milanovic, B. (2016). Global inequality: A New Approach for the Age of Globalization, Cambridge, Harvard University Press.Piketty, T. (2019). Capital et idéologie, Paris, Seuil.Santos, B. de S. (2016). Épistémologies du Sud : mouvements citoyens et polémique sur la science, Paris, Desclée de Brouwer.Schlosberg, D. (2003). « The Justice of Environmental Justice : Reconciling Equity, Recognition and Participation in a Political Movement », dans A. Light et A. de-Shalit (dir.), Moral and Political Reasoning in Environmental Practice, Cambridge (MA), MIT Press, p. 77-106.Wright, E. (2017). Utopies réelles, Paris, La Découverte.
Zuboff S. (2019). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power, London, Profile Books.