Teacher(s)
Language
French
Prerequisites
The prerequisite(s) for this Teaching Unit (Unité d’enseignement – UE) for the programmes/courses that offer this Teaching Unit are specified at the end of this sheet.
Learning outcomes
At the end of this learning unit, the student is able to : | |
| This course in the BAS3 program aims not only to present and discuss in depth the question of symbolism, central in sociology and anthropology (and more broadly in the human and social sciences), but also to consider possible applications and repercussions. of this question through contemporary issues, addressed in part through classical questions (the symbolic function and the role of language, culture and the imagination, the study of myths and rites, symbolic effectiveness and its conditions, the question of belief and illusions, the tension between "active life" and "contemplative life", etc.), but also on the other hand through recent problems or those which have acquired a new acuity (the "demand for meaning ”and the“ meaning resources ”between interpretative and pragmatic approaches, meaning and the“ bringing into play ”of meaning, the components of a“ symbolic economy ”in current social configurations - see in particular what escapes an axiomatic of need and interests -, the new ways of "inhabiting the world" in an era which requires questioning productivism and rethinking our relationship to "nature", the question regimes of belief and knowledge in a world that can be said to be both “disoriented” and marked by pluralization and decentring, the challenges and dead ends of the cultural and interpretive turn - are we doomed to “relativism”? see the distinction between cultural relativism and methodological relativism -, the virtues and the limits of deconstructionist approaches, the metamorphoses of the religious fact, the rise in importance of issues linked to mental health and to the "language games" of psychology, 'experiential and psychic well-being ...). | |
Content
As indicated in the learning objectives, the course will address the classic concept of the symbolic through current issues and questions. The theoretical portion of the course will consist of several sessions and will be supplemented by an engaging activity involving the reading of texts.
The starting point:
Anthropology and the sociology of the symbolic have been built largely on a hermeneutic and linguistic presupposition: that the symbolic is above all a matter of meaning, significance, and interpretation—the social world as a text to be deciphered (Geertz), a system of signs structured by oppositions (Lévi-Strauss), or implicit knowledge that draws on inferences (Sperber). This “royal road” of language has yielded considerable results that must be taken into account, but it leaves aside a distinct question: even when fully imbued with meaning, a world can remain “uninteresting” (or “boring”). One can fully understand the rules of a ritual, the grammar of a myth, or the logic of an institution, and yet not feel engaged in it, not “believe” in it in the practical sense of the term (disposition rather than representation), and not feel that “it’s worth the effort.”
This course therefore begins with a working hypothesis: meaning is not a sufficient condition for what we call symbolic engagement. It must be supplemented by a practical dimension—which can constitute a legitimate subject of the social sciences—namely, that of involvement, of putting oneself on the line, of what Bourdieu called *illusio*: investment in a social game whose arbitrariness is no longer perceived, and which is therefore significant. Without this practical supplement, meaning risks running on empty.
This initial hypothesis will be developed based on the work of various authors (Winnicott and creative play, Hans Joas and the creativity of action, E. Belin and dispositive logic, etc.).
Three categories will be explored in detail: 1/ play (particularly through the distinction between “play” and “game”—are our societies under the sway of “games” or “gamification,” which, hypothetically, could come at the expense of “playing,” creative play, cultural experience, etc.?) 2/ ritual (based on an examination of the future of rituals in our contemporary society: can we speak of individualistic rituals? How do they differ from traditional collective rituals? What are the implications?), and finally 3/ belief, considered at the intersection of anthropology and cognitive science.
These three concepts will also be put to the test by a factor that has become central to our way of life and is producing seemingly massive (though not uniform) effects: the intensive use of digital technologies (screen culture, social media), and, more recently, the emergence of generative and conversational artificial intelligence. How does the new “attention economy” linked to these technologies (which is closely tied to the logics of commodification, quantification, self-optimization, etc.) affect rituals and games, our symbolic commitments, the question of illusions and ideologies, our capacities for learning, concentration, and engagement with forms of otherness, as well as issues of surveillance and manipulation, etc.?
Ultimately, what are the social and technological conditions that foster—or, conversely, hinder—“creative play” and “putting oneself on the line” in contemporary societies?
Please note that this course will also include a section devoted to a (diachronic) overview of the main approaches to the symbolic, placed in their historical context and clarified through key concepts that help students understand the issues at stake.
The starting point:
Anthropology and the sociology of the symbolic have been built largely on a hermeneutic and linguistic presupposition: that the symbolic is above all a matter of meaning, significance, and interpretation—the social world as a text to be deciphered (Geertz), a system of signs structured by oppositions (Lévi-Strauss), or implicit knowledge that draws on inferences (Sperber). This “royal road” of language has yielded considerable results that must be taken into account, but it leaves aside a distinct question: even when fully imbued with meaning, a world can remain “uninteresting” (or “boring”). One can fully understand the rules of a ritual, the grammar of a myth, or the logic of an institution, and yet not feel engaged in it, not “believe” in it in the practical sense of the term (disposition rather than representation), and not feel that “it’s worth the effort.”
This course therefore begins with a working hypothesis: meaning is not a sufficient condition for what we call symbolic engagement. It must be supplemented by a practical dimension—which can constitute a legitimate subject of the social sciences—namely, that of involvement, of putting oneself on the line, of what Bourdieu called *illusio*: investment in a social game whose arbitrariness is no longer perceived, and which is therefore significant. Without this practical supplement, meaning risks running on empty.
This initial hypothesis will be developed based on the work of various authors (Winnicott and creative play, Hans Joas and the creativity of action, E. Belin and dispositive logic, etc.).
Three categories will be explored in detail: 1/ play (particularly through the distinction between “play” and “game”—are our societies under the sway of “games” or “gamification,” which, hypothetically, could come at the expense of “playing,” creative play, cultural experience, etc.?) 2/ ritual (based on an examination of the future of rituals in our contemporary society: can we speak of individualistic rituals? How do they differ from traditional collective rituals? What are the implications?), and finally 3/ belief, considered at the intersection of anthropology and cognitive science.
These three concepts will also be put to the test by a factor that has become central to our way of life and is producing seemingly massive (though not uniform) effects: the intensive use of digital technologies (screen culture, social media), and, more recently, the emergence of generative and conversational artificial intelligence. How does the new “attention economy” linked to these technologies (which is closely tied to the logics of commodification, quantification, self-optimization, etc.) affect rituals and games, our symbolic commitments, the question of illusions and ideologies, our capacities for learning, concentration, and engagement with forms of otherness, as well as issues of surveillance and manipulation, etc.?
Ultimately, what are the social and technological conditions that foster—or, conversely, hinder—“creative play” and “putting oneself on the line” in contemporary societies?
Please note that this course will also include a section devoted to a (diachronic) overview of the main approaches to the symbolic, placed in their historical context and clarified through key concepts that help students understand the issues at stake.
Teaching methods
The theoretical course is completed by readings of texts that the student must perform on his own. The knowledge of the subject of the theoretical course and that of the complementary texts are the subject of an evaluation during the same examination (see below).
In the course of the lecture, the professor exposes the theoretical aspects and the elements of problematization. It introduces students to the conceptual development exercise, using illustrations, and taking empirical objects as analyzers.
The teacher also gives keys to read and adapt more easily the texts that are part of the reading portfolio (see below).
Students are invited to ask questions and to debate, the small size of the audience allowing an interactive pedagogy.
The theoretical course is completed by a text portfolio.
It is expected that students read these texts thoroughly, understand them and appropriate them (it is strongly advised to make a personal synthesis of them).
Knowledge of compulsory reading is assessed on the examination.
In the course of the lecture, the professor exposes the theoretical aspects and the elements of problematization. It introduces students to the conceptual development exercise, using illustrations, and taking empirical objects as analyzers.
The teacher also gives keys to read and adapt more easily the texts that are part of the reading portfolio (see below).
Students are invited to ask questions and to debate, the small size of the audience allowing an interactive pedagogy.
The theoretical course is completed by a text portfolio.
It is expected that students read these texts thoroughly, understand them and appropriate them (it is strongly advised to make a personal synthesis of them).
Knowledge of compulsory reading is assessed on the examination.
Evaluation methods
The EU assessment consists of two parts, whose weighting in the overall mark is calculated as follows:
- knowledge of the theoretical course material: 14/20
- knowledge of supplementary texts (involving activity): 6/20.
The exam is oral (with 10 minutes of preparation on questions relating to the theoretical course).
The assessment language is French.
The use of generative AI is prohibited in this course.
The assessment method remains unchanged in the second exam session.
- knowledge of the theoretical course material: 14/20
- knowledge of supplementary texts (involving activity): 6/20.
The exam is oral (with 10 minutes of preparation on questions relating to the theoretical course).
The assessment language is French.
The use of generative AI is prohibited in this course.
The assessment method remains unchanged in the second exam session.
Bibliography
Voir indications données lors du cours.
Faculty or entity
Programmes / formations proposant cette unité d'enseignement (UE)
Title of the programme
Sigle
Credits
Prerequisites
Learning outcomes
Bachelor in Sociology and Anthropology (French-Dutch-English)
Bachelor in Political Sciences (French-Dutch-English)