|
website dedicated to the 7th CIST international conference
6-8 Dec 2027 Aubervilliers (France)
|
Call for Sessions > 12/05/2026In response to the global environmental crisis and the aporias of sustainable development, the concept of transition has spread as a central paradigm of public policy, despite –or perhaps because of– its vagueness and its instability depending on how it is used by a wide variety of actors. While transitions are often thought of in a sectoral and segmented manner, the territory has emerged as an integrative framework that promises to synchronise sectoral dynamics, stakeholder interactions and highly diverse scalar logics (Compagnonne et al., 2022), enabling THE transition to take shape from multiple transitions (Renouard et al., 2020). However, the end of the era of neoliberal globalisation, whose collective advances seemed to be symbolised by the Paris Agreement, and the arrival of a new era marked by a succession of crises and profound geopolitical polarisation, raise questions about the future of transitions, the dynamics of transition in territories, and the way in which these could act as a catalyst for multidimensional change. Although there is no general scientific theory of transition (Tapia, 2001), this concept has been widely used (see, for example, Canning et al., 2015; Rolland et al., 2017) to model social, technical or productive dynamics over time affecting areas as diverse as demography, energy, food, mobility, settlement –urbanisation also falling within this universal transition model– and the economy (Lewis, 1954), the dominant vision of development inherited from Rostow (1960) being very much a transition-based concept. More recently, during the 1990s and 2000s, the notion of “transition to a market economy” was used to conceptualise the change in the economic system in Central and Eastern Europe. This teleological conception of the transition from one equilibrium to another, from a known initial state to an equally determined final state, has been widely criticised (Chavance, 1990; Koleva & Magnin, 2017). The lack of consideration given to the implications of differences in levels of development between territories has been highlighted (Magrin & Ninot, 2020). However, few proposals have theorised the concept (Elzen et al., 2004). Those by Geels (2001) and Loorbach (2007), for example, invite us to understand, at different scales or territorial levels, the processes that trigger and guide transitions... or at least changes (see SFSIC Congress Rennes, 2025). While the Anthropocene is associated with instability and a loss of balance in the interactions between societies and environments (Bonneuil & Fressoz, 2013; Groupe Cynorhodon, 2020), the notion of transition (particularly in relation to energy issues and related issues such as food, waste, digital technology and mobility) offers reassuring paths towards restoring a balance that appears more manageable (Padovani & Lysaniuk, 2019; Renouard et al., 2020). That said, this new key paradigm for public action, which tends to replace sustainable development worn out by its aporias (Rist, 2007; Chartier & Rodary, 2016), suffers from its sectoral dimension and its difficulties in taking root in society and in space, in other words in the territories: CO2 reduction targets, defined by sector and at global or national levels, are struggling to be appropriated by territorial actors, even as traditional planning tools are being challenged by the growing complexity of an increasingly uncertain world. The standards underlying the transition models promoted by global actors (international institutions, global companies) are not immune to divisions between countries in the North and global South, and within the South itself (Magrin & Ninot, 2020). Similarly, at EU level, the European Green Deal and the European Recovery Plan are tools for climate/energy and digital transition in regions that may be called into question in terms of their objectives, practical implementation and impact on regions. Thus, faced with the problems observed and the challenges identified, but also due to social pressure and increasing regulatory and normative obligations, local authorities find themselves on the front line in implementing THE transition. However, in the absence of a conceptual and operational framework for thinking about and leading such a transition, they often have no choice but to focus on transitionS (energy, digital, food, even democratic, etc.) using a scientifically, professionally and politically sectoral approach; besides, due to the lack of a common or shared scientific structure within the local sphere, they are taking a local approach (see, for example, Cantillon, 2023). In this context, the so-called “hard” sciences, like engineering, are increasingly mobilising to propose responses or open up specific avenues for a given theme and areas of action. Nevertheless, as essential as this work and its practical applications may be, it is reasonable to consider that their juxtaposition alone will not be enough to move towards THE transition. Indeed, territory as a framework, object and subject integrating issues that are extremely diverse in nature, scale, timeframe, professions and stakeholders, but also territories, this time in the sense of political and/or operational structures, which are themselves just as diverse, are not equipped to conceive and lead THE transition by integrating and articulating scientific expertise that is partial, disjointed and even likely to produce contradictory effects. However, in recent years, powerful headwinds have weakened transition agendas. Since the mid-2010s, the prospect of neoliberal globalisation, whose progress in multilateral regulations (financial, environmental, human rights, democracy, digital, etc.) seemed, despite their limitations, to be paving the way for transitions, has been fading. The effects of successive crises (debt crisis, Covid-19, war in Ukraine, democratic crisis with the rise of the far right and illiberalism) are reinforced by the polarisation of the political arena. Uncertainty no longer surrounds only the pace of transitions: they are being challenged in their very foundations. In the emblematic field of energy, competition for resources is replacing ambitions for energy efficiency and the substitution of renewable energies for fossil fuels. At best, technosolutionist solutions are flourishing, without considering a profound questioning of production systems. Energy sources are piling up, without transition (Fressoz, 2024); their players are clashing, and territories are suffering. Everywhere, a profound movement backwards is weakening multilateral arenas and threatening to empty the regulations they upheld of their substance. The shift in climate scepticism is evident across different regions, in the form of resistance to attempts to implement the transition, or a distortion of the concept from its original meaning. The retreat into nationalism and identity politics is accompanied by neoliberal technobrutalism, embodied by the alliance between Donald Trump and the Tech Industry in the United States. Although Trump has distanced himself from neoliberalism, his ideological position combines an unstable balance of national populism (protectionism) and techno-libertarianism. A Threefold AmbitionThis CIST conference therefore has a threefold ambition, bringing together the issues of transition, territories and contemporary global crises. The first is to contribute to the reflection on the concept and phenomena of transition in the broad sense, conceived in a non-reductionist and systemic way as a contradictory dynamic of change traversed by crises, leading to a gradual and profound transformation of capitalism, the outcome of which remains undetermined. These transformations are taking place at different levels: local, regional, national and international. The articulation of scales and levels of analysis is therefore a second ambition, which requires methodological, theoretical and empirical reflection. How can we conceive of the transition and interactions between the microsocial level of individual actors’ behaviour at the local level and the macrosocial level of a national society, or even the supranational level in the case of the European Union or other integrated international organisations? The third point is inextricably linked to the other two, as it involves actors at different levels. Civil society actors are multiplying initiatives and innovations in local areas. They are confronted with the problem of governance of the commons, the formation of conflicts and compromises with public authorities and commercial organisations, but also with national or European bodies. One of the challenges of these alternatives lies precisely in their potential to spread and have a transformative effect at the macrosocial level. This threefold ambition allows us to outline a few areas that will structure the debates:
How are transitions in local areas affected by global political and legal dynamics? Are they likely to influence these dynamics in return? To what extent are local realities taken into account in sectoral dynamics undertaken in the name of transition? What are the obstacles to the territorialisation of transition policies? What resistance do the changes made in the name of transition provoke? Where, in what ways and for whom does transition continue to be a mobilising force? To what extent do certain types of territories manage to establish themselves as counterweights, or even counter-powers, in the face of the logic of rushing forward or backward? This conference aims to provide answers to these questions from a systemic perspective, facilitated by dialogue between the social sciences. Session examples
ReferencesBonneuil C., Fressoz J.-B., 2013, L’événement anthropocène. La terre, l’histoire et nous, Paris, Seuil, 304 p. Provisional Calendar
Sessions Proposal GuidelinesThe languages of the conference are French, English and Spanish. Researchers, teaching researchers and doctoral students, possibly in association with territorial stakeholders, can propose sessions. Proposals should include:
These first three items should be written in French and in one of the other two languages of the conference (English or Spanish). They will be used to draft the call for papers of the selected sessions. The following items may be written in any of the three languages:
Procedures for Evaluating the Session ProposalsThe proposed sessions will be evaluated by the conference’s Scientific Committee, which includes members from the CIST Scientific Committee and various external individuals. Session proposals will be evaluated according to the following criteria:
Credit will also be given to:
|
