{"word_count": 1143, "character_count": 9149}
ArgumentaireLongtemps consid&#233;r&#233; &#224; l&#8217;aune des mod&#232;les grecs et juifs, et des revendications que certains groupes portaient pour un Etat-nation aux XIXe et XXe si&#232;cles, le rapport entre diasporas et nations &#8211; ou d&#8217;une diaspora comme une &#171;&#160;nation en exil&#160;&#187; &#8211; a longtemps sembl&#233; &#233;vident. La prolif&#233;ration des &#233;tudes diasporiques a fini par rendre ce rapport plus complexe et plus compliqu&#233;, au point que, dans le champ des sciences sociales, certains consid&#232;rent plut&#244;t la diaspora comme un horizon ou une revendication (R. Brubaker). Pourtant la mise en perspective des &#233;poques modernes et contemporaines invite &#224; reconsid&#233;rer ce rapport&#160;: la &#171;&#160;nation&#160;&#187; &#224; l&#8217;&#233;poque moderne &#233;tait un instrument juridique et institutionnel au service de communaut&#233;s install&#233;es &#224; l&#8217;&#233;tranger, autant qu&#8217;un terme investi d&#8217;un contenu &#171;&#160;culturel&#160;&#187;, les deux ne se recouvrant d&#8217;ailleurs pas toujours. Pour l&#8217;&#233;poque moderne, les empires utilisaient des groupes diasporiques, des &#171;&#160;nations &#233;trang&#232;res&#160;&#187;, dans le processus d&#8217;expansion europ&#233;enne. Elles devenaient &#171;&#160;des agents et des victimes des empires&#160;&#187; (J. Israel). Dans le m&#234;me temps, &#224; la fin du XVIIIe et au XIXe si&#232;cle des diasporas inscrivent leur propre histoire &#171;&#160;nationale&#160;&#187; comme celle de &#171;&#160;nations &#224; part&#160;&#187; dans les histoires nationales des Etats-nations, que ce soit en Angleterre, aux Etats-Unis ou en Prusse/Allemagne (B. van Ruymbeke, S. Lachenicht). Enfin, aux XIXe et XXe si&#232;cles l&#8217;exil des &#171;&#160;nationalistes&#160;&#187; italiens ou polonais &#224; Paris et &#224; Bruxelles a produit des &#171;&#160;nationalismes&#160;&#187; internationaux (M. Isabella) et a mis ainsi en avant l&#8217;aspect transnational des nationalismes. La nouvelle histoire des empires (P. Judson, F.B. Schenk) s&#8217;est aussi interrog&#233;e sur la dichotomie entre Etat-nation et empire et s&#8217;est demand&#233;e si elle &#233;tait valable.Les contributions de ce num&#233;ro de Diasporas, qui envisage une approche chronologique large (du XVe au XXIe si&#232;cle) et globale, permettront de faire dialoguer des champs historiographiques qui ne se croisent que rarement. Elles aborderont de mani&#232;re privil&#233;gi&#233;e les questions suivantes&#160;:Dans quelle mesure les Etats-nation d&#233;pendent &#8211; eux aussi &#8211; de &#171;&#160;nations &#233;trang&#232;res&#160;&#187; ou de diasporas, et dans quelle mesure les Etats-nations sont-ils &#8211; eux aussi &#8211; des empires &#8211; question qui a &#233;t&#233; beaucoup trait&#233;e pour les Etats Unis ou l&#8217;Union Sovi&#233;tique.Dans quelle mesure peut-on parler, ou non, de diasporas comme des &#171;&#160;nations en exil&#160;&#187;, et est-ce que les diasporas ont &#233;t&#233; un cadre privil&#233;gi&#233; pour le d&#233;veloppement de &#171;&#160;nationalismes&#160;&#187;&#160;?Quel r&#244;le jouent les diasporas dans la formation des Etats-nation aux XIXe et XXe si&#232;cles&#160;?L&#8217;articulation de ces questions avec les structures imp&#233;riales aux &#233;poques modernes et contemporaines&#160;: l&#8217;accueil et l&#8217;implantation de diasporas au sein des Empires a-t-elle jou&#233; sur les relations (de concurrence, d&#8217;identit&#233; ou d&#8217;inclusion) entre Empires et nations&#160;?Modalit&#233;s de soumissionLes propositions (langue fran&#231;aise ou anglaise) permettront d&#8217;envisager la question dans une perspective compar&#233;e et crois&#233;e &#224; l&#8217;&#233;chelle globale. Elles pourront porter sur l&#8217;Europe, les Am&#233;riques, l&#8217;Afrique, l&#8217;Asie et l&#8217;Australie, pour les p&#233;riodes modernes et/ou contemporaines.Les contributions pourront &#234;tre publi&#233;es en fran&#231;ais ou en anglais.Date limite pour les propositions&#160;: 31 mai 2018 (titre, 1-2 pages), r&#233;ponse mi-juin, remise d&#8217;une premi&#232;re version des contributions&#160;: 30 septembre 2018. Veuillez envoyer votre proposition &#224; susanne.lachenicht@uni-bayreuth.de et mathilde.monge@univ-tlse2.fr.Les premi&#232;res versions des contributions seront discut&#233;es collectivement lors d&#8217;un workshop (en langue anglaise) qui se tiendra &#224; Bayreuth &#224; la fin du mois d&#8217;octobre 2018.La date limite pour la version finale des auteurs sera le 15 janvier&#160;2019.Comit&#233; scientifiqueSusanne LACHENICHT (Universit&#228;t Bayreuth, Bayreuth, Germany).Mathilde MONGE (Universit&#233; Toulouse 2-Jean-Jaur&#232;s / UMR 3136-FRAMESPA, Toulouse, France).Presentation&#160;The relationship between &#8220;diasporas&#8221; and &#8220;nations&#8221; (or diasporas as &#8220;nations in exile&#8221;) has for a long time been thought of along the line with some particular diasporas&#8217; historical experiences. Many, such as the Greek and the Jewish diasporas, claimed for the establishment of their own nation-state, especially during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Diaspora studies, however, have made clear that the relationship between &#8220;nations&#8221; and &#8220;diasporas&#8221; is more complex and more complicated, to the extent that social scientists such as R. Brubaker have suggested to think about &#8220;diasporas&#8221; in terms of an aspiration or a claim.Reconsidering the relationship between &#8220;diasporas&#8221; and &#8220;nations&#8221; in an early modern and modern perspective invites us to revise certain common assumptions. Indeed, in the early modern period the &#8220;nation&#8221; was both a legal and institutional term (providing certain privileges and institutions for those belonging to a &#8220;nation abroad&#8221;) as much as a &#8220;cultural&#8221; term: a &#8220;nation&#8221; shared a common origin, language, history, a culture at large. Many empires &#8211; European ones as well as non-Europeans -&#160; &#160;&#8220;made use&#8221; of &#8220;nations abroad&#8221; or diasporas to populate their colonies. Diasporas became &#8220;agents and victims of empire&#8221; (J. Israel). With the later eighteenth and the nineteenth centuries, diasporas such as the Huguenots integrated their own histories into the national histories of their hosting societies &#8211; in England as much as in the United States or Prussia (later in Germany). From some diasporas&#8217; perspective, they (as &#8220;foreign nations&#8221; among the hosting nations) had largely contributed to the building of the nation-state; from the e.g. Huguenots&#8217; perspective the respective nation-state owed the French Protestants much of its rise and greatness (B. van Ruymbeke, S. Lachenicht). In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the exile of Italian or Polish nationalists in Paris or Brussels brought about international nationalist movements (M. Isabella) &#8211; which emphasizes the transnational dimension of nationalism. Finally, the New Imperial History (e.g. P. Judson, F.B. Schenk) has revised the clear dichotomy between nation-state and empires and has further complicated the &#8220;transition&#8221; from empire (or imperial state) to nation-state.The contributions of this special issue are supposed to establish a dialogue between specialists of the early modern and the modern periods who rarely discuss &#8220;Empires, nations and nation-states&#8221; in a long diachronic and global perspective. We would like to invite contributions on the following questions and themes:To what extent did and do nation-states depend on &#8220;foreign nations&#8221; or diasporas for state-building and to what extent are/were nation-states also empires (or imperial states) such as the United States of America and the Soviet Union?Are diasporas &#8220;nations in exile&#8221; and are diasporas possible hotbeds for nationalisms?Which role did diasporas play in the building of nation-states in the eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth centuries?If nation-states are not made up of one but of several nations and if nation-states are less different from empires or imperial states than research has suggested so far, what does this mean for the relationship between empires and nations with regard to competition, identities and inclusion?Submission GuidelinesWe invite contributions in English or French drawing on European, American, African, Asian and Australian examples, for the early modern and modern periods.Deadline for submission of proposals (CV plus paper title and 1-2 pp abstract): 31 May 2018. Contributors will be notified by 15 June 2018. We would expect a first draft paper by 30 September 2018. The final version will be due 15 January 2019.We are planning a workshop in Bayreuth in late October 2018 to discuss the first drafts (in English).Scientific CommitteeSusanne LACHENICHT (Universit&#228;t Bayreuth, Bayreuth, Germany).Mathilde MONGE (Universit&#233; Toulouse 2-Jean-Jaur&#232;s / UMR 3136-FRAMESPA, Toulouse, France).