|
Vulnerabilities and socio-spatial résiliences This conference follows on from the three previous editions of the MOCTE scientific colloquium (2021, 2023 and 2024). It continues a gradual line of enquiry aimed at examining the dynamics of societies and territories, revisiting cultural identities and mobilities, and interrogating the relationship between mobilities and territorial governance. The 2026 edition will focus on exploring the dynamics and challenges of socio-spatial vulnerabilities and resilience, which traverse — simultaneously, successively or separately — the conceptual triad of ‘Mobilities, Culture and Territory’ across the world. A polysemous concept, vulnerability is approached here following Soulet (2005) en tant que concept à saisir dans la relation entre un groupe ou un individu ayant des caractéristiques particulières (notamment un déficit de protection pour se garder de la potentialité à être blessé) et un contexte sociétal qui valorise la capacité à agir à partir de soi”. AIn line with this line of thought, Hélène Thomas (2008) develops the notion of ‘vulnerability’ as "une situation de risque anormal qu’encourent des groupes humains du fait de contextes vitaux particulièrement difficiles ou de déficiences individuelles”. Based on this understanding of vulnerability, resilience emerges as a key attribute for adapting to change. It is defined as "la capacité qu’ont les êtres humains à faire face aux moments et aux épisodes douloureux de leur existence: traumatisme, maladie, deuil, précarité, violence…”(Tisseron,2017). Overall, this dynamic process unfolds in four stages, namely: “the anticipation of catastrophe and its prevention, notably through the memory of good practices; the capacity to withstand it; the reconstruction of capacities and the adoption of new attitudes aimed at ensuring a fresh start; and finally, the reduction of physical — as well as psychological — after-effects, and the consolidation of these new attitudes”. This conference aims to examine the mechanisms at work in the construction of various forms of vulnerability — whether territorial or socio-economic — to identify and trace potential or actual resilience strategies emerging from the full range of uses, practices, norms and customs operating within the political, economic, cultural or environmental spheres of specific territories, as viewed through the lens of our conceptual triad. Mobility may be examined in contrast to entrenched, obstructive forms of immobility, which often generate marginalising distinctions and become sources of vulnerability. In response, actors of mobility frequently seek to cope with these vulnerabilities through either forced or voluntary movement, which in turn can give rise to crises in both host and departure countries (Kamdem, 2016). Culture may also be considered from the perspective of the socio-spatial anxieties it may carry, in terms of a perceived risk of deculturation and deterritorialisation. It is at once a source of enrichment and a potential constraint for societies. Culture may equally be explored in both its tangible and intangible dimensions, through practices and know-how constructed or co-constructed by various actors who hold differentiated visions. In this sense, culture serves as a reference point for societies: it shapes social space by influencing behaviours, interactions, and conceptions of physical spaces. Territory may likewise be explored through the lens of the various vulnerabilities that haunt it, often arising, among other factors, from issues of governance that are either insufficiently inclusive or overly prescriptive, whether in terms of spatial planning or the collective management of its diverse resources. Within this territorial sphere, public provision plays a crucial role, as the foundations of territorial resilience largely depend upon it. Infrastructure and access to basic social services are indispensable for sustained resilience. Equally important is the equitable distribution of resources between territories, which remains a key governance challenge. Administrative failure leads to a lack of appropriate resources and deprives the territory of sound planning capable of addressing major challenges. A governance model that lacks inclusiveness fails to respond to grassroots concerns and broader societal issues, resulting in a territory highly exposed to shocks. In the absence of these essential governance components, vulnerability prevails and undermines any effort toward reterritorialisation. This conference will therefore seek to highlight the various forms of resilience associated with intersecting vulnerabilities to which individuals, organisations and territories are currently subjected, under the increasingly intense pressure of an ever more oppressive globalisation — particularly within socio-spatial margins and peripheries. It will focus on how hardship and the capacity to overcome it are expressed in the relationships between mobility, culture and territory; on the strategies of resilience developed in response to multiple vulnerabilities; on the impact of the frailties of today’s world; and on the ways in which strengths are mobilised to confront them. Remaining faithful to the original spirit of this cycle of scientific reflection, five major thematic axes will be addressed during the conference. Theme 1: Methodological Approaches Empirically, vulnerability is situated at several scales, namely: micro, meso and macro. This triad is likely to generate differentiated readings here and there. We position ourselves within a continuity that is structured around the question of how to grasp the notions of socio-spatial vulnerabilities and resilience in the human and social sciences. More specifically, what are the theoretical, conceptual and methodological challenges for multidisciplinarity? In this theme, empirically grounded practices will be encouraged that shed light on the entry points through which researchers manage to grasp vulnerability, resilience, and even the pair together. Moreover, research fields that bring out the notions of vulnerabilities or resilience depending on territorial contexts are strongly solicited. Theme 2: Sociocultural Vulnerabilities and Resilience This theme aims to explore the ways in which cultures — understood here as both tangible and intangible forms of knowledge — are put to the test in responding to vulnerabilities. Populations are constantly engaged in developing or improving their cultural assets to cope with difficulties arising from human activities within their territorial environment. In contexts of natural or human-made disasters, culture may be threatened or affected due to its intrinsic vulnerabilities or symbolic significance. However, culture can also serve as a vital tool in strengthening the resilience of communities: it supports identities, transmits knowledge, reinforces social cohesion, and provides means of expression and adaptation (Idriss, 2021). This theme seeks to uncover sociocultural practices related to this overarching issue. It is essential to highlight how both material and immaterial cultural dimensions are mobilised in response — whether for adaptation or for territorial reconfiguration — while also contributing to identity anchoring. Contributors may focus their work on domains such as health, peaceful conflict resolution, spatial planning, or mobility. Theme 3: Sociopolitical Vulnerabilities and Resilience The third theme of this conference will be structured around the State, understood both in terms of its ‘withdrawal’ or, for others, its ‘strategic repositioning’ in other sectors. The objective is to analyse how power structures, public policies and modes of governance can either exacerbate vulnerabilities or, on the contrary, support the emergence of resilience capacities within territories and communities. The involvement of the State, together with its partners, in areas such as public services and vulnerability — or conversely, the lack of significant investment — reflects the image of a society confronted with poverty, marginalisation, territorial inequalities, health crises and instability. Fundamentally, vulnerability expresses the propensity and/or predisposition to suffer harm. It encompasses a range of concepts and elements such as sensitivity or fragility, as well as the inability to cope and adapt (IPCC, 2019). Various sociopolitical transformations tend to generate significant dysfunction within institutions. The situation of countries facing sociopolitical difficulties arising from civil wars, natural disasters and/or economic hardship constitutes the landscape of crisis. It is essential for governments to manage resources in ways adapted to local conditions, and to ensure vertical, multi-level coordination; many countries are seeking to establish institutions aligned with this aim (OECD, 2021). Institutional weaknesses increase vulnerability to political, health and security-related crises. A fragile State struggles to maintain the monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force and to deliver services to the population, with particularly adverse consequences for the most vulnerable groups (Ferrari et al., 2023). We therefore invite contributions that analyse how planning choices and social policies (or their absence) create or reinforce situations of vulnerability (precarity, marginalisation, exposure to risk). Particular attention should also be given to the role played by different modes of governance (centralised, decentralised, participatory) in crisis management and the promotion of resilience, as well as to the ways in which citizens and local actors organise to influence decision-making and construct collective responses. Authors are also encouraged to reflect on how sociopolitical tensions and conflicts reveal deep-seated vulnerabilities, and to observe how citizen mobilisations and protest movements can serve as vectors of resilience and change. Further areas of interest include the role played by institutional actors (local authorities, States, international organisations) in supporting territories and populations on the path towards greater resilience, and the importance of addressing justice-related issues (equitable access to resources, reparation of historical inequalities, recognition of rights) in territorial development processes. These topics open this theme to multidisciplinary approaches and invite contributions based on research conducted in diverse contexts, both in the Global South and in the North. Theme 4: Socioeconomic Vulnerabilities and Resilience This fourth theme will focus on the capacities of individuals or groups, through their income-generating activities and ways of life, to cope with both endogenous and exogenous shocks. Based on three main pillars — exposure, sensitivity and adaptation — the assessment of vulnerability has seen significant development in both the physical and socio-economic domains. Shocks expose social groups to situations that require changes in their habits, and above all, in their socio-economic lifestyles. The theme of socioeconomic resilience will examine existing structural economic fragilities within territories and social groups, as well as the adaptive, resistance and transformative capacities mobilised to respond to shocks (financial crises, deindustrialisation, inflation, external dependencies) and to profound changes (digitalisation, the precarisation of employment, informalisation). The aim will be to analyse how socioeconomic vulnerabilities – poverty, exclusion from formal markets, unequal access to resources, food or energy insecurity – become territorialised and affect populations differently depending on their spatial (centres, peripheries, margins) and social (gender, age, migration status) positioning. These vulnerabilities are often exacerbated by forced mobility (exodus, economic migration) or by involuntary immobility (isolation, confinement in devalued spaces). This theme also explores the socioeconomic resilience strategies that emerge in response. This includes: Bottom-up initiatives, alternative economies such as the social and solidarity economy (SSE), short supply chains, cooperatives, local exchange systems (LES), and the self-management of common resources (Ostrom, 1990). These dynamics often reflect the capacity of local actors to co-construct innovative responses on the margins of dominant systems. The role of actors and territorial embeddedness: How do local actors (citizens, associations, small businesses), formal and informal networks, and the cultural or historical specificities of a territory contribute to shaping these forms of resilience? How do they align with (or stand in opposition to) public policies on economic development and social protection? This theme encourages multidisciplinary contributions that empirically examine, at different scales, the production of economic vulnerabilities and the diversity of resilience pathways — from citizen-led micro-initiatives to territorial policies — while questioning their sustainability and their impact on reducing socio-spatial inequalities. Theme 5: Environmental Vulnerabilities and Resilience Environmental vulnerabilities refer to situations of fragility, resilience and precarity affecting both human and non-human life, from the individual to the collective (Bentirou Mathlouthi et al., 2023). This fifth theme will examine forms of environmental vulnerability linked to climate change and natural disasters. These vulnerabilities reveal inequalities in population exposure to environmental risks depending on their location — whether in the Global South or North — their level of development, and their institutional capacities. In this context, environmental vulnerabilities are directly related to socio-spatial configurations. They affect spaces differently depending on their characteristics (precarious areas, excluded rural zones, coastal regions subject to urban development, and areas exposed to climatic hazards, etc.). In this perspective, the aim is to highlight the practices that stem from resilience, as well as the construction of adaptability as a response to environmental challenges. It is also a matter of addressing the actors who support and co-construct knowledge to assist those who are on the front lines of this resilience. Moreover, the historical perspective on this pairing has been discussed by Mathis et al. (2016). It is important to position ourselves within this vision while addressing past, contemporary and future issues. It is therefore equally relevant to examine environmental resilience and its associated dynamics and challenges in a postcolonial context — both globally and specifically for Indigenous peoples or minority populations. Proposals focusing on Indigenous or minority groups in relation to environmental vulnerabilities and resilience will have a prominent place within this theme. It will also be important to give due attention to contributions addressing climate change and natural disasters, using as a point of entry both ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ actors. Without being exhaustive, any proposal in this direction will be welcome in the construction of the knowledge sought. Bibliographie Bentirou Mathlouthi, R. & Pomade, A. (2023). Vulnérabilité(s) environnementale(s) : perspectives pluridisciplinaires, Paris, L’Harmattan. Mathis, C.F. & al. (2016). Vulnérabilités environnementales : perspectives historiques », VertigO - la revue électronique en sciences de l'environnement [En ligne], 16-3 | Décembre 2016, mis en ligne le 20 décembre 2016, consulté le 12 juin 2025. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/vertigo/17993 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/vertigo.17993 GIEC (2019) Glossaire. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/10/SR15_Glossary_french.pdf. Thomas, H. (2008). Vulnérabilité, fragilité, précarité, résilience, etc. ", Recueil Alexandries, Collections Esquisses, janvier 2008, url de référence:http://www.reseau-terra.eu/article697.html Idrissi, A. N. (2021). Disaster and socio-cultural impact: between social representations and resilience. BAU Journal-Society, Culture and Human Behavior, 3(1), 6. Ferrari, J. & al. (2023). Analyse des facteurs de vulnérabilités et de résilience en matière de gouvernance au Niger. Plateforme d’Analyse du Suivi et d’Apprentissage au Sahel, Production Pasas.https://pasas-minka.fr OCDE (2021). Boîte à outils pour des politiques et la gouvernance de l’eau : Converger vers la Recommandation du Conseil de l’OCDE sur l’eau. Éditions OCDE, Paris,https://doi.org/10.1787/e867acbb-fr. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Political Economy of Institutions and Decisions, Cambridge University Press. Kamdem, P. (2016). « Scolarisation et vulnérabilité : les enfants réfugiés centrafricains dans la région de l’Est-Cameroun », Espace populations sociétés [En ligne], 2016/3 | 2016, mis en ligne le 31 janvier 2017, consulté le 14 juin 2025. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/eps/7019 ; DOI :https://doi.org/10.4000/eps.7019 Soulet, M.-H. (2005). Reconsidérer la vulnérabilité. Empan, n 60(4), 24-29.https://doi.org/10.3917/empa.060.0024. Tisseron, S. (2017). Conclusion. La résilience (p. 109-120). Presses Universitaires de France.https://shs-cairn-info.ressources.univ-poitiers.fr/la-resilience--9782130792581-page-109?lang=fr. Consignes aux auteurs Submission procedures Proposals should include the following elements:
Papers may be in English or French should be submitted in sciencesconf using the following subject line: ‘SURNAME First name_Communication Proposal-Mocte 2026’. Timeline
Organisation Scientific Directors
Organising Committee
Scientific Committee
Conference Partners
|
