Anna Borisenkova

The analysis of events has been a central issue for social sciences for a long time. The problem of an event's definition and distinction is still at stake in sociological debates. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the contribution of Paul Ricoeur's narrative theory to social events studies. First, this is done through the explication of the concept in the framework of narrative approach. Secondly, the paper highlights the narrative's capacity of 'refiguring' the social by re-describing social events, subordinating their succession to the logic of story-telling and transforming temporal characteristics as well. Apart from some insights, interpretative explanations and illustrations the paper provides critical arguments concerning the limitations of Paul Ricoeur's narrative approach with respect to sociological event-analysis.      L'analyse des événements a toujours été une question centrale pour l'histoire et les sciences sociales. Le problème de la définition et de la distinction des événements est encore en jeu dans les débats sociologiques contemporains. L'objectif de cet article est de s'attarder sur la contribution de la théorie de Paul Ricœur aux études des événements sociaux.  Après avoir montré les limites d'une conception impersonnelle de l'événement, l'auteur se penche sur la solution narrative proposée par Ricœur, à savoir la capacité du récit à “refigurer” du Social par la re-description des événements sociaux. Il s'agit de soumettre la logique de la succession temporelle à la logique de la narration. Tout en rendant justice à la valeur heuristique de telles analyses (à travers une série d'explicitations et d'illustrations), l'article pointe les limites de l'approche narrative de Paul Ricœur au regard des analyses sociologique des événements.  &nbsp

The “Arab Spring” uprisings have unexpectedly led to a strikingly fast and worldwide movement of opposition to governments and economic powers. This sudden and unpredictable outbreak of protest has given birth to a new form of political action, which may be called “gatherings”, i.e. people taking to the streets and occupying squares to claim a radical change of the political order through demands for a better or renewed democracy. Gatherings are innovative as they arise outside traditional ways of expressing political grievances, have neither leader nor program, advocate non violence and disavow the system of representative government. This new way to practice street politics opposes ballot box politics as it claims direct democracy while ardently endorsing non violence. This commitment is contentious: how can one pretend toppling the rule of the rich and the powerful who benefit from an entrenched system of domination without making use of violence to oust them from their privileged position? This article aims at clarifying the terms of this question by exploring the way resorting to violence has been debated in many of these gatherings