Êtres capables et compétents : lecture anthropologique et pistes pragmatiques

The terms “competences” and “capacities” have occupied for a few years an important place in the vocabulary of sociology, in particular inside pragmatic sociology. One also finds them however in other theoretical fields (the capabilities developed by Amartya Sen) or in the vocabulary of the public p...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Jean-Louis Genard, Fabrizio Cantelli
Format: Article
Language:fra
Published: Association Internationale des Sociologues de Langue Française 2008-04-01
Series:Sociologies
Subjects:
Online Access:http://journals.openedition.org/sociologies/1943
id doaj-8e8bff921b5d40b7a8f1d1838b0e24c5
record_format Article
spelling doaj-8e8bff921b5d40b7a8f1d1838b0e24c52020-11-24T21:57:34ZfraAssociation Internationale des Sociologues de Langue FrançaiseSociologies1992-26552008-04-01Êtres capables et compétents : lecture anthropologique et pistes pragmatiquesJean-Louis GenardFabrizio CantelliThe terms “competences” and “capacities” have occupied for a few years an important place in the vocabulary of sociology, in particular inside pragmatic sociology. One also finds them however in other theoretical fields (the capabilities developed by Amartya Sen) or in the vocabulary of the public policies which evoke policies of “empowerment”, or “thresholds of competences”. This article develops the assumption of a true anthropological turn whose explanation obliges to reflect on new expenses ambiguities of the anthropological frame on which the second modernity was built in the 18th century. Recalling to which point the vocabulary of the “capacity” was already present in the anthropological frame of 18th and the 19th centuries, then being based a strict disjunction of the beings, granting to the ones what they refused with the “incompetents”, the article suggests that we would today gradually think the human in the order of the conjunction, always fragile, always vulnerable, but never either without resources, “capacities” which it is then a question to equip. This assumption opens important perspectives that are likely to sketch the context of the specificity of pragmatic sociology and its current success, to seize the relevance as well as the limits of its theoretical and methodological tools. This article develops a conclusion exploring the situations where the actors are not able, then evoking two ways developed actually by pragmatic sociology to tackle this issue, an “agonistic” way and a “worried” way.http://journals.openedition.org/sociologies/1943competencescapacitiesanthropologypublic policies
collection DOAJ
language fra
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Jean-Louis Genard
Fabrizio Cantelli
spellingShingle Jean-Louis Genard
Fabrizio Cantelli
Êtres capables et compétents : lecture anthropologique et pistes pragmatiques
Sociologies
competences
capacities
anthropology
public policies
author_facet Jean-Louis Genard
Fabrizio Cantelli
author_sort Jean-Louis Genard
title Êtres capables et compétents : lecture anthropologique et pistes pragmatiques
title_short Êtres capables et compétents : lecture anthropologique et pistes pragmatiques
title_full Êtres capables et compétents : lecture anthropologique et pistes pragmatiques
title_fullStr Êtres capables et compétents : lecture anthropologique et pistes pragmatiques
title_full_unstemmed Êtres capables et compétents : lecture anthropologique et pistes pragmatiques
title_sort êtres capables et compétents : lecture anthropologique et pistes pragmatiques
publisher Association Internationale des Sociologues de Langue Française
series Sociologies
issn 1992-2655
publishDate 2008-04-01
description The terms “competences” and “capacities” have occupied for a few years an important place in the vocabulary of sociology, in particular inside pragmatic sociology. One also finds them however in other theoretical fields (the capabilities developed by Amartya Sen) or in the vocabulary of the public policies which evoke policies of “empowerment”, or “thresholds of competences”. This article develops the assumption of a true anthropological turn whose explanation obliges to reflect on new expenses ambiguities of the anthropological frame on which the second modernity was built in the 18th century. Recalling to which point the vocabulary of the “capacity” was already present in the anthropological frame of 18th and the 19th centuries, then being based a strict disjunction of the beings, granting to the ones what they refused with the “incompetents”, the article suggests that we would today gradually think the human in the order of the conjunction, always fragile, always vulnerable, but never either without resources, “capacities” which it is then a question to equip. This assumption opens important perspectives that are likely to sketch the context of the specificity of pragmatic sociology and its current success, to seize the relevance as well as the limits of its theoretical and methodological tools. This article develops a conclusion exploring the situations where the actors are not able, then evoking two ways developed actually by pragmatic sociology to tackle this issue, an “agonistic” way and a “worried” way.
topic competences
capacities
anthropology
public policies
url http://journals.openedition.org/sociologies/1943
work_keys_str_mv AT jeanlouisgenard etrescapablesetcompetentslectureanthropologiqueetpistespragmatiques
AT fabriziocantelli etrescapablesetcompetentslectureanthropologiqueetpistespragmatiques
_version_ 1725854921581920256