| Summary: | A growing agreement seems to be made today to admit that the opposition between "democratization of the culture" and "cultural democracy" must not be wrongly hardened. Not only because certain studies stress that the justice implies at the same time the redistribution and the recognition, but also because the role of the "intellectuals" (artists, professionals of the culture, social workers, researchers, or more generally militants) turn out every time determining. As showed authors so different as Gayatri Spivak or Pierre Bourdieu, by pointing out as "cultural" objects handled by their interventions - with the exception of other - these intermediaries contribute to produce or to maintain the principles of vision and division of the social world. But if this analysis agrees on the idea that the oppressed populations "cannot speak" because their word is systematically seized, both do not wonder whether the "dominated" or the "subalterns" speak actually, only if it is possible for them to do it.Based on three ethnographical surveys that we led between 2000 and 2012 and which concerned the modalities of organization and elaboration of the Notting Hill carnival in London, the hip-hop movement in Lyon and the “negro-traditions” in Fort-de-France, this article intends to show that if the political audience of the "dominated" is possible only for the price of the translation – and thus of the betrayal – of their word in an already established political language, it does not mean that they cannot reach the reflexivity. We show in particular that these cultural practices must be less understood as objects, know-how or capital to acquire that as creative processes which can be mobilized by "anyone", and which may favor a kind of reflexivity and distancing on the world – and thus of capacity to understand it and to master it symbolically.
|
|---|
