Depuis la ratification, à l’UNESCO en 2007, de la Convention sur la protection et la promotion de la diversité des expressions culturelles, ces dernières sont désormais des espèces protégées par les hautes sphères de la politique internationale. Émergeant de diverses négociations ponctuelles concernant les biens et services culturels au sein de nombreuses instances internationales, une importante mobilisation politique se concrétisa au tournant du millénaire fort d’un concept, la « diversité culturelle », qui servit de catalyseur pour l’élaboration d’un instrument juridique contraignant au sein de l’UNESCO. Rien ne résume mieux cette montée de boucliers que le mantra récité à maintes reprises à l’intérieur comme à l’extérieur de l’UNESCO : la culture n’est pas une marchandise comme les autres. Pourquoi ? Principalement, argumente-t-on depuis, parce que les biens culturels expriment – identité, valeurs et sens – et que la diversité des expressions est justement à même de mieux représenter la diversité des cultures sur une scène de plus en plus mondialisée. Cette matérialisation de la problématique de la diversité culturelle s’élabora donc face à la forte charge libre-échangiste des années 80-90. En positionnant la diversité culturelle comme contrepoids à une mondialisation perçue comme étant trop étroitement économique, on souhaitait insister sur une dimension négligée dans l’engrenage commercial bien entamé. La « diversité culturelle » en avait apparemment déjà dessiné les traits et il importait désormais de mettre celle-ci à l’avant-plan. Cette recherche s’attarde donc sur l’apparition de ce concept et son déploiement à l’international. Une approche ethnographique permet d’examiner son usage, l’institution hôte (UNESCO), les débats suscités, la multiplication des protagonistes au fil de son institutionnalisation et, évidemment, le consensus établi. J’aborde donc une disposition singulière afin d’en cerner certaines assises conceptuelles clef question d’éclairer le domaine d’intervention international qui s’est constitué au nom d’une diversité culturelle que l’on s’attardait justement à inventer. / Since the ratification of the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions – UNESCO (2007) –, cultural expressions are now protected species under the umbrella of international law. Emerging from various negotiations and debates about cultural goods and services in various international fora, a major political mobilization took place at the turn of the millennium. It mostly materialized through the concept of "cultural diversity", which served as a catalyst for the elaboration of a legally binding instrument within UNESCO. Nothing sums up better the argument brought forth than the recurring mantra which could be heard inside and outside UNESCO: “culture is a commodity like no other”. Why? Mainly, it is argued, because of what it expresses – identity, values and meaning. The diversity of cultural expressions is therefore able to better represent the diversity of cultures on an increasingly globalized scene. The materialization of the issue of cultural diversity was mainly a reaction to the multiplication of multilateral and bilateral free trade agreements in the 80s and 90s. By placing cultural diversity as a counterpoint to a globalization seen as too narrowly economic in its scope, the promoters of the project wanted to emphasize its neglected cultural dimension. "Cultural diversity" had apparently already drawn the necessary traits of a globalization with a human face and it was now important to put them to the forefront. This research therefore focuses on the emergence of this concept and its international dissemination. An ethnographic approach examines its use, the host institution (UNESCO), the debates surrounding the multiplication of actors in the course of its institutionalization, and of course the established consensus. I attempt to identify some key conceptual issues underpinning the field of an international intervention made on behalf of a cultural diversity that was about to be invented. / Recherche réalisée en cotutelle - Université de Montréal/EHHESS (Paris)

No description available.

The thesis is based on three months of participant observation in a long-term care facility in 2010 and interviews conducted during next three years. It draws from a perspectives of medical anthropology and anthropology of institutions. The focus is on an ethnography of institution for clients with chronic mental disease, dementia and substance abuse. The thesis is mapping institution's components and actors, their social life and relationships in the institution. The analyses is based upon the concept of total institution by Erving Goffman, and draws from thoughts of Josef Pieper, Martin Buber, Emanuel Lévinas and Michel Foucault. A long-term facility is an institution, which shares clients and some of problems with classical examples of total institutions, but recent reforms aimed to minimalize features of total institutions. Still it does not seem to be a vital institution and new aspects of social situation of staff and clients are recognized. Among new problems is non-existence of therapy for the inhabitants, their marginalization through poor financial situation in an institution, where lot of services are paid and little continuity to other forms of care of more community and ambulant character. Key words: total institution, long-term facility, psychiatric care, medical anthropology,...