Colloques du Collège de France - Collège de France

Samantha Besson

Droit international des institutions

Collège de France

Année 2025-2026

The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & Philosophy

Colloque - Stephan Hobe: Sovereignty, Territorial Jurisdiction and Property: an Inextricable Triangle in Space Law

Sovereignty, Territorial Jurisdiction and Property: an Inextricable Triangle in Space Law

Panel 1: Sovereignty, Jurisdiction and Property in Outer Space

Colloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025

Présentation

As it is the case in other (marine or polar) "spaces" of international law usually defined negatively as areas beyond the (territorial) jurisdiction of States, a "non-appropriation" principle applies to the outer space (art. II 1967 Outer Space Treaty; art. 11(2-3) 1979 Moon Agreement). Despite later clarifications in the 1979 Moon Agreement, States still disagree, however, about both the material scope of the principle of non-appropriation (celestial bodies only, or both the bodies and their extracted resources) and its personal scope (public appropriation in the form of sovereign claims by States only, or both public and private appropriation). They also disagree about the implications of the second, more positive principle that was added in the Moon Agreement, i.e. that of "common heritage of mankind" (art. 11(1) Moon Agreement) and about the content of the further principle of "equitable access and sharing of benefits" (art. 11(7d) Moon Agreement) that applies to the common exploitation of celestial resources. In any case, due to the limited number of State ratifications (17 to date), the Moon Agreement is not considered as an expression of universally binding customary law. The same applies to the international regime for the common exploitation of the natural resources of celestial bodies foreseen by the agreement (art. 11(5-7) and 18 Moon Agreement).

This disagreement is sharpened by the tension between those more recent principles, including non-appropriation through use, and the original principles of the international law of "areas beyond national jurisdiction", i.e. the principle of "freedom of exploration and use" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty) and its twin principle, i.e. the "freedom of scientific investigation" (art. I(3) Outer Space Treaty; art. 6(1) Moon Agreement). Those original principles have been left untouched by the new ones, indeed, and seem to accommodate free appropriation of resources through use, even if those freedoms have to be "carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty; art. 4(1) Moon Agreement). The same tensions between the original principles and the subsequent ones also apply within other spaces of international law such as the high seas and deep seabed and have not been resolved by the 2023 Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction.

This indeterminacy has led certain States and regional organizations to adopt domestic (public and private) legislation, develop soft law and/or conclude bilateral agreements to secure the property rights and investments of private companies authorized by those States to explore and exploit celestial bodies and their resources. Their hope thereby is to shape what is called, in international treaty law, a "subsequent practice in the application of treaties establishing an agreement". If those States were to succeed, that practice could influence the interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty. After all, this is exactly what some States did in 1982 after the adoption of the Convention of the Law on the Sea and following their disagreements about the organization of the international regime for the common exploitation of the deep seabed resources in the convention. So-doing, they steered that regime towards the 1994 compromise and the modification of the convention that ensued and, arguably, led to that regime's contemporary deadlock.

This situation raises numerous questions about the kind of international law of outer space the international community of peoples should aim at developing. This is especially the case if we are to prevent the "enclosure" through public and private appropriation of what art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty refers to as the "province of all mankind". It also raises difficult questions about the state of our legal imaginary at a turning point of life on Earth. Are our legal categories themselves at risk of being prematurely "enclosed" by the binary opposition between (State) territory and space, by the opposition between the "common" and the public or the private, and by a given articulation of property to sovereignty?

This two-day conference will bring public and private international lawyers together with political and legal philosophers to discuss the complex issues raised by property in outer space, including its relations to the notions of territory, jurisdiction and sovereignty, but also the international legal status of scientific research, data and samples. The discussions will be organized around three central issues: (i) the relations between property, jurisdiction and sovereignty, and their implications in outer space; (ii) the prospects of "commoning" in outer space, and of a distinct future international institution and regime to govern the common use of celestial resources as currently discussed by the United Nations' Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (COPUOS); and (iii) the public and common good of science, and its implications for a better distinction between scientific "exploration" and commercial "use", exploitation or appropriation of and by science in outer space.

Participants/Speakers: Philippe Achilleas (University of Paris-Saclay); Michael Byers (University of British Columbia, Vancouver); Isabel Feichtner (University of Würzburg); Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne); Maria Manoli (University of Aberdeen); Michela Massimi (University of Edinburgh); Alex Mills (University College, London); Margaret Moore (Queen's University, Ontario); Yannick Radi (Catholic University of Louvain); Lukas Rass-Masson (University of Toulouse Capitole); Anna Stilz (University of Berkeley); Fabio Tronchetti (University of Northumbria); Jonathan B. Wiener (Duke University); Katrina M. Wyman (New York University).

Samantha Besson

Droit international des institutions

Collège de France

Année 2025-2026

The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & Philosophy

Colloque - Alessandro Morbidelli: Outer Space Exploration and Use: What Resources Out There?

Colloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025

Présentation

As it is the case in other (marine or polar) "spaces" of international law usually defined negatively as areas beyond the (territorial) jurisdiction of States, a "non-appropriation" principle applies to the outer space (art. II 1967 Outer Space Treaty; art. 11(2-3) 1979 Moon Agreement). Despite later clarifications in the 1979 Moon Agreement, States still disagree, however, about both the material scope of the principle of non-appropriation (celestial bodies only, or both the bodies and their extracted resources) and its personal scope (public appropriation in the form of sovereign claims by States only, or both public and private appropriation). They also disagree about the implications of the second, more positive principle that was added in the Moon Agreement, i.e. that of "common heritage of mankind" (art. 11(1) Moon Agreement) and about the content of the further principle of "equitable access and sharing of benefits" (art. 11(7d) Moon Agreement) that applies to the common exploitation of celestial resources. In any case, due to the limited number of State ratifications (17 to date), the Moon Agreement is not considered as an expression of universally binding customary law. The same applies to the international regime for the common exploitation of the natural resources of celestial bodies foreseen by the agreement (art. 11(5-7) and 18 Moon Agreement).

This disagreement is sharpened by the tension between those more recent principles, including non-appropriation through use, and the original principles of the international law of "areas beyond national jurisdiction", i.e. the principle of "freedom of exploration and use" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty) and its twin principle, i.e. the "freedom of scientific investigation" (art. I(3) Outer Space Treaty; art. 6(1) Moon Agreement). Those original principles have been left untouched by the new ones, indeed, and seem to accommodate free appropriation of resources through use, even if those freedoms have to be "carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty; art. 4(1) Moon Agreement). The same tensions between the original principles and the subsequent ones also apply within other spaces of international law such as the high seas and deep seabed and have not been resolved by the 2023 Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction.

This indeterminacy has led certain States and regional organizations to adopt domestic (public and private) legislation, develop soft law and/or conclude bilateral agreements to secure the property rights and investments of private companies authorized by those States to explore and exploit celestial bodies and their resources. Their hope thereby is to shape what is called, in international treaty law, a "subsequent practice in the application of treaties establishing an agreement". If those States were to succeed, that practice could influence the interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty. After all, this is exactly what some States did in 1982 after the adoption of the Convention of the Law on the Sea and following their disagreements about the organization of the international regime for the common exploitation of the deep seabed resources in the convention. So-doing, they steered that regime towards the 1994 compromise and the modification of the convention that ensued and, arguably, led to that regime's contemporary deadlock.

This situation raises numerous questions about the kind of international law of outer space the international community of peoples should aim at developing. This is especially the case if we are to prevent the "enclosure" through public and private appropriation of what art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty refers to as the "province of all mankind". It also raises difficult questions about the state of our legal imaginary at a turning point of life on Earth. Are our legal categories themselves at risk of being prematurely "enclosed" by the binary opposition between (State) territory and space, by the opposition between the "common" and the public or the private, and by a given articulation of property to sovereignty?

This two-day conference will bring public and private international lawyers together with political and legal philosophers to discuss the complex issues raised by property in outer space, including its relations to the notions of territory, jurisdiction and sovereignty, but also the international legal status of scientific research, data and samples. The discussions will be organized around three central issues: (i) the relations between property, jurisdiction and sovereignty, and their implications in outer space; (ii) the prospects of "commoning" in outer space, and of a distinct future international institution and regime to govern the common use of celestial resources as currently discussed by the United Nations' Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (COPUOS); and (iii) the public and common good of science, and its implications for a better distinction between scientific "exploration" and commercial "use", exploitation or appropriation of and by science in outer space.

Participants/Speakers: Philippe Achilleas (University of Paris-Saclay); Michael Byers (University of British Columbia, Vancouver); Isabel Feichtner (University of Würzburg); Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne); Maria Manoli (University of Aberdeen); Michela Massimi (University of Edinburgh); Alex Mills (University College, London); Margaret Moore (Queen's University, Ontario); Yannick Radi (Catholic University of Louvain); Lukas Rass-Masson (University of Toulouse Capitole); Anna Stilz (University of Berkeley); Fabio Tronchetti (University of Northumbria); Jonathan B. Wiener (Duke University); Katrina M. Wyman (New York University).

Samantha Besson

Droit international des institutions

Collège de France

Année 2025-2026

Colloque - The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & Philosophy: Property in Outer Space: Context, Stakes and Possibilities

Colloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025

Présentation

As it is the case in other (marine or polar) "spaces" of international law usually defined negatively as areas beyond the (territorial) jurisdiction of States, a "non-appropriation" principle applies to the outer space (art. II 1967 Outer Space Treaty; art. 11(2-3) 1979 Moon Agreement). Despite later clarifications in the 1979 Moon Agreement, States still disagree, however, about both the material scope of the principle of non-appropriation (celestial bodies only, or both the bodies and their extracted resources) and its personal scope (public appropriation in the form of sovereign claims by States only, or both public and private appropriation). They also disagree about the implications of the second, more positive principle that was added in the Moon Agreement, i.e. that of "common heritage of mankind" (art. 11(1) Moon Agreement) and about the content of the further principle of "equitable access and sharing of benefits" (art. 11(7d) Moon Agreement) that applies to the common exploitation of celestial resources. In any case, due to the limited number of State ratifications (17 to date), the Moon Agreement is not considered as an expression of universally binding customary law. The same applies to the international regime for the common exploitation of the natural resources of celestial bodies foreseen by the agreement (art. 11(5-7) and 18 Moon Agreement).

This disagreement is sharpened by the tension between those more recent principles, including non-appropriation through use, and the original principles of the international law of "areas beyond national jurisdiction", i.e. the principle of "freedom of exploration and use" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty) and its twin principle, i.e. the "freedom of scientific investigation" (art. I(3) Outer Space Treaty; art. 6(1) Moon Agreement). Those original principles have been left untouched by the new ones, indeed, and seem to accommodate free appropriation of resources through use, even if those freedoms have to be "carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty; art. 4(1) Moon Agreement). The same tensions between the original principles and the subsequent ones also apply within other spaces of international law such as the high seas and deep seabed and have not been resolved by the 2023 Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction.

This indeterminacy has led certain States and regional organizations to adopt domestic (public and private) legislation, develop soft law and/or conclude bilateral agreements to secure the property rights and investments of private companies authorized by those States to explore and exploit celestial bodies and their resources. Their hope thereby is to shape what is called, in international treaty law, a "subsequent practice in the application of treaties establishing an agreement". If those States were to succeed, that practice could influence the interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty. After all, this is exactly what some States did in 1982 after the adoption of the Convention of the Law on the Sea and following their disagreements about the organization of the international regime for the common exploitation of the deep seabed resources in the convention. So-doing, they steered that regime towards the 1994 compromise and the modification of the convention that ensued and, arguably, led to that regime's contemporary deadlock.

This situation raises numerous questions about the kind of international law of outer space the international community of peoples should aim at developing. This is especially the case if we are to prevent the "enclosure" through public and private appropriation of what art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty refers to as the "province of all mankind". It also raises difficult questions about the state of our legal imaginary at a turning point of life on Earth. Are our legal categories themselves at risk of being prematurely "enclosed" by the binary opposition between (State) territory and space, by the opposition between the "common" and the public or the private, and by a given articulation of property to sovereignty?

This two-day conference will bring public and private international lawyers together with political and legal philosophers to discuss the complex issues raised by property in outer space, including its relations to the notions of territory, jurisdiction and sovereignty, but also the international legal status of scientific research, data and samples. The discussions will be organized around three central issues: (i) the relations between property, jurisdiction and sovereignty, and their implications in outer space; (ii) the prospects of "commoning" in outer space, and of a distinct future international institution and regime to govern the common use of celestial resources as currently discussed by the United Nations' Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (COPUOS); and (iii) the public and common good of science, and its implications for a better distinction between scientific "exploration" and commercial "use", exploitation or appropriation of and by science in outer space.

Participants/Speakers: Philippe Achilleas (University of Paris-Saclay); Michael Byers (University of British Columbia, Vancouver); Isabel Feichtner (University of Würzburg); Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne); Maria Manoli (University of Aberdeen); Michela Massimi (University of Edinburgh); Alex Mills (University College, London); Margaret Moore (Queen's University, Ontario); Yannick Radi (Catholic University of Louvain); Lukas Rass-Masson (University of Toulouse Capitole); Anna Stilz (University of Berkeley); Fabio Tronchetti (University of Northumbria); Jonathan B. Wiener (Duke University); Katrina M. Wyman (New York University).

Nathalie Bajos

Santé publique (2024-2025)

Collège de France

Année 2024-2025

Colloque - La production sociale des inégalités de santé : approches théoriques et données empiriques. Perspectives internationales

Remarques conclusives

Nathalie Bajos

Directrice de recherche (Inserm), directrice d'étude (EHESS), professeure invitée du Collège de France

Nathalie Bajos

Santé publique (2024-2025)

Collège de France

Année 2024-2025

Colloque - La production sociale des inégalités de santé : approches théoriques et données empiriques. Perspectives internationales

Session 3 : Interroger la structuration sociale des inégalités de santé en anthropologie et en épidémiologie

Pierre-Yves Geoffard : Discussion

Pierre-Yves Geoffard

Professeur, Paris School of Economics

Pierres-Yves Geoffard

Études de mathématiques (thèse de doctorat) et d'économie (DEA), visiting scholar à Stanford puis à l'Université de Chicago, chercheur au CNRS depuis 1995, directeur d'études à l'EHESS, professeur à l'École d'économie de Paris. Je travaille sur les systèmes de santé, et en particulier sur les inégalités sociales de santé.

Nathalie Bajos

Santé publique (2024-2025)

Collège de France

Année 2024-2025

Colloque - La production sociale des inégalités de santé : approches théoriques et données empiriques. Perspectives internationales

Session 3 : Interroger la structuration sociale des inégalités de santé en anthropologie et en épidémiologie

Seth Holmes : Enviro-Anthropo-Genesis: The Co-production and Destruction of Bodies of People, Land and Water

Seth Holmes

Chancellor's Professor, UC Berkeley Division of Society and Environment, Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management, University of California, Berkeley ; ICREA Researcher, University of Barcelona

Résumé

Enviro-Anthropo-Genesis proposes a new way to understand the simultaneous co-production of environments and people on multiple levels. At certain junctures, the environments and people simultaneously destroy one another. Bodies of land and water may be made and unmade by social formations from the aftermaths of colonialism to the racializations of plantation societies, from solution-oriented high-tech food systems to movements for environmental sustainability. Social structures are, in turn, assembled and disassembled by environmental formations from protected waterways that irrigate intensive agriculture to borderlands that solidify racialized hierarchies and national imaginaries, from polluted air and water that intensifies sickness among certain racialized and classed populations to courts and governments approving legal rights to seas and mountains. This broad theoretical framework is being developed in relation to ongoing ethnographic research into transnational industrial food systems and the bodies – of land, water and people – making up their infrastructure. The presentation draws from ongoing research into the health and health care of Indigenous Mexican migrant farmworkers and food supply chain workers in the United States as well as of Latin American, North African and Eastern European migrant farmworkers and food supply chain workers in Western Europe.

Seth Holmes

Seth M. Holmes is a Chancellor's Professor in the UC Berkeley Division of Society and Environment, Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management, and a researcher in ICREA Catalan Institution for Research and Advanced Studies and the Department of Social Anthropology at the Universitat de Barcelona. He is Co-Chair of the Berkeley Center for Social Medicine, Co-Director of the MD/PhD Track in Medical Anthropology coordinated between UC Berkeley and UC San Francisco and Director of the Interinstitutional Hub for Global Social Medicine at Barcelona. He is Principal Investigator of the ERC Project "FOODCIRCUITS: Hidden Connections between Migrants and Societies". A medical anthropologist and physician, Holmes works on social hierarchies, health inequities, and the ways in which such asymmetries are naturalized, normalized, and resisted in contexts of transnational im/migration, agro-food systems, and health care. He has received national and international awards from the fields of anthropology, sociology, geography, and documentary film, including the New Millennium Book Award, the Margaret Mead Award and the Textor Prize. In addition to scholarly publications, he has written for popular media such as The Guardian, The Huffington Post and Salon.com and spoken on multiple NPR, PRI, Pacifica Radio and Radio Bilingüe radio programs.

Nathalie Bajos

Santé publique (2024-2025)

Collège de France

Année 2024-2025

Colloque - La production sociale des inégalités de santé : approches théoriques et données empiriques. Perspectives internationales

Session 3 : Interroger la structuration sociale des inégalités de santé en anthropologie et en épidémiologie

Greta Bauer : A New Framework for Understanding Social Privilege and Health

Greta Bauer

Professor and Director, Eli Coleman Institute for Sexual and Gender Health, University of Minnesota Medical School

Résumé

While health research has increasingly included a role for stigma and discrimination in impacting health, privilege is often left to be implicitly understood as a lack of these. This undertheorization of privilege limits our understanding of how social power shapes health. I present a seven-fold model of privilege and its intersectional formation. Privilege is conceptualized as taking seven forms: just and fair experience, allowed harmful ignorance, promotion and facilitation, implicitly understood meaning, respect for autonomy and bodily integrity, successful moves to innocence, and assumed good intentions. Each form can be enacted through interpersonal or structural mechanisms. While this seven-fold model can be applied to individual conceptualizations of privilege (e.g., heterosexual privilege, white privilege), an intersectionality framework is key to understanding how power and privilege differentials operate relationally to affect health. Intersectionality helps explain, for example, why the traditional socioeconomic gradient of health has differential returns for people of different races, gender expressions, and disabilities, or why a generally privileged position such as maleness may not present an advantage when considered in relation to other social positions and contexts. I provide a set of thinking tools for incorporating this seven-fold and intersectional understanding of privilege into public health work.

Greta Bauer

Greta Bauer, PhD, MPH is a Professor and Director of the Eli Coleman Institute for Sexual and Gender Health in the University of Minnesota Medical School. She holds the endowed academic chair in sexual health. Prior to 2022, Dr. Bauer was a Professor in the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics in the Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry at Western University in London, Canada, where she held a Sex and Gender Science Chair through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). Dr. Bauer has authored more than 150 peer-reviewed papers, book chapters, and technical reports related to health equity. As an epidemiologist, her focus on sexual and gender health has been both substantive and methodological, with a focus on the impacts of social marginalization. She is a leader in transgender and non-binary health, and in incorporating intersectionality into quantitative research methods.

Nathalie Bajos

Santé publique (2024-2025)

Collège de France

Année 2024-2025

Colloque - La production sociale des inégalités de santé : approches théoriques et données empiriques. Perspectives internationales

Session 2 : Saisir l'incorporation du social : socialisation (sociologie) et embodiment (social epidemiology)

Anne McMunn : Discussion

Anne McMunn

University College London

Anne McMunn is Professor of Social Epidemiology in the Research Department of Epidemiology & Public Health at UCL. Anne's research is concentrated on the social determinants of health within a life course epidemiological framework. More specifically, she investigates the influence on health and wellbeing of family care and unpaid care work, employment and social relationship characteristics, and she is also interested in how gender and socioeconomic position structure these associations. She is Co-Director of Equalise: ESRC Centre for Lifecourse Health and was recently PI of the EUROCARE international consortium investigating the impact of providing adult care at different stages of the life course across European countries in different

Nathalie Bajos

Santé publique (2024-2025)

Collège de France

Année 2024-2025

Colloque - La production sociale des inégalités de santé : approches théoriques et données empiriques. Perspectives internationales

Session 2 : Saisir l'incorporation du social : socialisation (sociologie) et embodiment (social epidemiology)

Michelle Kelly-Irving : Socio-Structural Processes Underlying the Production of Health Inequalities over the Life Course: Theoretical Tools and Empirical Evidence

Résumé

Understanding how structural, social and psychosocial factors come to affect our health resulting in health inequalities allows us to move beyond description towards policy interventions. Based on concepts developed by scholars from different disciplines, I will provide the backdrop to a conceptual framework for research on social-to-biological processes, which may be important contributors to health inequalities. I will explain the broad sets of mechanisms that may allow us to comprehend how socially structured exposures become embodied over the life course. I will describe an intersectional embodiment dynamic framework, its uses, and how it may serve to examine the manner through which intermeshed systems of oppression affect social exposures, which may be expressed biologically. Using empirical evidence over the last decade from the field of social epidemiology I will explain the usefulness of this framework as a tool for carrying-out and interpreting research through an equity lens, providing scientific evidence to challenge genetic and other forms of essentialism, often used to dismiss social inequalities in health.

Michelle Kelly Irving

Michelle Kelly-Irving est directrice de recherche à l'Inserm. Elle travaille sur la production des inégalités sociales de santé au cours de la vie par le biais des processus d'incorporation. Elle est épidémiologiste sociale et travaille au centre d'épidémiologie et de recherche sur les populations de santé (CERPOP) de l'Inserm-université de Toulouse, en France, où elle dirige l'équipe de recherche EQUITY.

Nathalie Bajos

Santé publique (2024-2025)

Collège de France

Année 2024-2025

Colloque - La production sociale des inégalités de santé : approches théoriques et données empiriques. Perspectives internationales

Session 2 : Saisir l'incorporation du social : socialisation (sociologie) et embodiment (social epidemiology)

Muriel Darmon : Qu'est-ce qu'une approche en termes de socialisation permet d'apporter à l'étude des inégalités de santé ?

Muriel Darmon

Directrice de recherche, CNRS, CESSP

Résumé

La socialisation peut être définie comme la façon dont la société forme et transforme les individus, et son étude vise à rendre compte empiriquement des processus de sociogenèse des dispositions individuelles. Après avoir tracé les grandes lignes de ce modèle, et déploré qu'il ait été peu appliqué au domaine de la santé, je montrerai ses contributions à l'étude de pathologies très diverses, dans mes propres travaux sur l'anorexie et l'AVC et plus largement dans ceux de l'équipe Gendhi sur les familles d'enfants en bas âge et leurs consultations avec un large spectre de professionnels de santé, les groupes adolescents et les infirmeries scolaires, les patients et professionnels de différents services de prise en charge des pathologies cardiovasculaires, du cancer colorectal ou des démences. Analyser ces terrains en sociologues de la socialisation, c'est d'abord se donner les moyens d'éclairer à la fois la production sociale des corps et de la santé, et les processus de recours et d'accès aux soins qui se différencient selon le ressenti des symptômes et leur expression. C'est ensuite donner à voir les relations entre patients et médecins comme des interactions sociales entre des individus socialement disposés (à agir comme ils agissent, et à penser comme ils pensent), et montrer que le travail médical opère sur des patients qui ne sont pas des individus génériques mais qui sont construits par des processus de socialisation antérieurs. Les approches en termes de socialisation fournissent par conséquent une grille de lecture puissante pour mettre au jour, notamment, les mécanismes de classe et de genre qui expliquent l'existence et la reproduction des inégalités de santé, et pour identifier les lieux et les modalités d'action contre elles.

Muriel Darmon

Muriel Darmon est sociologue et directrice de recherche au CNRS dans le Centre européen de sociologie et de science politique (CNRS-EHESS-Paris 1), et coresponsable de l'ERC Gendhi (« Gender Health Inequalities », Synergy 2019). Elle est notamment l'auteure de Devenir anorexique. Une approche sociologique (La Découverte, 2003, 2008), La Socialisation (Armand Colin, 2006, 2010, 2016, 2023), Classes préparatoires. La fabrique d'une jeunesse dominante (La Découverte, 2013, 2015), Socialization (Polity Press, 2024), ainsi que de Réparer les cerveaux. Sociologie des pertes et des récupérations post-AVC (La Découverte, 2020). Elle a occupé la fonction de présidente de l'Association française de sociologie entre 2017 et 2021, de membre du groupe d'expert(e)s chargé par le Conseil supérieur des programmes et le MEN de rédiger les nouveaux programmes de sciences économiques et sociales pour le lycée en 2018-2019, et de membre du groupe de travail de la Haute Autorité de santé « Guide du parcours de santé de l'accident vasculaire cérébral (AVC) » en 2023-2024. Elle est membre du comité de rédaction de la revue International Sociology Reviews, de la revue Sociology et de la collection Princeton University Press « studies in Cultural Sociology », et a été membre du comité éditorial de la revue Sociological Theory (2021-2024) et du comité de rédaction et directrice de la revue Sociétés Contemporaines (2008-2024).