Élizabeth Teissier controversy Maffesoli came to the attention of the general public in April 2001 when he defended the thesis of
Élizabeth Teissier about the ambivalence of the social reception of astrology, highly contentious theory that he directed and whose jury was chaired by
Serge Moscovici at the
Paris Descartes University. The attribution of a doctorate to Teissier "created great controversy in the [scientific] community, and led many sociologists to intervene to challenge the legitimacy". The thesis immediately aroused criticism in the field of French sociology, particularly that published by
Le Monde by
Christian Baudelot and
Roger Establet on 17 April 2001, and the petition of 30 April 2001 for the President of the Paris V University, and signed by 300 social scientists. Many critical comments were published in the national daily press, along with less radical comments. Beyond sociology, four French
Nobel Prize winners (
Claude Cohen-Tannoudji,
Jean-Marie Lehn,
Jean Dausset and
Pierre-Gilles de Gennes) also protested against the title of "doctor" awarded to Élizabeth Teissier in a protest letter addressed to the then Minister of Education,
Jack Lang. The scientific, philosophical and sociological aspects of Teissier's thesis were studied by a group of scientists from several disciplines, including members of the
Collège de France. The thesis was analyzed in detail by a group of astrophysicists and astronomers (
Jean-Claude Pecker,
Jean Audouze, Denis Savoie), a group of sociologists (Bernard Lahire, Philippe Cibois and Dominique Desjeux), a philosopher (
Jacques Bouveresse), and by specialists of pseudo-science (Henri Broch and Jean-Paul Krivine). From this analysis, it appeared that the thesis was not valid from any viewpoint (sociological, astrophysical, or epistemological). After this controversy, two symposia were held to discuss the thesis's content and validity : • A discussion-meeting entitled "La thèse de sociologie, questions épistémologiques et usages après l'affaire Teissier" was held at the Sorbonne on 12 May 2001 by the Association des sociologues enseignants du supérieur (ASES). Maffesoli was present at this meeting and attended the accounts by
Christian Baudelot and Lucien Karpik. • A symposium entitled "Raisons et Sociétés" was organized at the Sorbonne on 18 December 2002 to discuss and propose a theoretical answer to criticism. Several intellectuals and scientists participated in the meeting to bring the debate on scientific issues raised by the controversy.
Edgar Morin, physicist
Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond,
Mary Douglas,
Paolo Fabbri,
Franco Ferrarotti among others were present at this meeting. This controversy was sometimes caricatured as an opposition between positivism and phenomenology. However, criticism of Michel Maffesoli came from both research schools, though positivist critics received more publicity.
Appointment to the board of the CNRS Maffesoli's appointment to the board of Directors of the
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique caused an outcry in the scientific community. The decree of 5 October 2005 by which the appointment was established stated that the appointment was justified "because of [his] scientific and technological competence". Following Maffesoli's appointment, a petition entitled "Un conseil d'administration du CNRS doublement inacceptable!" was launched protesting both the non-respect for parity and the appointment of Maffesoli, deemed disrespectful of "the need for scientific credibility of the board". Between October 2005 to February 2007, the petition received over 3,000 signatures, including these of
Christian Baudelot, Stéphane Beaud,
François de Singly,
Jean-Louis Fabiani, Bernard Lahire, Louis Pinto, Alain Trautmann,
Loïc Wacquant and Florence Weber. Ironically, and as an effect of the petition having two goals, it remains unclear whether the petitioners signed against Maffesoli's appointment or against the non-respect for parity.
Appointment to the Conseil National des Universités In late 2007, when Maffesoli was appointed to the Conseil National des Universités (CNU), section 19 (Sociology, Demography), the Association des Sociologues Enseignants du Supérieur (ASES) and the Association Française de Sociologie (AFS) protested against this decision, as did many other social scientists. In June 2002 and after the Teissier controversy, Maffesoli himself proposed to delete the CNU, which he deemed "unnecessary". However, he participated in the work of the section 19 of the CNU, including the controversial self-promotion of its own members in June 2009.
Appointment to the Institut Universitaire de France Maffesoli was one of the persons appointed to the Institut Universitaire de France by a decree issued by the Ministère de l'Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche,
Valérie Pécresse, in August 2008. This decree was the subject of a controversy over the appointment of people not selected by juries from the institute, including Maffesoli. According to economist Élie Cohen, president of the jury, Maffesoli "would be never accepted by the jury even if there were more places".
Sociétés hoax Manuel Quinon and
Arnaud Saint-Martin, two sociologists who were students of Maffesoli in the early 2000s, took inspiration from the
Sokal hoax to demonstrate the lack of intellectual rigour in Maffesoli's work, as well as the absence of any serious
peer review in one of the two journals that he directs. Under the name "Jean-Pierre Tremblay", who was given a fictitious background as a Quebec-based sociologist, Quinon and Saint-Martin submitted an intentionally inept and absurd article on the "
Autolib'", a small rentable car in
Paris, to the
Sociétés journal. The article was deliberately incoherent and plastered with liberal quotes and references to Maffesoli and other postmodern thinkers, positing that in self-service cars in Paris, the signs of masculinity had been erased and corrected, in order to "give way to an oblong maternity - no longer the phallus and the seminal energy of the sports car, but the 'uterus welcoming shelter-to-Autolib'". The article was duly "reviewed" by two people, before being accepted and published in
Sociétés without any substantial editing. The authors of the hoax published an article explaining their aims and methods in March 2015. The hoax article was then quickly withdrawn from the publishing platform on which it appeared. ==Bibliography==