[1]
highlighted a significant increase in intrafamily violence against women and
children. It may be believed that this increase is debatable, linked to a rise
in the number of victim testimonies due to a gradual increase in victim support
systems that have given victims the freedom to speak out. This should not
prevent us from delving further into this increase, which is also due to, in
part but not only, the increased visibility of these forms of violence in
recent years, and trying to understand the existing links between the pandemic
and the evolution of violence. In fact, as I consider it crucial to look at the
issue of intrafamily violence before the pandemic to be able to understand the
statistical data, in this article I will build upon my past research on the
construction of family relationships within lower working class families. First
of all, I will explain the research methodology and the situation of families
in poverty. I will then present the forms of violence observed between parents
and children within these families. The final section will show the correlation
between the increase in intrafamily violence and the measures taken by the
government during the pandemic.
Studying “poor families”
The analyses
provided here are based on data collected through an ethnographic study on the
construction of family relationships in situations of poverty[2]. The study
involved fifteen families subject to Non-Institutional Educational Action
(AEMO) monitoring[3].
The fieldwork, carried out between 2009 and 2016, was initiated thanks to two
organisations responsible for monitoring children’s upbringing. For most
families, only the first meeting is organised with a monitor. The monitors
chose the families at the request of one of its members (often the mother). The
participating families are therefore considered to have the resources to talk
about their situation, either because they have reached a more or less
"stable" point in their lives or because the study may benefit them.
In addition, the reasons for the fieldwork (the intention to write a book on
families facing economic hardship) are explained in detail beforehand so that
the research and parental monitoring are clearly differentiated.
For each family,
interviews, informal discussions and observations took place over a period
ranging from several months to six years. The meetings usually happened within
the family home (during the week or at the weekend, at variable times), but
also outside of the home: when shopping, doing activities with the children, at
a restaurant, at the hospital or court or during meetings with their monitor.
More than fifty interviews were carried out with mothers, fathers, several
children and other people living in the home. Trust was built through the
provision of services, listening or simply taking an interest (SCHWARTZ, 1990).
During these meetings, many subjects relating to family affairs were discussed:
finances (receipts, spending), housing and equipment, relationships with their
neighbours and local community, leisure activities, the children’s birth and
upbringing and educational care [etc.]. Spending time with the families and
being with them for part of their lives led to a greater level of understanding
than could be achieved through discourse. The amount of time dedicated to
fieldwork not only reflects the complexity of the subject, but also the
challenging nature of building trust, which is essential to understand the
facts. As Olivier Schwartz writes, the study came up against “closed doors,
missed meetings, evasive answers [and] conversations stubbornly limited to
small talk”, serving as a reminder that the study could be perceived as
embarrassing, excessive, inconvenient or unjustified (SCHWARTZ, 1990, p. 39).
There are elements of risk
associated with focusing on violence within working class families in
situations of poverty: the risk of forgetting that greater scrutiny of these
families by social services could ultimately lead to “family disorders” being
laid bare (CARDI, 2007; SERRE, 2009) and the risk of forgetting that
intrafamily violence exists in all echelons of society (MUCCHIELLI, 2011). In
the conclusion of a literature review on child abuse and its relation to social
class, Gillonne Desquesnes concludes: “Although general population studies and
hospital monographs show that working classes are in the majority, this does
not mean that abuse is absent from upper classes. However, as it passes through
other circuits, abuse in affluent areas is inconspicuous and research sorely
lacking” (DESQUESNES, 2011, p. 29). There is the further risk of forgetting the
various forms of violence that these families face (JAZOULI, 1993; PALHETA,
2015). Jeanne Lazarus, drawing on the work of Aline O'Connor, reiterates the
danger of researchers’ descriptions used when conducting research into poor
people and how they are ultimately used "against" them: “In this way,
opponents of the welfare-state will say that poor people are not qualified and
have to receive training. Their family life in unstable: they have to be more
responsible, parents have to take better care of their children. They are
demotivated and stop looking for work: they have to stop receiving benefits and
rediscover their motivation, etc.” (LAZARUS, 2012). It therefore seems
important that all descriptions of vulnerable populations are contextualised. I
do not study “poor people”, even if this shorthand will occasionally be used,
rather I study individuals living in poverty. As I describe the lives of
individuals affected by these circumstances, I therefore move away from a
strictly individualistic, accusatory and stigmatising reading, which would
classify the individual as being responsible for their situation.
In the following analyses, poverty, of which intensity variations
differ from one family to another, will be presented as a common social
reality. Although several of the participating families are in the “grey area”,
as described by Duvoux and Papuchon, “between employment and unemployment”, in
which individuals could be “in permanent employment, but their situation, which
is both unstable and on the edge of the poverty line, constitutes a new nebula
of poverty” (DUVOUX, PAPUCHON, 2019, p. 2), most families who participated in the
study are unemployed and in severe poverty, combining “income poverty” and
“poor living conditions”. Poverty is thus defined through a multidimensional
and not strictly monetary approach, more closely aligned with a qualitative
approach to the phenomenon (DAMON, 2010). As Nicolas Duvoux and Jacques
Rodriguez stipulate, in rich countries such as France, poverty is characterised
primarily as “a social status depriving those affected of the chance to
participate fully in community life or to fulfil their potential as
individuals” (DUVOUX, RODRIGUEZ, 2016, p. 8). This is the “disqualifying
poverty” discussed by Serge Paugam (Paugam, 1998 and 2005), even if, in the
case of my research, it takes on forms of stability and is viewed “less and
less as a downfall and more and more as a condition”, as highlighted by Nicolas
Duvoux and Adrien Papuchon (DUVOUX, PAPUCHON, 2019, p. 2). Thus, many aspects
of daily life will be addressed in order for the reader to understand how
certain aspects can destroy social participation and the prospect of building a
different future. The combination of poor housing conditions and local
resources, health and healthcare issues and difficulties in accessing
education, knowledge and communication means poverty is also rooted in lacking opportunities
and possibilities and, above all, economic, social and cultural resources.
Working classes and poverty
In French sociological
literature, poor families predominantly belong to the working classes. However,
not all working class people are poor (MASCLET, SCHWARTZ, 2019). The
heterogeneity of the working classes has been proven by numerous sociologists
recalling the distance between individuals and their attempts to distinguish
themselves from each other. There are salient differences between individuals
from the upper and lower echelons of the working classes. Those from the
better-off fractions do not want to be identified with those from the most
precarious fractions (SCHWARTZ, 1998; SCHWARTZ, 2009; SIBLOT, CARTIER, COUTANT,
MASCLET, RENAHY, 2015; CAYOUETTE-REMBLIERE, 2015;
MAUGER, 2015; DUVOUX, LOMBA, 2019, MASCLET et al. 2019; 2020). Olivier Schwartz
believes that belonging to the working classes characterises a community marked
by “low social and professional status”, “few economic resources” and being
“distanced from cultural capital” (COLLOVALD, SCHWARTZ, 2006). However, it is
within the fragments of each of these characteristics where the heterogeneity
of the working classes is to be found. The most acute forms of poverty combine
a lack of professional status, an income consisting solely of benefits and a
significant distance from cultural capital. Insee
(the French National Institute for Statistics and Economic Studies) has found
that in households where the reference person works, the poverty rate was, in
2017, 8.2% for manual workers and 6.8% for non-manual workers, in contrast with
2.6% for management positions[4]. A more detailed analysis from the Observatoire
des inégalités (2018 - the French Inequalities Observatory) shows
that the poverty rate for skilled manual and non-manual workers is 7%, but 22%
for personal service occupations (particularly female housekeepers)[5].
According to the Observatoire des inégalités, manual and non-manual
workers make up almost 80% of poor people[6]. The most deprived people are
primarily the least qualified and therefore have greater difficulty entering
into stable and adequately paid employment (Observatoire des inégalités, 2018).
Nicolas Duvoux and Adrien
Papuchon highlight the risk of an exacerbated dichotomy “between the analysis
of poverty and the analysis of the working classes”. According to these
authors, there is currently “a division of sociological work and a relative
fragmentation between studies on poverty and centred on situations of distance
from the labour market and marginalisation on the one hand, and work on the
integrated - albeit fragile - working classes on the other” (DUVOUX, PAPUCHON,
2019, p. 4). They thus highlight the risk for researchers of sidestepping
"the experience [that these communities] have of social structure (...),
of sidestepping poverty’s evolution in the wake of the persistence and
deepening of the crisis" (op. cit., p. 4). It is for this reason I
situate the research participants in a wider context, that of the working classes.
Even though it is important to distinguish being part of the working classes
and being in a situation of poverty, certain habits are linked to a “class
habitus” and others to injunctions linked to their poverty. The
distinction is sometimes subtle, especially as “class habitus” is rooted in
poverty (BOURDIEU, 1979; BOURDIEU, 1980).
This
cross-sectional view of social structure also allows us to understand the
relationships that people living in poverty have with other echelons of
society. As Nicolas Duvoux states, “regulation mechanisms for poor people do
not only apply to them. Even though they are specifically designed for the
poor, in reality the health, social and even criminal management systems
actually subjugate society as a whole” (PAUGAM, DUVOUX, 2008, p. 27).
Intrafamily
violence
Laurent Mucchielli supports the hypothesis
that “a moral peace process is undoubtedly continuing to work in French society
and is contributing to the slow but steady decline in the use of physical
violence to resolve ordinary, everyday conflicts in our social lives”
(MUCCHIELLI, 2008, p.119). According to the author, this “moral peace” process,
which stigmatises and delegitimises the use of violence, contributes to the
feeling that there is an increase in violence. “The general feeling of an
increase in violent behaviour may well see an acceleration in the reporting of
such behaviour, but also a stagnation or even a decline in its actual
frequency” (ibid., p. 120). According to Mucchielli, French society would become
progressively more opposed to violence, therefore transforming its status:
“What was once considered ‘normal’ or ‘unreasonable but tolerable’ has become
abnormal and intolerable. What we did not want to see is now clearly visible to
everyone. What was considered a ‘private matter’ has become a public matter.
The public gaze penetrates places that were previously subject to authoritative
discretion: the father of the family, school teachers, holiday camp leaders,
boarding school or residence supervisors, military camps’ chief sergeant,
office managers, etc. As a result, interpersonal violence, which is not new but
has seen a change in its status, is denounced” (Ibid., pp. 120-121). All of
this would lead today to a “judicialisation of the settlement of social
conflicts” (MUCCHIELLI, 2008 and 2011).
Violence is socially constructed and
multifaceted. May Clarkson, building upon multiple studies and reports, draws a
distinction between personal violence (physical, psychological, sexual, social
and environmental) and structural violence (poverty, repression and
frustration) (MAY, 2004). In research carried out in Portugal that analysed the
instances of violence against children from various social groups, Sandra
Pascoal and Gabrielle Poeschl identify four causes of violence against
children: “socio-environmental factors (e.g. hunger, poverty, war), personal
factors (lack of education, family issues, aggressiveness), relational factors
(parental disagreements, lack of love, lack of dialogue), and factors related to
the children themselves (violence, disability, drug addiction)” (PASCOAL and
POESCHL, 2004, p. 24).
There
are certain crossovers between my analyses and those of the previously cited
authors, yet they do differ as mine have been drawn-up solely from my observations.
Observing different moments of the participants’ family life where different
types of violence were used allowed me to identify three types of violence
between parents and children: structural violence, contextual violence and
reactivated violence. Before presenting the three forms of violence observed,
it is important to define what I believe constitutes a violent verbal or
physical act. Regardless of my own inevitably subjective view, I consider a
violent act to be any which elicits rejection from the person subjected to it
(crying, anger, fear, etc.) and which is considered by the individual subjected
to it as violent.
Structural
Violence
The social construction of violence is
experienced differently depending on generation, gender and class. Individuals
react differently to gestures and words used to express discontent or as
punishment, for example. Cléopâtre Montandon and Saloni Sapru highlight the
importance “of inter-individual variations and nuances in attitudes and
practices within social groups” (MONTANDON and SAPRU, 2002, p. 132). Parenting
styles are shaped by multiple factors, including professional activity (Ibid,
2002). Professional interactions are “one of the drivers of change of parenting
‘lifestyles’, particularly among the working classes” (LE PAPE, 2012, p. 40).
However, parenting styles are also propagated by legitimate institutions that
care for young children: medicine and health professions (GOJARD, 2010), infant
care institutions (GARCIA, 2011) and schools (THIN, 2009), among other
examples.
Jean
Kellerhals, Cléopâtre Montandon, Gilbert Ritschard and Massimo Sardi describe
three parenting styles: statutory, materialist and contractual. The statutory
style is characterised by accommodation (moulding to the rhythms and discipline
of the environment) and control (coercion and prohibition). Communication is
neither very frequent nor intimate, and shared activities are restricted. The
materialist style is similar to the first style with regard to accommodation
and control, yet differs through strong communication and the importance of
shared activities between parents and children. Both are predominantly more
common among the working classes. The contractual style is characterised by the
importance given to the child’s self-regulation and creativity. Authority is
based more on negotiation than coercion. Masculine and feminine roles are less
differentiated than in the previous styles. This model concerns upper middle
class families (KELLERHALS et al., 1992).
In
a study carried out in the USA of children between 8-9 years old from all
social backgrounds, Anne Lareau (2011) contrasts the parenting model she names
“concerted cultivation” seen in the middle and upper classes with that of
“accomplishment of natural growth” seen in the working classes. The sociologist
shows how concerted cultivation helps children in their education (LAREAU,
2011). According to Marie Clémence Le Pape, “communication takes the form of
justifications in working-class environments and negotiations in privileged
environments. Control is more precocious and indirect in the middle and upper
classes, and more direct in working-class environments” (LE PAPE, 2009, p.
41-42).
Structural
violence aims to punish behaviour deemed unacceptable, to reinforce rules or express
discontent. They serve an educational purpose. I observed that the spanking,
slapping, shouting and verbal insults were used as a direct and unplanned way
to better bring up the child. Physical and verbal punishments are often part of
these parents’ “habitus”. In most cases, having often received a stricter
upbringing, they believe they are less rigid and “kinder” than their own
parents. A study carried out by Pascoal and Pueschl shows that adults from
“low-income areas” believe the violence they witness is less violent than that
in residential areas (PASCOAL and PUESCHL, 2004). Furthermore, the fact that,
on several occasions, parents carried out these actions in my presence proves
their almost innocuous nature. Ludovic Vandaele, unemployed, talking about his
daughter: “Amelie responded rudely to my wife, I came and slapped her. And it
was a belter. Her buttocks were bruised. I don’t hit her in the face, I always
hit her buttocks.” Monique Dazin, talking about an incident with her son,
Sofiane: “One day Sofiane was stamping his feet. Once, twice, three times, I
told him to stop, I set him down on the sofa and told him, ‘stop or I’ll hit
you’, once, twice. He looked at me calmly and laughed. Then he started stamping
his feet again. ‘Get here, you!’ I smacked his bottom. ‘I’m going to tell my
father’, he replied. ‘You’re going to tell your father? Wait, we’ll call your
father, you’ll see.’ We got the phone, ‘Sofiane wants to talk to you.’ Sofiane
and his father were talking: ‘Dad.’ ‘What?’ ‘ Dad, Mum smacked my bum.’ And his
father said: ‘I don’t have to tell you again because your mother already has.
If Mum hit you, you must have deserved it.’ Sofiane said something else to me,
I don’t know what, but I raised my hand and whack.” More significant
corporal punishments are kept for “serious” matters, as Sylvie Barderon, a
housekeeper, points out when talking about her son Enzo: “He’s been hit with a
belt twice in his life. Twice because on these two occasions he really put
himself in danger. Once he wasn’t home at 8 PM, at 6 years old!”
Contextual violence
Qualitative research into poverty, despite still being rare
in France, highlights in detail its effects on families and the fostering of
relationships between children and adults. Although people living in poverty
are not, by nature, more violent than others, they are nonetheless impacted by
their living conditions. Indeed, I observed several tensions among these
families linked to their living conditions. Violence in the forms of insults or
hitting aimed to resolve frustrations, jealousy, feelings of unfairness and
tensions, and not as a means of parenting.
In
fact, these forms of violence are often linked to housing conditions. Living in
crowded, poorly insulated and sometimes unsanitary dwellings can make these
families’ lives very difficult. Johnny Vermeersch, a former miner now living
with a disability, lives with his wife and five children in a two-bedroom
house. The three boys sleep in one room and two girls and their mother sleep in
another (in the same bed as their mother). According to Johnny, he sleeps in
the living room: “It’s not normal that I don’t sleep with my wife. She’s going
to have a test tube baby (forced laughter).” In another participating family,
Gilles, the son of Annick and Jean Lagier’s, also sleeps in the living room. He
often becomes annoyed in the morning when his little brother is being noisy
while he is still asleep. He often gets up off the sofa in anger and hits his
little brother. It is evident that a lack of space causes difficulties
concerning homework and the need to escape conflict or to be alone.
The
cramped conditions sometimes add to poor housing conditions, as illustrated by
Nora Dhamani, unemployed, who, when I met her, was living with her two children
in a house where the toilet did not work. Nora recounts tensions between
herself and her son Kevin while they were bathing her grandson: “Yeah. He took
this bucket. He put it in the middle of the dining table, and just like that he
filled it with hot bath water and left Yohan standing in it. And I was there
and I felt sick and scared, I started to feel my heart beating, one step
backwards... He was totally unaware. And I was there, with him watching me, I
told him Yohan was in danger. So I tried to get up to pick him up and he
forcibly blocked me” (STETTINGER, 2019).
In
addition to housing, a lack of money forces families to adapt their consumption
levels in the form of measured purchases, children being treated differently
through family purchases and even food. Some families sometimes choose to give
more to the child who is most likely to be successful, as in the case of the
Vermeersch family, for example. The five children often do not have the same
meals with the smallest getting better meals than the three others. Jessica,
the youngest and a star pupil at school, also receives the most presents. She
got her mobile phone younger and wears the best clothes (etc.). Dylan is often
violent towards his sisters and takes out his jealousy on his sisters and his
mother by hitting them. He also often takes his sister’s and mother’s phone.
During one of my visits to the Vermeersch family, Johny almost punched his son
Dylan for stealing a pair of socks. Nora Dhamani also describes a violent scene
caused by Kevin: “I came home, had barely shut the door [when] I heard grunting
coming from above. Kevin and Ludovic had begun to fight upstairs. I say,
‘What’s going on?’ ‘Yeah, he stole my phone!’ Yet again with the phone! So I
try to intervene and I say: ‘Listen, don’t you attack him!’, ‘Yes, yes, yes’,
and he was effing and blinding at him, and Ludovic was scared. He escaped and
my eldest son ran after him, and trapped Ludovic. My God, you should have seen
how he looked at him. I started to scream and scream! I wanted to separate them
and then Kevin pushed me, ‘No, stop!’ The neighbours came out onto the landing
and not one came to help me. I was there, I was crying out, I was crying out in
pain and they were just kicking each other non-stop, non-stop...”
The
derisive attitude society shows towards them, especially institutions, makes
them very angry. Jean Lagier, unemployed, talking about how he is treated
by his town’s social services: “When we don’t have work. When you hit rock
bottom, you’re worthless so they [local social services] try to make us leave
sooner rather than later. To make people leave quicker...as quickly as
possible, they make their life hell. Don’t believe it, town halls, they’re a
mess. They’re supposed to really help people but they only help those who they
want to help.”
Reactivated
violence
I will add a
third form of violence to the two described above that reflects the suffering
that is often linked to family history (placement, loss of a parent, sickness).
They can often be linked to forms of dependency such as drug addiction and
alcoholism. These are less controlled and constrained manifestations that can
sometimes take epic proportions. They can be taken out on children by their
parents, but also on parents by their children. Dylan Vermeersch hits his
mother, father and sisters. Gilles Langier, put into placement at three years
old due to his parents’ drug addiction, hits his brother and has already
threatened his father with a knife. For a long time, Nora Dhamani has suffered
physical and/or verbal violence from her son Kevin, in placement since the age
of one year old: “He’s violent, he’s violent. Yes, it’s true that he’s violent.
It comes from... I was always insulted by my parents, horribly: ‘you’re
nothing, you’re useless, you’re stupid.’ But when I hear things like mentally
disabled and all that, it hurts me because I didn’t do that well at school but
I’m certainly not mentally disabled. As a result, I spend my time crying at the
moment because he doesn't see everything I do, what I can do.”
Some turn this violence
towards themselves, like Gilles Langier, who self-harms: “Craft knives or...
anything. Everything I have that can cut, I take it. It can be a knife, even if
I struggle to cut myself, but if I didn’t cut myself, well, I would
continue...”
For better visibility
and analysis, these three forms of violence have been dissociated, but they
often overlap, especially the last two.
During the COVID-19
pandemic...
There are
already numerous studies on the consequences of the pandemic on families,
particularly on those who are the worst off[7]. The
analyses of most of them are based on statistics (INSEE - National Institute for Statistics and Economic Studies[8], Drees - Department of research, studies, assessments and
statistics[9]), as more qualitative studies take
longer to be carried out and published and in which it would be advantageous to
interview parents and children living in poverty. These statistic studies are
almost unanimous in emphasising the visibility of pre-existing inequalities,
while warning about the increase of some of them, especially those related to
job insecurity.
Exposing
inequalities
Social distancing measures introduced for health reasons
demonstrated that certain families can struggle to maintain distance due to
living in cramped and overcrowded living spaces with no outdoor space. Before
the pandemic, these factors were already problematic: a lack
of privacy for the adults (a reduced sex life due to not having a parents’
room), a lack of privacy for children (difficulty doing homework and sleeping,
having nowhere to be alone or escape conflict) and a lack of basic comforts
through squalid housing conditions (cold, humidity and no toilets). Even though
these issues existed before, the lockdowns have laid bare the difficulties of
living together. The SAPRIS survey (health, perception, practices,
relationships and social inequality during the COVID-19 pandemic, funded by the
National Research Agency) indicates that living conditions also determine the
quality of relationships within the household that can deteriorate even further
during the pandemic in the absence of external influence[10].
As Pierre Gilbert highlights, “On the one hand, lockdown has created specific
inequalities and significant difficulties for households [...]. On the other hand,
due to the different inequalities affecting them - health, housing, work and
transport -, working class households and neighbourhoods are particularly
exposed to the virus and may ultimately pay a very heavy price for the
pandemic” (Gilbert, 2020, online).
Job Insecurity
The
evolution of family relationships also depends on social and material
conditions. They are often improved in households where the parents are in
managerial positions or working from home. While the SAPRIS survey highlights
that the vast majority of parents report that their relationship with their
child(ren) has not changed (61%) or has even improved (23%), relationships have
worsened in predominantly manual worker households or predominantly non-manual
worker and middle-class households where parents were not working and the
household's financial situation was considered difficult. The study has also
found a rise in sleep and emotional disorders in children from lower-income
households, particularly in those where there has been a drop in income during
the lockdown (19%) compared to well-off households with consistent income
(10%).
Finally, pre-existing poverty has increased during the pandemic.
The Inequalities Observatory has reported that income poverty rates, stable
until 2017, have since risen again: a “modest” increase that is worsening with
the health crisis. This increase is said to be
linked, according to historian Axelle Brodiez-Dolino,
to people being tipped into poverty, from poor people
becoming even poorer (rising expenses and difficulty receiving benefits due to
being in informal employment) and those in precarious situations, whom
the author describes as “the new poor people of the pandemic”, meaning those
who did not benefit from furlough. These include, those on precarious, fixed
term or temporary contracts and trial periods; seasonal workers and informal
workers (BRODIEZ-DOLINO, 2021).
In addition, several studies indicate that non-manual and manual
workers who could not work remotely were more exposed to the virus and more
serious cases of COVID-19 due to their poor overall health, limited healthcare
access and loss of financial resources.
Conclusion
As
mentioned in the introduction, intrafamily violence has increased during the
pandemic. In light of what we have demonstrated, this rise can be attributed to
the second type of violence identified in this article: “contextual violence”.
As we have seen, intrafamily violence between parents and
children existed before the pandemic and to be able to make sense of it, it is
necessary to understand it beyond an individual context. They are inherent to
the place occupied by families in the social arena, in a social and economic
context that intersects with personal trajectories. This violence sometimes
stems from different parenting styles, but also from difficult periods in
people’s lives, past and present, that can be material (a lack of money) or
emotional (e.g. a lack of love). The COVID-19 pandemic did not create violence
between parents and children but it has put strain on fragile lives. During the
pandemic, people living in poverty have been more exposed and vulnerable. As
Céline Bessière, Emilie Biland, Sibylle Gollac, Pascal Marichalar and Julie
Minoc discuss, “family does not always and in all places constitute a safe
space within which the individual is sheltered from the difficulties of social
life, as in the case of coronavirus[11]”
(BESSIERE, BILAND, GOLLAC, MARICHALAR and MINOC, 2020). This is all the more
true for the least well-off families.
REFERENCE
LIST
Bessière
Céline, Biland Émilie, Gollac Sibylle, Marichalar Pascal, Minoc Julie,
« Penser la famille aux temps du COVID-19 ». Mouvements, La
découverte, 2020, en ligne.
Bourdieu
Pierre, Le Sens pratique, Minuit, 1980.
Bourdieu
Pierre, La Distinction. Critique sociale du jugement, Minuit, 1979.
Brodiez-Dolino
Axelle, Comment l’épidémie fait-elle exploser la pauvreté ?, Journal du CNRS,
janvier 2021 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWIopwiMzrI).
Cardi
Coline, 2007, La « mauvaise mère » : figure féminine du danger, Mouvements, n°
49, p. 27-37.
Cayouette-Remblière
Joanie, « De l’hétérogénéité des classes populaires (et de ce que l’on peut en
faire) », Sociologie [en ligne], n°4, vol. 6, 2015, mis en ligne le 05 janvier
2016.
Collovald
Annie, Schwartz Olivier, « Haut, bas, fragile : sociologies du populaire.
Entretien avec Annie Collovald & Olivier Schwartz », Vacarme, n°37, 2006.
Damon
Julien, Eliminer la pauvreté, PUF, 2010.
Desquesnes
Gillonne, « Pauvreté des familles et maltraitance à enfants : un état des lieux
de la recherche, une question non tranchée », Les Sciences de l'éducation -
Pour l'Ère nouvelle, 2011/3 (Vol. 44), p. 11-34.
Duvoux
Nicolas, Lomba Cédric, Où va la France populaire ?, PUF, 2019.
Duvoux
Nicolas, Papuchon Adrien, 2019, « Les dynamiques contemporaines de la pauvreté
: de l’exclusion à l’insécurité sociale », Métropolitiques (en ligne).
Duvoux
Nicolas, Rodriguez Jacques, 2016, « La pauvreté insaisissable. Enquête(s) sur
une notion », Communications, vol. 1, n° 98, pp. 7-22.
Garcia
Sandrine, Mères sous influence. De la cause des femmes à la cause des enfants,
Paris, La Découverte, 2011.
Gilbert
Pierre, « Le Covid-19, la guerre et les quartiers populaires »,
Métropolitiques, 16 avril 2020. URL : https://metropolitiques.eu/Le-Covid-19-la-guerre-et-les-quartiers-populaires.html.
Gojard
Séverine, Le métier de mère, Paris, La dispute, 2010.
Jazouli
Adil, « Les classes populaires : expérience d’exclusion et formes de violence
», Revue Quart Monde [En ligne], 147, 1993/2.
Kellerhals
Jean, Montandon Cléopâtre, Ritschard Gilbert, Sardi Massimo. Le style éducatif
des parents et l'estime de soi des adolescents, Revue française de sociologie,
1992, 33-3. pp. 313-333.
Lareau
Annette, Unequal Childhoods. Class, Race, and Family life. Second Edition
(with an Update a Decade Later), Berkeley, University of California Press,
2011,
Le Pape Marie-Clémence,
« L’art d’être un « bon » parent : quelques enjeux des nouvelles normes et
pratiques éducatives contemporaines », Cahiers français, n°371, 2012, pp.
36-42.
Masclet Olivier, Amossé
Thomas, Bernard Lise, Cartier Marie, Lechien Marie-Hélène, Schwartz Olivier et
Siblot Yasmine (dir), Etre comme tout le monde. Employées et ouvriers dans la
France contemporaine, Raisons d’agir, 2020.
Masclet Olivier,
Schwartz Olivier, « Les classes populaires, c’est les pauvres » in Masclet
Olivier, Misset Séverine, Poullaouec Tristan, La France d’en bas ? Idées reçues
sur les classes populaires, Le cavalier bleu, 2019, pp. 21-28.
Mauger Gérard (coord.),
« De la classe ouvrière aux classes populaires », Savoir/Agir, vol. 34, no. 4,
2015.
May Clarkson, La
violence familiale. Une approche systémique, Service des études et analyses,
Gouvernement du Québec, Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux/Direction
générale de la planification et de l’évaluation, 1994.
Montandon Cléopâtre,
Saloni Sapru, « L'étude de l'éducation dans le cadre familial et l'apport des
approches interculturelles », Pierre R. Dasen éd., Pourquoi des approches
interculturelles en sciences de l'éducation, De Boeck Supérieur, 2002, pp.
125-145.
Mucchielli
Laurent. « Une société plus violente ? Une analyse socio-historique des
violences interpersonnelles en France, des années 1970 à nos jours », Déviance
et Société, vol. 32, no. 2, 2008, pp. 115-147.
Mucchielli
Laurent, L’invention de la violence, Fayard, novembre 2011
Palheta Ugo,
« Violence symbolique et résistances populaires », Éducation et socialisation
[En ligne], 37, 2015.
Pascoal
Sandra, Poeschl Gabrielle, « Représentations sociales de la violence envers les
enfants », Les Cahiers Internationaux de Psychologie Sociale, 2004/4 (Numéro
64), p. 21-34.
Paugam
Serge, 1998, « Les formes contemporaines de la pauvreté et de l'exclusion. Le
point de vue sociologique ». Genèses, 31, pp. 138-159.
Paugam
Serge, Les formes élémentaires de la pauvreté, PUF, 2005.
Paugam
Serge, Duvoux Nicolas, 2008, La régulation des pauvres, PUF.
Schwartz Olivier, «
Vivons-nous encore dans une société de classes ? Trois remarques sur la société
française contemporaine », La Vie des idées, 22 septembre, 2009.
Schwartz Olivier, « La
notion de "classes populaires" », Habilitation à Diriger de
Recherches,1998.
Schwartz
Olivier, Le monde privé des ouvriers. Hommes et femmes du Nord, PUF, 1990.
Serre
Delphine, Les Coulisses de l’État social. Enquête sur les signalements d’enfant
en danger, Raisons d’agir, 2009.
Siblot
Yasmine, Cartier Marie, Coutant Isabelle, Masclet Olivier et Renahy Nicolas,
Sociologie des classes populaires contemporaines, Armand Colin, 2015.
Stettinger
Vanessa, 2019, « Devenir une "bonne" mère. Une trajectoire balisée
par l’intervention sociale », Revue de politiques sociales et familiales,
n°129-130, pp. 77-88.
Xavier
Thierry, Bertrand Geay, Ariane Pailhé et al., « Les enfants à l’épreuve du
premier confinement », Population & Sociétés, 2021/1 (N° 585), p. 1-4.
Notas
