For volume III-22

(Dossier scheduled for publication in February 2027 in vol. III-22)

« Diagrams and Time »

Editor(s) : Ariles Remaki & Fabien Ferri

Is a diagram one? The ‘Diagrams and Time’ project aims to shed light on this question by studying the role of time in the relationships between practice and meaning within diagrams. It also aims to explore the ways in which a temporal approach can be combined with a conception of diagrams as unities and undivided entities. The dossier will take a transdisciplinary approach, combining historical perspectives with those from semiology, phenomenology, epistemology and anthropology.

Diagrams as a practice of meaning

Diagrams are playing an increasingly important role in studies of science, and particularly its practice, whether from a historical (Netz, 1999), philosophical (Mancosu, 2008), sociological (Roth & McGinn, 1998; Lefebvre, 2002) or anthropological (Vandendriessche & Da Silva, 2022) perspective. This process is part of a broader general movement that explicitly addresses the question, too long unresolved, of the nature of text, its conceptual delimitation and the socio-institutional meanings it embodies as a gesture and as a technique (Stiegler, 1994; Stiegler, 2010). We therefore need to recognise that textual content is never given immediately, but through an arsenal of techniques and gestures. And these gestures are so fundamental to diagrammatic reasoning (La Mantia & Dondero, 2021; La Mantia, Alunni & Zalamea, 2023) that they call into question the very attempt to separate an ideal and abstract content from a material and concrete container (Ferri, Macé & Neuwirth, 2024). Diagrams, which produce an operativity thanks to the practical iconicity of writing thought of as ‘visuality’ (Schriftbildlichkeit) (Krämer, 2016), illustrate particularly well this impossibility of unravelling the tangle of what is expressed and what expresses. The term ‘diagrammatology’, introduced by the art historian William Mitchell in the early 1980s (Mitchell, 1981), can be defined as the joint study of the graphic modelling of phenomena (Ferri, 2022) and the graphic spatialisation of reasoning designed to objectify the different operating modes for the objects of knowledge (Simondon, 2005, p. 529) as much as those of the minds of the subjects who study them (Meyer-Krahmer, 2013). Diagrammatology was initiated as a research programme by the work of the philosopher and semiotician Charles Sanders Peirce. Today, the Digital Peirce Archive and the Peirce Edition Project are making it possible to take the full measure of this work. In this sense, diagrammatology is the distant heir to the ‘universal characteristic’ imagined by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz in the 17th century as part of the vast programme of a mathesis universalis (Leibniz, 2018). In 2007, Frederik Stjernfelt (2007) argues that diagrammatology requires the combined tools of phenomenology, metaphysics and semiology. Other authors are developing more anthropological approaches (Ingold, 2011; Goodwin, 2017; Causey, 2017), focusing on the social and intersubjective relations that are played out around these objects (Manders, 2008). Only deeply interdisciplinary approaches will be able to account for the irreducible intertwining of the sensible and the intelligible produced by diagrams.

The ‘Diagram and Time’ thematic dossier is therefore fully in line with this field of research - which could be described as diagrammatological - the aim of which is to shed light on the role of the diagram within a text, in terms of its material, phenomenal and anthropological dimensions. How does the temporal flow of consciousness relate to the diagram as a techno-graphic device? What kinds of synchronisation does a diagram enable, and what are the consequences for our relationship to ourselves, to the world and to others? More specifically, this issue focuses on a specific aspect of this general research, which has attracted the attention of researchers for only a few years: the individuation of the diagram (Beaubois, 2015; Vogel, 2017; Leclercq, 2019). Indeed, while there is an abundance of literature on the role of the diagram within the text and the way in which the two interact within scientific or technical discourse, the notion of the diagram itself is rarely questioned and almost inevitably leads to the idea of an individuation of diagrammatic constructions. The diagram is an individual object whose properties emerge from the synthesis of all its components. This type of approach is therefore primarily semio-linguistic, and operates within a two-dimensional framework: the aim is to understand the meaning of the diagram in itself, or in interaction with other elements on the same support.

The role of time: a dialogue between synchronicity and diachronicity

A diagram is constructed in a certain order and can also be read and understood in a different order. The diagram is not the same when it is drawn as when it is read. So the nature of the diagram depends on elements that are external to it, in particular the context of interaction under which these sequential and diachronic orders of reading and writing necessarily subsume each other. However, while the practice of writing and reading takes place over time, the materiality of the diagrammatic object is purely synchronic: it is a set of signs and lines, complete, fixed and finished. It is individuated as it appears to us in the sense of the text. But by tracing the diagram over time, the author incorporates a sequential component which may be significant but which is invisible to a reader who, in the process of reading, mentally reconstructs a potentially different and potentially multiple temporal sequence, which itself carries a new meaning. Moreover, there are as many senses of reading as there are readers. Conversely, the reading procedure is not always anticipated by the author, and so it is possible, and in many situations very likely, that the diagram will be invested with radically different meanings by all those confronted with it. Under these conditions, the intersubjective object, common to all, can only be the complete, completed and individuated synchronic diagram. From this point on, we need to show that the fact of being confronted with a diagram within a work of historical or philosophical analysis requires us to reconcile the spatio-temporal aspects with the semiotic and linguistic aspects. We are therefore inclined to focus our attention on this dialectic between the synchronic and diachronic approaches to diagrams.

From a synchronic point of view, the diagram can be considered as a sign, in Peirce's semiological sense (Peirce, 1985), and even more specifically as an icon, i.e. a sign whose spatial structure is established by a certain analogy with that of the object it represents. As we have seen, the diagram is then given in a single block, interpreted as a single irreducible function. But if we consider precisely this analogy that underpins the iconic relationship between the sign and its interpretation, it is clear that we need to deconstruct the diagram, breaking it down into parts, sub-parts and constituent elements. This analytical work then naturally leads us to shift our gaze to focus on the practical aspect of how the diagram is made. By placing the diagram in its interaction situation, i.e. a moment of reading or writing, we develop a constructivist approach that requires us to consider the diagram both diachronically and as a device that can be viewed from a number of perspectives, whether as a device for psychomotor coordination (Giardino, 2014), for understanding procedural instructions (Ganier, 2013) or for artistic and literary creation (Deleuze, 2002; Leslie, 2003; Dahan-Gaida, 2023).

A transdisciplinary approach using case studies

The decision to deal with these abstract and theoretical questions in a thematic issue of Cahiers François Viète is based on the conviction that this is an absolutely cross-disciplinary issue. This justifies the fact that this exploration will be carried out through specific case studies, which can be situated in any period (including the present day), in any cultural area, and which can adopt a historical, philosophical or even sociological approach. They will thus illustrate the universal nature of the difficulties posed by the relationship between time and diagrams, while at the same time embodying the diversity of the solutions that can be found. The project therefore aims to address the following three themes:

Evolution of diagrams: ontogeny and phylogeny

Diagrammatic practice cannot be systematically reduced to a form of modelling. Such a reduction would prevent us from considering the diagram as a conceptual tool, a material support for thought. Under these conditions, it becomes necessary to be able to understand the diagram for its own sake, i.e. as a tool for simulation and anticipation (Berthoz, 2013) or as a support for reasoning that cannot be reduced to a set of graphic representations frozen in an externalised medium. Plotting the diagrammatic structure along a time line provides a better understanding of the reasons that lead actors to construct them in a particular way, and thus provides us with information about their function, both social (Schmitt, 2019) and epistemological (Guy, 2020).

It will also be possible to consider time not only within a single diagram, but to consider several diagrams along a temporal period. We thus realise that the diagram can sometimes be considered as a moving technique whose evolution is accessible to us via a genetic approach to the history of science and technology. Contributions that aim at highlighting the productive potential of diagrams along evolving technical lineages will be particularly welcome, as will those dealing with the additional intelligibility provided by the sequential and multimodal analysis of a diagram or a diagrammatic practice.

Gestural practice: drawing and writing

The study of the temporal aspects of diagrams must also be seen in the context of the more specific problem of the relationship between image and text that we mentioned in the introduction. By combining iconic and symbolic characteristics, in the sense of Peirce's semiotic categories, diagrams are sometimes considered to be ‘iconotexts’ (Montandon, 1990). By applying the diachronic point of view that we advocate, which focuses more on the diagrammatic gesture, whether it be drawing or reading, we can introduce a functionalist reading of this question. In this way, we are not focusing on the interface between text and image, but between writing and pictorial tracing. Within this framework, we could re-characterise diagrams as objects that are not iconotextual, but rather pictoscriptural. Following this approach, all proposals that aim to clarify the criteria that make it possible to distinguish the different regions of the ‘domain of images’ (Elkins, 1999) in order to better define this pictoscriptural dimension of the diagrammatic gesture will be particularly appreciated, whatever the types of approach envisaged (historical, sociological, anthropological, aesthetic, artistic, technical, epistemological, etc.).

Diagrammatic representation of time itself

Time itself can be one of the elements represented by the diagram. But from then on, time is materialised in a panoptic way at the level of representation, and is annihilated through this process of synchronisation. Anisotropic temporal relationships are projected and dissolved into a homogeneous space, making them reversible. Only the mental reconstruction of a sequence through the process of reading or writing can restore the diachronic substance of diagrammatic time. In this way, a more or less intricate relationship is created between the time represented and the time of the representation. It can therefore be argued that, at one level or another, diagrams always represent time. This also leads us to address the following question: how does time materialise in the trace it leaves in space? We welcome all proposals that aim to characterise this objectification of time through different types of support and material inscription, either through a media and scriptural approach (signage, computer graphics, choreography, cartography, film, etc.) or through epistemological or metaphysical reflection.

As well as highlighting the fertile bridges that the study of these objects makes it possible to build between different scientific communities and different research dynamics, a better understanding of the way in which diagrammatic practice relates to time and not just space aims to enrich our relationship with the products of knowledge by illustrating the fundamentally dynamic nature of this relationship.

Schedule

Contributions may be submitted in French or English. Contributions will be collected in three stages:

- Before 7 March 2025: a statement of intent is sent to the publishers of the dossier (ariles.remaki@ens-lyon.org ; fabien.ferri@univ-fcomte.fr). This text (.docx or .odt) will explain in 5,000 characters (including spaces) the content of the article by referring to the terms and themes of the call for papers. Authors will be informed of the admissibility of their proposal by 13 April 2025 at the latest.

- December 2025: for accepted proposals, authors will send their articles (between 30,000 and 50,000 characters, including spaces, but excluding the list of references). Authors are asked to familiarise themselves with the Cahiers François Viète publication charter and to follow the journal's editorial guidelines. As a reminder, articles will be peer-reviewed by two referees using a double-blind procedure.

- November 2026: submission of the finalised articles, after discussions with the editors and taking into account the expert reviews, for final validation, formal proofreading and layout by the Cahiers François Viète editorial board.

- February 2027: Online and paper publication of the dossier.

Références

Beaubois Vincent (2015), « Ethnographies du design », Techniques & Culture, vol. 64, p. 48-63.

Beaubois Vincent (2022), La zone obscure : vers une pensée mineure du design, Faucogney-et-la-Mer, It: éditions.

Berthoz Alain (2013), La vicariance : le cerveau créateur de mondes, Paris, O. Jacob.

Causey Andrew (2017), Drawn to See: Drawing as an Ethnographic Method, Toronto, University of Toronto Press.

Dahan-Gaida Laurence (2023), L’art du diagramme : sciences, littérature, arts, Saint-Denis, Presses universitaires de Vincennes.

Deleuze Gilles (2002), Francis Bacon : logique de la sensation, Paris, Éditions du Seuil.

Deleuze Gilles (2023), Sur la peinture : cours, mars-juin 1981, Paris, Les Éditions de Minuit.

Elkins James (1999), The Domain of Images, Ithaca (NY), Cornell University Press.

Ferri Fabien (2022), « Ingénierie sémiotique et modélisation diagrammatique : au-delà du modèle de Turing », Revue Intelligibilité du numérique, vol. 3.

Ferri Fabien, Macé Arnaud & Neuwirth Stefan (éds.) (2024), Le schème et le diagramme : les ancrages matériels de la pensée et le partage visuel des connaissances, Besançon, Presses universitaires de Franche-Comté.

Ganier Franck (2013), Comprendre la documentation technique, Paris, Presses universitaires de France.

Giardino Valeria (2014), « Diagramming: Connecting Cognitive Systems to Improve Reasoning », dans András Benedek & János Kristóf Nyíri (éds.), The Power of the Image: Emotion, Expression, Explanation, Francfort-sur-le-Main, Peter Lang.

Goodwin Charles (2017), Co-operative action, Cambridge (MA), Cambridge University Press.

Guy Thomas (2020), Gestion diagrammatique des connaissances sur les lignées techniques de télescopes, Thèse de doctorat, Université Paris-Saclay.

Ingold Tim, Lines: A Brief History, Londres/New York, Routledge, 2007. Traduction française par Sophie Renaut : Une brève histoire des lignes, Bruxelles, Zones Sensibles, 2011.

Krämer Sybille (2016), « Entre discursivité et iconicité, un nouveau regard sur les écritures ». Traduction française par Isabelle Klock-Fontanille : Actes sémiotiques, vol. 119.

La Mantia Francesco & Dondero Maria Giulia (éds.) (2021), « Diagrammatic Gestures: Cognition, Mathematics and Semiotics », Metodo, vol. 9, n°1.

La Mantia Francesco, Alunni Charles et Zalamea Fernando (éds.) (2023), Diagrams and Gestures: Mathematics, Philosophy, and Linguistics, Cham, Springer.

Leclercq Bruno (2019), « Iconic virtues of diagrams », Signata. Annales des sémiotiques / Annals of Semiotics, n^o 10, Université de Liège.

Lefebvre Muriel (2002), « Construction et déconstruction des diagrammes de Dynkin », Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, vol. 141-142, n° 1-2, p. 121-126.

Leibniz Gottfried Wilhelm (2018), Mathesis universalis : écrits sur la mathématique universelle, Paris, Librairie philosophique J. Vrin. Textes introduits, traduits du latin et annotés sous la direction de David Rabouin.

Leslie Thomas (2003), « Form as Diagram of Forces: The Equiangular Spiral in the Work of Pier Luigi Nervi », Journal of Architectural Education, vol. 57, n° 2, p. 45-54.

Mancosu Paolo (éd.) (2008), The Philosophy of Mathematical Practice, New York, Oxford University Press.

Manders Kenneth, « The Euclidean Diagram (1995) », dans Paolo Mancosu (éd.), The Philosophy of Mathematical Practice, New York, Oxford University Press, 2008, p. 80-133.

Meyer-Krahmer Benjamin (2013), « Mon cerveau est localisé dans mon encrier ». Traduction française par Bernard Lortholary : Genesis (Manuscrits-Recherche-Invention), vol. 37, p. 103-114.

Mitchell W. J. T. (1981), « Diagrammatology », Critical Inquiry, vol. 7, n° 3, p. 622-633.

Montandon Alain (éd.) (1990), Iconotextes, Clermont-Ferrand, Ophrys.

Netz Reviel, The Shaping of Deduction in Greek Mathematics: A Study in Cognitive History, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1999.

Peirce Charles Sanders (1985), Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, Cambridge (MA), Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Volumes 1 et 2. Édités par Charles Hartshorne et Paul Weiss.

Roth Wolff-Michael & McGinn Michelle K. (1998), « Inscriptions: Toward a Theory of Representing as Social Practice », Review of Educational Research, vol. 68, n° 1, p. 35-59.

Schmitt Jean-Claude (2019), Penser par figure : du compas divin aux diagrammes magiques, Paris, Arkhê.

Simondon Gilbert (2005), L’individuation à la lumière des notions de forme et d’information, Grenoble, Millon.

Stiegler Bernard (1994), « Machines à écrire et matières à penser », Genesis (Manuscrits-Recherche-Invention), vol. 5, n° 1, p. 25-49.

Stiegler Bernard (2010), « Le concept d’ ‟Idiotexte” : esquisses », Intellectica, vol. 53, n° 1, p. 51-65.

Stjernfelt Frederik (2007), Diagrammatology: An Investigation on the Borderlines of Phenomenology, Ontology, and Semiotics, Dordrecht, Springer.

Vandendriessche Éric & Da Silva Alban (2022, juin). « Les dessins sur le sable du Nord de l’île d’Ambrym (Vanuatu) : une étude ethnomathématique ».

https://www.ethnographiques.org/2022/Vandendriessche_DaSilva

Vogel Jérôme & Chevalier Jean-Marie (2017), « Design et sémiotique. Entretien avec Jérôme Vogel », Cahiers philosophiques, vol. 150, n° 3, p. 153-159.

For volume III-18

Deadline for submission: 30 april 2023

Title of the volume: « Jacques Roger et l’histoire de la pensée scientifique »

Éditors : Pierre-Olivier Méthot & Angela Ferraro

see French version

For volume III-19

Deadline for submission: 15 september 2023

Title of the volume: « L’optique électronique en France après-guerre »

Éditors : Jérôme Lamy & Frédéric Soulu

Physicists at the end of the 19th century sought to explain the astonishing properties of cathode rays, observing their deviations with magnets, or the projection of the image of a metal object placed in their beam (Thomson, 1897; L'Estrange Turner, 1983; Grivet, 1965). Less than 30 years after the discovery of the electron, Louis de Broglie (1892-1987) proposed to associate a wave with the particle. Hans Busch (1884-1973), then assistant professor at the Institute of Physics at the University of Jena, demonstrated that the action of a glass lens on a light beam and that of a magnetic coil on a beam of electrons were described by the same elementary equation. The theoretical foundations of electronic optics were laid (de Broglie, 1923; Busch, 1926; Hawkes, 2004). Television in the United States of America and electron microscopy in Germany were, however, two techniques empirically developed in the 1930s (Müller, 2008; Abramson, 1987). We propose to consider these different devices through the prism of a historical sociology of science that allows for the genericity of scientific instrumentation (Shinn, 2008).

We wish to grasp the way in which these devices entered laboratories and observatories in post-war France and their effects (epistemic, theoretical, practical) on the scientific fields in which they are mobilized. The challenge is to understand the technical, disciplinary and epistemological ways in which electronic optics came to constitute a fertile field of experience within French science after 1945. The multiplicity of domains covered by electronic optics devices offers, in a new way, a broad view on the instrumental anchoring of scientific disciplines. Specifically, this thematic issue will be an opportunity to analyze the conditions of circulation between different fields (military, physics, astronomy, solid state chemistry, industry) of various electronic optical instruments that emerged after the war.

We will take advantage of the thematic issue to re-examine the socio-epistemic conditions that enabled the emergence of electronic optical instruments, namely physics from the 1930s onward. Through this prism, we wish to re-interrogate previous works (Pestre, 1984, 1999, 2004), on the articulations between theory and instrumental practices, on the thematic developments of physics and on the logics of standardization of the new observation techniques.

The articles in the issue will examine the links that may exist between the various instrumental technologies based on electronic optics (e.g. Gaston Dupouy's electronic microscope or André Lallemand's electronic camera). One of the challenges is to produce a detailed analysis of the laboratories created around these techniques and the practices that result from their implementation in the different disciplines. In particular, it is a question of understanding the different links between disciplines that share the common goal of seeking high-performance instrumentation. We know that instrumental circulation is crucial in the homogenization of disciplines. What about electronic optics, which has the property of involving many fields of investigation? Which specialties benefit from its exploitation? In which research segments has the use of electronic optics remained marginal?

Finally, the issue should make it possible to compare the French situation with that prevailing in the United States of America for similar instruments. We shall endeavor to describe the circulation between Germany, France, England and the United States of America in this field in the post-war period. The exploitation of German science at the end of the Second World War, particularly in the field of electronic optics, has been well studied (Defrance, 2001; O'Reagan, 2014). But what do the transfers of these new instruments between the Allies reveal? The technical instrumental sectors have strong national contingencies. Traditions specific to each country in the use of instruments sometimes conditioned the development of disciplines. What about electronic optics? Were there pathways between countries?

We will rely on original contributions from fellow researchers (45,000 characters), on original interviews with actors in the field, but also on records of heritage instruments (5,000 to 10,000 characters) put into service in the immediate post-war period. The instrumental memory, its formatting, conservation and exhibition are an opportunity to understand how these devices are treated from a museographic point of view. Here again, the diversity of the disciplines concerned as well as the circulation of know-how in physics allow us to question the slow sedimentation of a sometimes monumental instrumental heritage (as is the case in Toulouse for example).

You can send your proposal (title, abstract up to 300 words and brief CV) to Jérôme Lamy and Frédéric Soulu before September 15, 2023, in one of the 4 axes of the thematic issue:

Contributions may be submitted in French or in English, in one of the 4 axes of the thematic issue:

• socio-history and epistemology of French physics between the wars,

• case study of an electronic optics instrument circulating in the disciplines linked to post-war French physics in the scientific or industrial field,

• emergence of electronic optics and circulation in places other than France,

• the legacy of this instrumental efflorescence (contextualized portraits).

CALENDAR

The collection of contributions will take place in three stages:

- Before September 15, 2023: a document of intent will be sent to the editors of the issue (jerome.lamy@laposte.net; frederic.soulu@gmail.com). This text (.doc or .pdf) will explain in 5,000 characters (including spaces) the content of the article by referring to the terms and axes of the call for contributions. The authors will be informed of the admissibility of their proposal during October 2023.

- End of May 2024: for accepted proposals, authors will send their articles (between 30,000 and 50,000 characters, spaces included, list of references not included). Authors⋅e⋅s are asked to take note of the Cahiers François Viète publication charter and to follow the journal's editorial guidelines. As a reminder, the articles will be reviewed by two rapporteurs according to the double-blind procedure.

- May 2025: submission of the finalized articles for publication online and on paper in October 2025.

Abramson Albert (1987), The History of Television. 1881 to 1941, Jefferson, McFarlan.

Broglie Louis de (1923), « Ondes et quanta », Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances de l’Académie des sciences, vol. 177, p. 507-510.

Busch Hans (1926), « Berechnung der Bahn von Kathodenstrahlen im axialsymmetrischen elektromagnetischen Felde », Annalen der Physik, vol. 386, n^o 25,‎ p. 973-993.

Defrance Corinne (2001), « La mission du CNRS en Allemagne (1945-1950) », La revue pour l’histoire du CNRS, n° 5, http://journals.openedition.org/histoire-cnrs/3372

Grivet Pierre (1965), Electron Optics, Oxford, Pergamon Press.

Hawkes Peter (2004), « Recent Advances in Electron Optics and Electron Microscopy », Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, vol. 29, Hors série 1, 2004, p. 837-855.

L’Estrange Turner Gerard (1983), Nineteenth-Century Scientific Instruments, Londres, Berkeley, Sotheby Publications, University of California Press, p. 194-196.

Müller Falk (2008), « The Birth of a Modern Instrument and Its Development during World War II: Electron Microscopy in Germany from the 1930s to 1945 », dans A. Maas, H. Hooijmaijers, (éds.), Scientific Research in World War II: What Scientists Did in the War, Londres, Routledge, 2008, p. 121-146. 

O'Reagan Douglas Michael (2014), Science, Technology, and Know-How: Exploitation of German Science and the Challenges of Technology Transfer in the Postwar World, Thesis Dissertation, UC Berkeley, https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3w65f1hm

Pestre Dominique (1984), Physique et physiciens en France, 1918-1940, Paris, Éditions des Archives contemporaines.

Pestre Dominique (1999), « Guerre, renseignement scientifique et reconstruction, France, Allemagne et Grande-Bretagne dans les années 1940 », dans A. Guillerme (éd.), De la diffusion des sciences à l'espionnage industriel xv^e-xx^e siècle : Actes du colloque de Lyon (30-31 mai 1996) de la SFHST. Cahiers d'histoire et de philosophie des sciences n°47, Lyon, ENS Éditions, 1999, p. 183-201. 

Pestre Dominique, « Sciences physiques et recherche industrielle et militaire en France : un changement historique de régime », dans Amy Dahan & Dominique Pestre (éds.), Les sciences pour la guerre 1940-1960, Paris, Éditions de l’École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, p. 317-341.

Shinn Terry (2008), Research-Technology and Cultural Change. Instrumentation, Genericity, Transversality, Oxford, Bardwell.

Thomson J. J. (1897), « XL. Cathode Rays », The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, vol. 44, n°269, p. 293-316; Pierre Grivet, Electron optics, Oxford, Pergamon press, 1965.