Syllabus Social Policies in Europe and the United States: Origins, Reforms, Challenges

Syllabus Social Policies in Europe and the United States: Origins, Reforms, Challenges Professors: Bruno Palier, Nathalie Morel, Allison Rovny, Konstantinos Eleftheriadis Session: July Language of instruction: English Number of hours of class: 36 Objective of the Course The comparative analysis of social policies, programmes and institutions helps us understand why, how and to what effect nations deal with important social problems and issues. The aim of the course is to provide students with a clear idea of the diversity of European social policies and of their historical and political origins, and to allow for the assessment of their performance. The course will also provide an in-depth account of current welfare reforms in light of their historical development. Important social science analysis concepts (de-/recommodification, path dependency...) will also be used in order to understand the issues at stake in recent debates concerning the welfare state and the trajectories of their reforms. The following key questions structure the course: Why did we need the welfare state in the first place? How did we get the (different types of) welfare state? What are the main effects of welfare states? Why do we need to reform the welfare state? What new welfare state do we need and how do we get it? Summary Since World War II, Welfare States have become a crucial element of modern Western societies, giving rise to new forms of citizenship and constituting a major element in the policy-making process of the Nation-state. The emergence and the institutionalization of Welfare States were indeed the main dynamic behind the expansion of the State throughout the growth era that characterized the post-war period until the mid-1970s in most Western countries. From the 1980s, many politicians and analysts started to view the retrenchment of social policies as an economic and political necessity. The aging of the population, the globalization process and the development of normative critiques against public policies paved the way for deep welfare state reforms in many countries. However, starting in the late 1990s, new visions for welfare systems have been put forward around the notion of social investment and especially investment in human capital, which seek to address both the economic and social needs of post-industrial societies. The course will focus on these dynamics and, more precisely, will analyse why Welfare State reforms are such prominent issues. It will seek to identify the vulnerabilities and assets that various forms of welfare systems experience, to analyse the different forms of policies that have been conducted during the past few years and to discuss the justifications and the perspectives that animate the political debate today. Is the globalization process a dynamic that systematically has a negative impact on domestic social policies? Can new social policies become an economic asset in the global competition? How are different countries dealing with the aging of the population? Is the political debate still dominated by neoliberal arguments, or is it possible to identify new diagnoses and new propositions that provide a new role for the Welfare State?

The course will start with a historical and institutional overview of the various ways welfare systems have developed and been organised in the Western world. It will then analyse the changes in the social, economic and political contexts that undermine traditional welfare systems. This will lead to an analysis of the various trends of reforms that have been implemented to cope with demographic, economic and social difficulties, studying in particular pension and health care reforms as well as policies aimed at coping with new social risks. This course will proceed with a general discussion of the new architecture currently proposed for welfare systems in a globalised post-industrial world. In the second half of the course, priority will be given to setting up debates among students drawing upon different themes concerning welfare and using diverse theoretical frameworks. Emerging themes will be explored, such as austerity and sexuality. Finally, a big debate on the Basic Income will be organized. The course ends with oral exams which will take place during the last two days. Organisation of the Course Sessions 1-12/July 3-13 Session 1: The European origins of the welfare state o The national welfare states have common roots and have historically responded to similar challenges. The nation state was made to assume responsibility for the social protection of its citizens, social protection responded to the common challenge posed by the advent of a capitalist economy, and societal demands for social programs were voiced through the channels of liberal democracy. This session will highlight the common sources (nation state, capitalism, liberal democracy) behind the West European welfare state as well as the factors that structured the main differences between them. o Required Readings: ESPING-ANDERSEN, Gøsta, 1990, The three worlds of welfare capitalism, Cambridge, Polity Press. (chapter 1) MANOW, Philip, Van Kersbergen, Kees, Religion, Class Coalitions and Welfare States, Cambridge University Press, chapter 1 (Religion and the Western Welfare State The Theoretical Context) and 9 (by Sigrund Kahl: Religion as a Cultural Force: Social Doctrines and Poor Relief Traditions ). Prepare the following question for discussion: What are the main cleavages structuring the differences in the development of the welfare sates? Session 2: The diversity of welfare models. o A prominent argument in the comparative welfare state literature is that the remarkable diversity and institutional variation among welfare states is not only due to the different timing of national revolutions, the industrial revolution and the extension of suffrage, but has its roots in different political class coalitions, which have led to three distinct welfare regimes: a social-democratic (Nordic) welfare state regime, a liberal (Anglo-Saxon) welfare state regime, and a conservative (continental) welfare state regime. This session will also examine the debates around the regime approach in the comparative welfare state literature. o Required Readings: ARTS, Will, GELISSEN, John, 2002, Three worlds of welfare capitalism or more? A state-of-the-art report, Journal of European Social Policy, 12:2, pp.137-158. ESPING-ANDERSEN, Gøsta, 1990, The three worlds of welfare capitalism, Cambridge, Polity Press. (chapters 2 and 3) PALIER, Bruno, Various sources of income security, ILO working paper. Prepare the following questions for discussion: What are the central values of each welfare regime? Is clustering welfare systems meaningful?

Session 3: Gender, social citizenship and welfare state regimes. o In this session we will analyse how women s social citizenship and gender roles and relations have been conceptualised and institutionalized in different welfare states. We will also discuss how the gendered critique of mainstream accounts of the welfare state has contributed to refining our understanding of the welfare state. Lewis, Jane (1992) Gender and the development of welfare regimes, Journal of European Social Policy, 2(3): 159-73. Orloff, Ann Shola (1993) Gender and the social rights of citizenship: the comparative analysis of gender relations and welfare states in American Sociological Review, 58: 303-328. Prepare the following question for discussion: In what ways and to what extent do the analyses presented by Lewis and by Orloff call into question mainstream welfare state typologies? Session 4: Principles of redistribution and strategies of equality o This session will address the different modes of redistribution of the welfare state and discuss cross-country differences in terms of redistributive ambitions and strategies of equality. This session will also address the role of institutions on interest formation, on the political legitimacy of the welfare state and on its redistributive outcomes. o Required Readings: ALESINA, Alberto & Edward GLAESER (2005) Introduction, in Fighting Poverty in the US and Europe. A World of Difference. OUP. ROTHSTEIN, Bo (1998). Ch. 6: The political and moral logic of the universal welfare state in Just institutions matter: The moral and political logic of the universal welfare state. (pp. 144-70). Prepare the following questions for discussion: Should the state redistribute wealth? If so, how? How can one account for redistributive preferences across the different welfare states? Are some groups more deserving of state redistribution than others? Session 5: The crises of the welfare state o While the post-war period was characterized by a rapid expansion of the welfare state, the mid-1970s marked the beginning of the crisis of the welfare state. While generally portrayed as a financial crisis, it is just as much an ideological crisis with the role and scope of the welfare state being severely called into question, not least by the new dominant neo-liberal ideology. Globalisation is also understood as setting new pressures on welfare states to retrench and converge. While welfare state scholarship initially focused on retrenchment, it increasingly turned towards trying to account for the strong resilience of welfare states. o Required reading: Pierson, Paul (1998), "Irresistible forces, immovable objects: post-industrial welfare states confront permanent austerity, Journal of European Public Policy, 4(4):539-60. Prepare the following question for discussion: What are the pressures for retrenchment and convergence of welfare states, and what are the factors of resilience?

Session 6: The three worlds of welfare state reforms o In recent years, many studies have analysed the reforms implemented in welfare systems in Europe and beyond. While retrenchment seems to have been the basic common answer to the challenges facing the welfare states, more detailed analysis has shown that there have been three main paths of reforms, each of them corresponding to the main welfare regimes identified before. Indeed, it appears that the various welfare regimes do not show the same types or levels of vulnerability in light of the new socio-economic contexts and they have also chosen various paths of reforms. PALIER, Bruno (2004), Social Protection Reforms in Europe: Various National Strategies for a New Social Model for CPRN Project F-82, Seeking a Social Architecture for Canada s 21st Century, Canada. Thelen, Kathleen, Varieties of Capitalism: Trajectories of Liberalization and the New Politics of Social Solidarity Annual Review of Political Science 2012. 15:2.1 2.23 Prepare the following question for discussion: What are the main causes of differences in responses to similar crises? Session 7: Pension systems and pension reforms o European countries are all facing a demographic change that will endanger their pension systems in the near future. This session will analyse the main challenges (beyond demographics, what are the economic and political challenges?) and the trends in the main reforms implemented in various European countries. Hinrichs, Karl, 2011, Pension reforms in Europe: directions and Consequences in Ipek Eren Vural, Converging Europe, Ashgate, pp.93-116 Ebbinghaus, Bernhard (2001) The Varieties of Pension Governance: Pension Privatization in Europe, Oxford University Press, chap.2 Prepare the following question for discussion: Is there a common trend in pension reforms, beyond the specificities of national trajectories? Session 8: Health care systems and their reforms o All European countries have chosen to provide their citizens with health care as a social right. However, they have chosen different ways of organising the services, of financing the health suppliers, and for implementing health policies. This session will be devoted to the ways health care reforms are thought out and implemented, trying to identify general trends and differences in the recent reforms implemented in Europe. Hassenteufel, Patrick, Palier, Bruno, 2007, Comparing Health Insurance Reforms in Bismarckian Countries: Towards Neo-Bismarckian Health Care States? Social Policy and Administration, vol. 41, n 6, pp 574-596 Wendt, Klaus, Frisina, Lorraine and Rothgang, Heinz, 2009, Healthcare System Types: A Conceptual Framework for Comparison, Social Policy & Administration, Vol. 43, No. 1, February 2009,pp. 70 90 Prepare the following question for discussion: What are the main differences between health care systems?

Session 9: Care policy reforms in Europe. o It is now generally understood that promoting women s participation i n t h e w o r k f o r c e and promoting fertility are crucial elements for ensuring the sustainability of welfare states. All countries are now developing policies to promote the reconciliation of work and family life in order to encourage women to both work and have children. Some countries have done so for a long time while others are only starting to develop such policies. The types of policies developed vary greatly from one country to another, reflecting different levels of ambition when it comes to promoting gender equality, as well as differing preferences for public versus market or family solutions. This session will provide an overview of cross-national differences in care policies and their outcomes and discuss reform trajectories in different countries and the driving forces behind these reforms. MORGAN, Kimberly (2013), Path-shifting of the welfare state: electoral competition and the expansion of work-family policies in Western Europe, World Politics, 65(1):73-115. EARLES, Kimberly (2011), Swedish Family Policy Continuity and Change in the Nordic Welfare State Model, Social Policy and Administration, 45(2):180-193. Prepare the following questions: What have been the main drivers of change in the field of care policies? Do care policies promote greater gender equality? Session 10: The dualisation of Europe o The principal component of a European social model was considered to be convergence toward the top in terms of social outcomes. However, the latest trends in terms of economic and social matters are no longer characterized by a steady narrowing of the gap between the more- and less- advanced countries. While all European countries were affected by the economic crisis of 2008 and a coordinated response was put into place in 2009, since 2010, we have seen a growing divergence between two groups of countries in Europe. The first group, mainly in the North of Europe, concentrated around Germany, Austria, the Nordic countries, along with certain Eastern European countries having close economic ties to Germany, has steadily emerged from the crisis and resumed a positive economic and social path. The second group, however, composed mainly of the Southern and Eastern periphery, remains stuck in negative economic and social situations following the crisis. o Required Readings: Palier, Bruno, Rovny, Jan, Rovny, Allison, The dualisations of Europe, manuscript Hall, Peter, 2014, Varieties of Capitalism and the Euro-crisis, West European Politics, 37/6, pp.1223-1243. Prepare the following question for discussion: What are the main planes upon which Europe shows increasing economic and social divides? Session 11: Towards a social investment welfare state? o Since the late 1990s, new ideas and strategies concerning the role and shape of the Welfare State have been formulated, with the focus being placed on developing policies that aim to prepare rather than repair. While different terms and labels have been used, all these analyses point towards a similar policy logic based on social investment. This social investment perspective has also underpinned the Lisbon Agenda, which the European Union adopted in 2000 in order to accompany the shift towards a knowledgebased and service economy and with the aim of making Europe the most dynamic and

competitive knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion, and respect for the environment. The aim of this session is to analyse the content and coherence of the ideas put forward in this new perspective but also to assess how far the social investment strategy has actually come in terms of the policies effectively implemented throughout Europe, and with what outcomes. Morel, Nathalie; Bruno Palier and Joakim Palme (eds). (2012) Towards a social investment welfare state? Ideas, Policies and Challenges, Bristol: Policy press, 2012. (chapter 14). Cantillon, Bea (2011), The paradox of the social investment state: growth, employment and poverty in the Lisbon era, Journal of European Social Policy, 21(5): 432 449. Prepare the following question for discussion: What are the key elements of a social investment strategy? What are the possible pitfalls of such a strategy? Session 12: Welfare State comparative indicators exercise o In this class session, students will get to interact with data values that represent actual welfare states and different countries. They will examine various welfare state inputs (i.e. social policies, union density) and outputs (outcomes like poverty, women s employment, wage dispersion, etc.) and identify the factors which represent the different types of welfare states. We will discuss the different features of the Christian Democratic/ Nordic and Liberal welfare regimes that lead us to draw conclusions about welfare state performance, and in the end, to be able to correctly link inputs and outputs, while identifying which country and welfare regime are likely represented by the data. o Required reading: Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism: The making of a classic. Emmenegger, Kvist, Marx, and Petersen. Journal of European Social Policy 2015, Vol. 25(1) 3 13. In-class assignment based on comparative welfare state and data analysis. Sessions 13-17/July 17-25 The second part of the course has as objective to capitalize on the skills acquired during the previous lectures, by suggesting a debate and dialogue among students. In addition to this, new themes will be discussed, which will help students grasp the contemporary dynamics of welfare transformation. This part of the course will be organized around two activities: 1. Interactive lecture (required readings, assignments for each session) 2. Class debate: class is divided into three groups to discuss a controversial issue (Basic Income is this year s theme) Session 13: The five families of the European Welfare systems o In this class session, students will get the opportunity to reflect upon the various typologies produced in the comparative literature on the welfare states, and referred to in the previous lectures. In addition to this, students will have the opportunity to discuss in depth the different forms of welfare systems, by adding input from Southern and Eastern Europe, two neglected regions in the study of social policies in Europe. M. Ferrara, The Southern Model of Welfare in Social Europe, Journal of European

Social Policy, vol. 6, no 1, 17-3. 1996. H.J.M. Fenger, Welfare regimes in Central and Eastern Europe: Incorporating postcommunist countries in a welfare regime typology, Contemporary Issues and Ideas in Social Sciences, 2007. Assignment for this session: Prepare the following question for discussion: How do Southern and Eastern European perspectives inform us about the development of welfare systems in the enlarged European Union? Session 14: Europeanization and the Welfare regimes o In this class session, students will get the possibility to discuss in detail aspects of Europeanization, i.e. the influence of European legislations and policies on the legislative frameworks, and on the introduction and reforms of social policies and their implementation in the national and regional arena. o o Required readings: B. Palier, The Europeanization of the Welfare Reforms, Working Paper, 2015 A. Guillen and B. Palier. Special Issue on EU Accession, Europeanization and Social Policy, Journal of European Social Policy, 14(3), 2004. Assignment for this session: Prepare the following question for discussion: Does the fact that European welfare states remain different imply that these common European processes are meaningless for welfare reforms? Session 15: The Welfare facing other Institutions: Gender, Sexuality and the Family o In this class session, we will discuss new critical issues concerning welfare. It has been argued that welfare as family policy is principally concerned with promoting and privileging particular kinds of families, and about penalizing and stigmatizing others (Cahill and Jones 2002: 1). The reason is that its conception and implementation often reveal welfare s inscription within patriarchal and heteronormative logics. For instance, in countries where gay marriage is not valid, welfare assistance is not easily provided to homosexual couples or single persons. Moreover, administrations often link the provision of social benefits with a specific concept of family that they take as a necessary condition in order to recognize two individuals as a couple, and thus beneficiaries of welfare. Does sleeping under the same roof or in the same bed with someone make you a couple? o o Required reading: Lind, Legislating the Family: Heterosexist bias in social welfare policy frameworks. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 31(4), 21-35. 2004. Assignment for this session: Prepare the following question for discussion: How are welfare systems connected with the State s conception of couples/families/sexuality? Session 16: Group debate: The Basic Income o The Basic Income is one of the most crucial topics currently discussed in Europe, especially after the financial crisis and the increase of unemployment rates. Supported by very different political parties and social movements, the Basic Income has reached the European level, with debates taking place within the European Parliament, promoted by a European Citizens Initiative (see in the reference list). Although a unique definition is hard to imagine and one way of implementation is difficult to apply, its proponents believe it will revolutionize the structure of the welfare and the redistribution of wealth, by assuring a minimum wage from the state to all citizens. Many grey zones however appear in the conception of the Basic Income: who will benefit from the basic income? will it relate to national citizenship? to what extent will the state assure the maintenance of its public services? is there any risk of outsourcing the choice of services to individuals, who might be asked to select their health insurance or their children s school? These are critical

questions that the debate seeks to address. Students will be divided into three groups, each of them taking a different position. o Readings (please feel free to come up with additional sources): G. Perazzoli, What are the arguments in favor of the basic income? Let s talk about Italy, Working Paper, 2012. H. Levy, M. Matsaganis and H. Sutherland, Simulating the costs and benefits of a Europe-wide Basic income scheme for children, Working Paper, UNICEF, 2014. Van Parijs, P. (2013). The Universal Basic Income: Why Utopian Thinking Matters, and How Sociologists Can Contribute to It. Politics & Society, 41(2), 171-182. Universal Basic Incomes: Sighing for paradise to come. The Economist. 4 June 2016 http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21699910-arguments-state-stipendpayable-all-citizens-are-being-heard-more-widely-sighing http://mybasicincome.org/ https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/the-my-basic-income-project--2#/ http://basicincome2013.eu/ Prepare for the debate. There will be three groups: (1) the Proponents who will openly advocate for the direct and immediate implementation of the basic income; (2) the Opponents, who will claim the negative consequences of such an implementation for economy and society; (3) the Critical voices, who will use all arguments to come up with new ideas concerning wealth distribution. Make use of Internet sources, such as the ones provided above. Session 17: The welfare state after the financial crisis: Impacts on citizens everyday lives o Southern European countries were damaged in their welfare systems because of harsh austerity measures associated with the memorandum of understandings with the EU and the IMF. In this session, we will locate the effects of these austerity measures on these States welfare provisions. Furthermore, we will identify the impact that austerity measures had on the population s health condition and living standards (e.g. increase of suicide rates in Greece). Moreover, we will attempt to identify what sort of opportunities open after the dismantling of the traditional welfare system, and what kind of variations on a new welfare system we can forecast for the future. Finally, we will watch extracts from the Greek documentary Debtocracy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkpxpo-link) on the impact of austerity measures on the Greek population. M. Petmesidou and A. Guillen. Can the welfare State as we know it survive? A view from the crisis-ridden South European periphery. South European Society and Politics. 19(3). 295-307. 2014. M. Karamesini, Social policies in times of austerity, interview on the Greek News Agenda, http://www.greeknewsagenda.gr/index.php/featuresinterviews/interviews/6034-social-policy-in-times-of-austerity-maria-karamesini-ontackling-unemployment-in-greece Prepare the following question for discussion: Why is welfare severely affected by the financial crisis? What is the role of politicians in maintaining a decent standard of living for all citizens? Bibliography Besides the texts to be discussed in each session of the course, students should read the following books: Esping-Andersen, Gøsta, 1990, The three worlds of welfare capitalism, Cambridge, Polity Press. Morel, Nathalie; Bruno Palier and Joakim Palme (eds). (2012) Towards a social investment welfare state? Ideas, Policies and Challenges, Bristol: Policy press, 2012.

Requirements for course validation Students are expected to: o Read the required readings, prepare the assigned questions. Participate in discussions during the lectures. o Write a social policy/welfare reform analysis (2500/3000 words including bibliography). GRADING: The grading is based upon overall performance. More specifically: Group debate: 30% Critical Paper on articles*: 30% Oral Exam (27 and 28 July): 30% In-class Participation: 10% * The critical paper on articles Students can choose two articles used during the lectures and/or the seminars. The note should not only present the content of the two articles, but also offer a critical analysis and reflection on them in light of what has been read and discussed during the course. The paper should contain the following: 1. A brief presentation and synthesis of the articles. The aim of the synthesis is not to summarize all elements of the articles but to provide the key arguments / thesis of the author/s (main questions / hypotheses, arguments and findings, main theoretical contributions) and a presentation of the methods used. 2. Your critical assessment should relate to the thesis, methods, arguments, results of the author/s (in light of what has been seen and read during the course), but can also comprise a personal reflection on the issues raised (but you should make clear references to the book throughout your commentary i.e. it should not be just a collection of free thoughts on the general topic, but really a critical reflection based on the book). 3. A bibliography listing all the references used in your commentary. Make sure to include references in your text where appropriate (using the Harvard system for instance (author date, page)) A quote or copy-paste of a text without any explicit reference is considered as plagiarism and is strictly prohibited. The paper shall not exceed 1000 words (please write the number of words at the top of the paper). Professors Biographies Bruno Palier is CNRS Research Director at Sciences Po, Centre d études européennes. Trained in social science, he has a PHD in Political science, and is a former student at the Ecole Normale Supérieure. He studies welfare reforms in Europe. He is an Honorary Professor in Welfare State research at the University of South Denmark. He was a Guest Professor at the University of Stockholm (Spring 2009 and 2010), Visiting Scholar at Northwestern University (Spring quarter 2007, at the Center for European Studies at Harvard University in 2001, and Jean Monet Fellow in the European University Institute in Florence in 1998-1999. He has published numerous articles on welfare reforms in France and in Europe in Politics and Society, Journal of European Social Policy, West European Politics, Governance, Socio-Economic Review, Global Social Policy, Social Politics, and various books. In 2012, he co- edited The Age of Dualization: The Changing Face of Inequality in Deindustrializing Societies. (with Emmenegger, Patrick, Häusermann, Silja, and Seeleib-Kaiser, Martin), Oxford University Press, and Towards a social investment welfare state? Ideas, Policies and Challenges, (with Morel, Nathalie and Palme, Joakim), Bristol: Policy Press. In 2010, he edited A long Good Bye to Bismarck? The Politics of Welfare Reforms in Continental Europe, Amsterdam University.

Nathalie Morel holds a PhD in sociology from University Paris I, Panthéon-Sorbonne. From 2008 to 2010, she worked as post-doctoral researcher at the Institute for Futures Studies in Stockholm. Her research interests are in comparative social policy and labor markets, with a special interest in care policies, gender, social investment policies, domestic services, socio-fiscal policies / fiscal welfare, the financing of the welfare state, and in the Swedish welfare state. She has co-edited (with Bruno Palier & Joakim Palme) Towards a social investment welfare state? Ideas, policies and challenges, Policy Press, 2012, and (with Clément Carbonnier) The political economy of household services in Europe, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015. She is codirector of the LIEPP "socio-fiscal" research group. She is an elected board member of the French Sociological Association RT6 (Social policies, social protection) since 2004, of the ISA RC19 (Research Committee on Poverty, Social Welfare and Social Policy) since 2014, and of Espanet (European social policy network association) since 2015. Allison E. Rovny, Ph.D., is a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Gothenburg, Centre for European Research (CERGU). Her research focuses on the welfare state, the presence of new social risks in postindustrial political economies, and the growing divide between those deemed to be insiders and outsiders. The term new social risks arguably signifies one of the defining areas of contemporary research on welfare state adaptations in advanced affluent democracies. In Rovny s research, she examines how the various worlds of welfare provision specifically, social policy tools affect the well-being of new social risk groups, and whether we are indeed witnessing an emergence of labor market and welfare state outsiders. She has investigated the determinants of outsiderness expressed as single parent income, child poverty rate, and youth unemployment. She has also analyzed the effects of social policies on the likelihood of being France, Sweden, and Germany, and probe the extent to which a divide between labor market insiders and outsiders has cemented over time, and whether the welfare state exacerbates or ameliorates this dualism. Konstantinos Eleftheriadis, Ph.D., is a postdoctoral researcher at the EHESS in Paris, and Instructor of Sociology at SciencesPo-Paris and University Paris-13. His research focuses on the politics of gender and sexuality mobilizations, the interactions with the State, and minorities counterpublic spheres. In his current work, Eleftheriadis examines the way the public debate after the Charlie Hebdo attacks was built in France, paying attention to the relational dynamics between government, media and education actors. In his previous work, he studied how queer actors are constructing new imaginaries on families, relationships and sex and how traditional ideas about the latter are challenged in prefigurative political festivals.