In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

| XVII editOrs’ nOte On the translatiOn Of the wOrds “public” and “nOn-public” Why did we choose not to translate “public” and “non-public” and to use the neologism non-public? Certain non-francophone readers will no doubt wonder at the use of the word “public” and the neologism “non-public” in this volume, although these expressions have become quite common in Europe. “Non-public” was used for the first time in May, 1968, by those working professionally in the cultural domain in France. At the time, they were gathered in Villeurbanne at the head office of the TNP (French National Popular Theatres), and they used this notion in a very militant way to describe all those who were excluded from culture, and whom they considered to have a fundamental right to all cultural offers. In 1973, in his book L’Action culturelle dans la cité, Francis Jeanson reexamined the notion, this time making a distinction between the regular audience (public), the potential audience and the non-audience (non-public). For Jeanson, the expression non-public needs to be defined in relation to public, to which it is opposed as an antonym. He said in 1973: When i proposed the expression non-public to designate those who are excluded from culture i could not have imagined the surprising misunderstandings to which it would give rise for years to come. and yet, the efforts that i had to make to dissipate those misunderstandings allowed me to understand their very roots. for me, and, i believe, for many of my colleagues, the non-public was the vast majority of the population: all those men and women to whom society does not supply (or even refuses) the means to “choose freely.” What we wanted was for this population to “break out” of its present isolation, to break free of its ghetto, by becoming more and more active in the historical and social contexts. We wanted this population to free itself more and more of the mystifications of all kinds that tend to make it, within itself, XVIII | Looking for non-pubLics an accomplice to the very situations that are inflicted upon it. We wanted, from the very beginning, to turn cultural initiatives into an “enterprise of politicization,”1 (own translation) In English, neither “public” (which might be understood as being “not private”) nor “non-public” are easy to translate.2 The problem was confirmed by several anglophone researchers with whom we discussed the question. Dr. Christopher Plumb, Temporary Lecturer in Museology from the Centre of Museology, University of Manchester, considers that “public” has several connotations and meanings, and that “non-public” has no meaning for anglophones. Jocelyn Dodd, Director of the Research Centre for Museums and Galleries at the University of Leicester also believes that English speakers would be perplexed by the term “non-public” and that it would make no sense to them. However, if we used the common words like “audience” or “non-spectators” to designate those who simply go or do not go to museum institutions or to the cinema, we would somehow miss the singularity carried by the notion of “public” and “non-public.” We are fully aware that these terms might be irritating for a British reader, especially as they are found throughout this multi-author book but “audience” and “missing or absent audiences” simply do not suit because of their passive character. “Visitors” and “non-visitors” can only be used for museums, art galleries and festivals and do not suit the cinema, for which we would need to talk about “viewers,” “spectators” or “audience.” Furthermore, “participants ” and “non-participants” are too vague and do not really capture the dimension of a collective and conscious act that the French term “public” evokes. So, even if we must leave our anglophone readers a little perplexed, we have chosen to keep the French expressions as they stand. They represent a particular notion that dates to a specific moment in history and, by its very singularity, seems to capture the real desire in France to democratize culture. Since the 2010 publication of this review in French, a more recent article has been written in English and published in the Journal of Science Communication, in which the author refers to “different kinds of publics: target public, public, nonpublic , potential public” (Van Roten, 2011: 2). We would like to think that our Anglophone readers will bear with us, enjoy reading this work and perhaps even consider using this somewhat original linguistic creation in...

Share