Explore the vast range of titles available.

Research context: This article takes on the point of view that places the focus on the individual, despite belonging within a family group, and explores the concept of home as a space that contributes to the formation of an “individualized individual,” but that also takes into account the possible limits of this function of home.Objectives: This overview aims to define the concept of home in order to identify all of its dimensions. While the spatial, temporal and relational dimensions of home can be distinguished for the purposes of analysis, on the one hand, the article aims to show how they are intimately articulated in the experiences of individuals to support the construction of their personal identity, their autonomy, their self-empowerment and their relationship to location or place (Simard and Savoie, 2009); and how they are closely linked in the construction of groups and family relationships.Methodology: This article is based on a literature review and on the contributions to this issue to present the concept of home and the theoretical perspective taken.Results: In family, marital and intergenerational cohabitation, the construction of home is played out in interaction with other family members, who also have their own constructions and conceptions of home. These constructions and understandings produce differentiated and sometimes asymmetrical relationships, as well as three different experiences of home. The first refers to personal spaces, “at my home”; the second, to the rules and laws that govern cohabitation and the space in which home is located. In this case, it is defined by a statutory and hierarchical aspect, and the individual has a place assigned by his status. This is designated as “at my parent’s home.” The third is represented by belonging and by a place in a group or community where the individual is considered equal. This is belonging to “our home”. If the first “home” is the main factor in the process of individualization, so are the other two: one explains the boundaries of the “home,” and the other, the individual's belonging to the group, especially the family.Conclusions: The question of home leads to two aspects: the relationship with home of the sole inhabitant and the relationship with home of the inhabitant together with others. In this second aspect, there is a tension between a logic of autonomy and a logic of belonging as a member of the group. Being a member of the group, interpreted as being at our home, has two dimensions: being assigned to our home and belonging to our home. In this sense, our home acts as a constraint on the concept of home, and the family appears to be a paradoxical validation of the individual. Thus, the family has a dual function: to make it possible to be oneself (by privileging personal spaces and validating individual dimensions of identity) and to acknowledge that each member belongs to the group and has a place in it. The limits of the individualization of the home become apparent when there is an imbalance among these three aspects of “home”: having a personal space, being assigned within our home, and belonging to our home.Contribution: Home is a valuable perspective in this construction, which links the past, present and future: having been, being and becoming. The iterative movement between home and identity is central to the formation of the individual and the family group.

Research Framework: In a context characterized by new possibilities for parenthood within societies where family structures are becoming increasingly diverse, the issue of knowing one's origins is currently provoking intense political, social and scientific debates. These debates are emblematic of a more general movement that reflects a growing interest in the question of origins within contemporary patterns of family configuration, whether created by adoption or assisted reproduction. The concept of origins is thus a particularly relevant window shedding light on current social and political issues surrounding the future of adoption, the conditions for assisted reproduction through donation, the legislative framework of surrogacy and the application of biogenetic knowledge, as well as an opportunity to analyze contemporary reconfigurations of kinship and family links.Objectives: To identify the primary issues underlying the discourse on personal origins by outlining the context from which it emerged, and by bringing together the various disciplinary approaches to define its parameters.Methodology: This article is based on the various authors' contributions in this issue, as well as on theoretical and empirical studies that show how the concept of origins is used by those involved in adoption and assisted reproduction. The comparative perspective is chosen for this article.Results: The focus on origins reveals a profound evolution linked to the growing dissociation of procreation from kinship, which appear to be leading to the emergence of \"new\" relationships and actors. The rapid advancement of reproductive technologies is broadening the circumstances, already present in adoption, in which people have children but do not become parents in the legal sense, remaining \"at the edges\" of kinship.Conclusions: The concept of origins provides a particularly rich field for examining current representations and interpretations of the individuals associated with it (birth \"parents\" in adoption, egg and sperm donors, women who have carried a child for others), the narratives that shape them, and the place they occupy (or their absence) in the accounts of those who are adopted or are born through surrogacy.Contribution: This article brings a theoretical and heuristic approach to the concept of origins and demonstrates its relevance for examining the multiple relational realities created by current family arrangements. The articles in this issue all contribute to this examination by reflecting in complementary ways on the question of parentage.

Research framework: Although immigrants participate in many domains of the host society, their integration may prove difficult, for some time after their arrival.Objectives : This issue aims to provide a better understanding of the trajectories of migrant families and their contributions to the societies to which they belong. It aims to give an account of adaptation and integration strategies based on pre- and post-migration histories, through the prism of the family.Methodology: The methods come from a variety of disciplinary fields, including sociology, anthropology, social and transcultural psychiatry, literature, psychology, social work and history. The various qualitative approaches mainly concern family and individual trajectories, as well as intergenerational trajectories, in different societies.Results: Family transformations result from factors linked to the family's pre-migration past, but also from the characteristics of the society where migrants arrive, including the bureaucracy surrounding migration and settlement, the services provided (or not provided) to migrant families, non-recognition of qualifications and work experience, discrimination, and so on. These aspects that are \"external\" to the family can condition relationships, well-being and the quality of life within the family.Conclusion : Migration transforms families who arrive or that are formed in host countries. Their integration and participation in host societies and the links maintained with the country of origin are influenced by a series of individual, family, societal and global factors. In particular, parental migration can have significant consequences on the well-being of children who may have experienced trauma and anxiety arising from difficult situations along the way.Contribution : Using a multidisciplinary, qualitative approach, the authors demonstrate the importance of documenting family issues associated with migration. The complexity of migrants' journeys, their resilience and their ability to adapt to the host society described in this issue bear witness to the urgent need to work towards better recognition of their skills, simplify administrative procedures and facilitate their access to healthcare.

Heralded by many as a masterpiece and touted by some as a classic, Venedikt Erofeev's Moskva-Petushki is the modernist samizdat text. Boldly subversive in form and content, this ground-breaking and—most perplexing—work ushered in an era of innovative prose, most of which flourished in exile. This dissertation demonstrates, one the one hand, that Moskva-Petushki reflects some of the formal and thematic preoccupations of the most original writers of its time, but, on the other, surpasses them in the boldness of its assertions. Chapters One and Two explore the poema's subversive form and content from the angles of external (circularity) and internal (spatial form) structure, respectively. Chapters Three and Four focus on its subversive fragmented narrative voice: the split between aberrant self and other; and schizophrenia as a dynamic perspective on “reality.”