The thesis falls within the field of social philosophy and is inspired more precisely by the tradition of German critical Theory and its cross-disciplinary orientation. Its object is the critical examination of the concept of precarity, both the problem that the concept seeks to grasp and the critical concept itself.

In the last forty years, since the emergence of words conceptualizing precarity ("precarity", "precariousness", "precarization", "precariat") and their earliest studies, the sociological literature on this subject has burgeoned. Indeed, as the obverse of neoliberal flexibility, precarity, has inspired works on various problems and on a range of scales. These converge mainly toward a conceptualization of precarity as a "social pathology", threatening the cohesion of society as a whole and menacing with exclusion those in unstable positions. Globally, the present thesis finds blind spots and limits to this reading of precarity, starting with the difficulty of discerning the boundary line between positive flexibility and negative precarity in the workplace. Our critical study first calls into question this "pathological" reading of precarity, which has become a generally accepted representation of the subject.

Using France as its basis, the thesis explores the history of transformations in the organization of work and social security at the turning point between Fordism and post-Fordism. It was during these transformations that the first vocabulary of precarity was formulated in France in the 1970s (part I). The thesis focuses on the sociogenesis of critical concepts and its patterning of precarity and exclusion (parts I and II). Based on these studies, the author proposes a critical theory of precarity as a phenomenon linked to the neo-liberalization of the structures of developed capitalist states and as a concept capable of grasping a reality (diagnostic) as well as categorizing the social (ideological) world. Finally, the thesis leads to an understanding of the problem of the "precarious" population in the light of a philosophy of misery and sees in neoliberal precarity an organization of dispossession, in the Marxist sense of the term (part III). In other words, the “precarious” population is conceived above all as dispossessed. The development of autonomous collective projects is thus seen as consequence of this dispossession and offers fertile ground for political reflection.