Political violence and the practice of security - Historique des versions

Arthur le 29 mai 2021 à 21:54

2021-05-29T21:54:57Z

← Version précédente		Version du 29 mai 2021 à 23:54
Ligne 29 :		Ligne 29 :
	War is not necessarily universalisable, it is not something natural and ahistorical. War as a form of political violence is historically easy to locate as a form of historical experience in Europe and the West. To understand the phenomenon of violence in Europe, tackling a European phenomenon may not be the best tool to deal with political violence in the world.		War is not necessarily universalisable, it is not something natural and ahistorical. War as a form of political violence is historically easy to locate as a form of historical experience in Europe and the West. To understand the phenomenon of violence in Europe, tackling a European phenomenon may not be the best tool to deal with political violence in the world.

	We will propose a general framework for analysis. The idea is to alternate considerations on the one hand general and theoretical and on the other hand to show that these theories are not there to simply verify knowledge, but to understand conflicts or conflict situations in particular practices of security and transformation. The aim is to alternate these theoretical considerations with very practical case studies such as the conflicts in Syria and Afghanistan.		We will propose a general framework for analysis. The idea is to alternate considerations on the one hand general and theoretical and on the other hand to show that these theories are not there to simply verify knowledge but to understand conflicts or conflict situations in particular practices of security and transformation. The aim is to alternate these theoretical considerations with very practical case studies such as the conflicts in Syria and Afghanistan.

	The question of the "how" of war is a matter of why a particular war takes place at such a time. We often ask the question of why, but in this course, we will ask the question of how. War must take place in time and history, as opposed to a view that wars have always taken place, and they have not varied either in their explanation or in their fact. The war is situated in time and since this beginning, the war has varied a lot, Clausewitz says that the war is a chameleon that changes aspect in context, but remains the same in essence.		The question of the "how" of war is a matter of why a particular war takes place at such a time. We often ask the question of why, but in this course, we will ask the question of how. War must take place in time and history, as opposed to a view that wars have always taken place, and they have not varied either in their explanation or in their fact. The war is situated in time and since this beginning, the war has varied a lot, Clausewitz says that the war is a chameleon that changes aspect in context, but remains the same in essence.

Arthur le 18 avril 2021 à 16:09

2021-04-18T16:09:38Z

Arthur le 14 avril 2021 à 08:16

2021-04-14T08:16:47Z

← Version précédente		Version du 14 avril 2021 à 10:16
Ligne 49 :		Ligne 49 :
	\| fr = La violence politique et la pratique de la sécurité		\| fr = La violence politique et la pratique de la sécurité
	\| es = Violencia política y práctica de la seguridad		\| es = Violencia política y práctica de la seguridad
			\| lt = Politinis smurtas ir praktika saugumo srityje
	}}		}}

Arthur : /* The war: how? */

2021-03-19T14:11:19Z

The war: how?

← Version précédente		Version du 19 mars 2021 à 16:11
Ligne 54 :		Ligne 54 :
	The idea is not to wonder why some wars happen at one time and not at another, or even to wonder why some wars didn't happen when you might think they were going to start. In peace and conflict studies, we ask ourselves the question of the determinants of conflict in order to understand in which situation a war can be seen to emerge, why in certain situations a war has not emerged.		The idea is not to wonder why some wars happen at one time and not at another, or even to wonder why some wars didn't happen when you might think they were going to start. In peace and conflict studies, we ask ourselves the question of the determinants of conflict in order to understand in which situation a war can be seen to emerge, why in certain situations a war has not emerged.

	We will try to understand what are the structural conditions of possibility of war, that is to say what makes war possible in the absolute. How human beings make the phenomenon of war possible, whatever the regional area, whatever the historical period. What are the conditions that make the phenomenon of war possible. If we ask the question in this way, we no longer ask why the First World War began in 1914 and not in 1915, we no longer ask why there was no Third World War, but we ask what ~~are~~ the permissive conditions, that is to say, the conditions of possibility that have made war possible and made it a practice that seems to us today to be permanent and universal, but which is also not. What are the sine qua non conditions of 'war'? In other words, what are the necessary conditions of war, how a war is possible and why and how a war was impossible and why?		We will try to understand what are the structural conditions of possibility of war, that is to say what makes war possible in the absolute. How human beings make the phenomenon of war possible, whatever the regional area, whatever the historical period. What are the conditions that make the phenomenon of war possible? If we ask the question in this way, we no longer ask why the First World War began in 1914 and not in 1915, we no longer ask why there was no Third World War, but we ask what the permissive conditions are, that is to say, the conditions of possibility that have made war possible and made it a practice that seems to us today to be permanent and universal, but which is also not. What are the sine qua non conditions of 'war'? In other words, what are the necessary conditions of war, how war is possible and why and how war was impossible and why?

	== The war according to Hedley Bull ==		== The war according to Hedley Bull ==

Arthur : /* The war: how? */

2021-03-19T14:09:30Z

The war: how?

← Version précédente		Version du 19 mars 2021 à 16:09
Ligne 54 :		Ligne 54 :
	The idea is not to wonder why some wars happen at one time and not at another, or even to wonder why some wars didn't happen when you might think they were going to start. In peace and conflict studies, we ask ourselves the question of the determinants of conflict in order to understand in which situation a war can be seen to emerge, why in certain situations a war has not emerged.		The idea is not to wonder why some wars happen at one time and not at another, or even to wonder why some wars didn't happen when you might think they were going to start. In peace and conflict studies, we ask ourselves the question of the determinants of conflict in order to understand in which situation a war can be seen to emerge, why in certain situations a war has not emerged.

	We will ~~seek~~ to understand what are the conditions of ~~structural possibilities~~ of war, that is, what makes war possible in the absolute. How human beings, whatever the regional area, whatever the period~~, what~~ conditions make the phenomenon of war possible. If we ask the question in this way, we no longer ask why the First World War began in 1914 and not in 1915, we no longer ask why there was no Third World War, but we ask ~~the question of~~ what are the permissive conditions, that is, the conditions of ~~possibilities~~ that ~~allowed~~ war ~~to take place~~ and ~~make~~ it a practice that seems to us today to be permanent and universal, but which is not. What are the sine qua non conditions ~~for "~~war"? In other words, what are the necessary conditions of war, how is ~~war~~ possible and why and how ~~and why~~ was ~~war~~ impossible and why?		We will try to understand what are the structural conditions of possibility of war, that is to say what makes war possible in the absolute. How human beings make the phenomenon of war possible, whatever the regional area, whatever the historical period. What are the conditions that make the phenomenon of war possible. If we ask the question in this way, we no longer ask why the First World War began in 1914 and not in 1915, we no longer ask why there was no Third World War, but we ask what are the permissive conditions, that is to say, the conditions of possibility that have made war possible and made it a practice that seems to us today to be permanent and universal, but which is also not. What are the sine qua non conditions of 'war'? In other words, what are the necessary conditions of war, how a war is possible and why and how a war was impossible and why?

	== The war according to Hedley Bull ==		== The war according to Hedley Bull ==

Arthur le 15 avril 2019 à 13:52

2019-04-15T13:52:39Z

← Version précédente		Version du 15 avril 2019 à 15:52
Ligne 31 :		Ligne 31 :
	We will propose a general framework for analysis. The idea is to alternate considerations on the one hand general and theoretical and on the other hand to show that these theories are not there to simply verify knowledge, but to understand conflicts or conflict situations in particular practices of security and transformation. The aim is to alternate these theoretical considerations with very practical case studies such as the conflicts in Syria and Afghanistan.		We will propose a general framework for analysis. The idea is to alternate considerations on the one hand general and theoretical and on the other hand to show that these theories are not there to simply verify knowledge, but to understand conflicts or conflict situations in particular practices of security and transformation. The aim is to alternate these theoretical considerations with very practical case studies such as the conflicts in Syria and Afghanistan.

	The question of the "how" of war is a matter of why a particular war takes place at such a time. We often ask the question of why, but in this course we will ask the question of how. War must take place in time and history, as opposed to a view that wars have always taken place, and they have not varied either in their explanation or in their fact. The war is situated in time and since this beginning the war has varied a lot, Clausewitz says that the war is a chameleon that changes aspect in context, but remains the same in essence.		The question of the "how" of war is a matter of why a particular war takes place at such a time. We often ask the question of why, but in this course, we will ask the question of how. War must take place in time and history, as opposed to a view that wars have always taken place, and they have not varied either in their explanation or in their fact. The war is situated in time and since this beginning, the war has varied a lot, Clausewitz says that the war is a chameleon that changes aspect in context, but remains the same in essence.

	The aim is to look at the practice of organised violence, not for its own sake, but in order to better analyse its social and historical context. What is important to understand is that in seeking to understand the practice of organized violence, it is not seeking to understand violence in absolute terms. Organized violence has its own dynamics and logics that distinguish it from forms of violence and interindividual forms, and wars and armed conflicts cannot be understood without proper focus. It shows that organized violence has its own logics that require specific tools to understand it.		The aim is to look at the practice of organised violence, not for its own sake, but in order to better analyse its social and historical context. What is important to understand is that in seeking to understand the practice of organized violence, it is not seeking to understand violence in absolute terms. Organized violence has its own dynamics and logics that distinguish it from forms of violence and interindividual forms, and wars and armed conflicts cannot be understood without proper focus. It shows that organized violence has its own logics that require specific tools to understand it.
Ligne 66 :		Ligne 66 :
	[[Fichier:Discurso funebre pericles.PNG\|thumb\|300px\|alt=Tableau montrant Périclès durant son oraison funèbre.\|Périclès durant son oraison funèbre.]]		[[Fichier:Discurso funebre pericles.PNG\|thumb\|300px\|alt=Tableau montrant Périclès durant son oraison funèbre.\|Périclès durant son oraison funèbre.]]

	In this sense, organizations generally involve relationships that are different from those of primary groups that are presumed to be spontaneous, unplanned or informal, such as in the context of a family or clan. In general sociology, a primary group is the groups based on the fact that each individual shares the same referents, particularly cultural ones, who share the same beliefs, the same sense of solidarity within the group, and a common culture that implies socialization such as the family, the clan, the village community. An organization is much more about a principle of differentiation, it is not the fact that individuals within the organization have the same role or belief that makes an organization strong, but what makes socialization is the fact that everyone knows their place. An organization involves different relationships, because it is hierarchical, organized and goal-oriented. The U. S. military doctrine clearly states that "The Army's mission is to fight and win our Nation's wars". There is an explicit written objective that is one of the characteristics of explicitly formulating an organization that is not the case for primary groups.		In this sense, organizations generally involve relationships that are different from those of primary groups that are presumed to be spontaneous, unplanned or informal, such as in the context of a family or clan. In general sociology, a primary group is the groups based on the fact that each individual shares the same referents, particularly cultural ones, who share the same beliefs, the same sense of solidarity within the group, and a common culture that implies socialization such as the family, the clan, the village community. An organization is much more about a principle of differentiation, it is not the fact that individuals within the organization have the same role or belief that makes an organization strong, but what makes socialization is the fact that everyone knows their place. An organization involves different relationships because it is hierarchical, organized and goal-oriented. The U. S. military doctrine clearly states that "The Army's mission is to fight and win our Nation's wars". There is an explicit written objective that is one of the characteristics of explicitly formulating an organization that is not the case for primary groups.

	Without a complex and hierarchical organisation, i. e. one that is also binding and possibly coercive, there can be no war. In other words, between individuals that we are an a priori unorganized individual, there can be no war because war requires complex organizations with a principle of differentiation, functions imposed by a hierarchy based in particular on coercion and many aspects of which are punished by disciplinary measures.		Without a complex and hierarchical organisation, i. e. one that is also binding and possibly coercive, there can be no war. In other words, between individuals that we are an a priori unorganized individual, there can be no war because war requires complex organizations with a principle of differentiation, functions imposed by a hierarchy based in particular on coercion and many aspects of which are punished by disciplinary measures.

Arthur le 11 février 2018 à 14:37

2018-02-11T14:37:59Z

← Version précédente		Version du 11 février 2018 à 16:37
Ligne 8 :		Ligne 8 :
	\| assistants =		\| assistants =
	\| enregistrement = [https://mediaserver.unige.ch/collection/AN3-1220-2014-2015.rss 2014], [https://mediaserver.unige.ch/collection/AN3-1220-2014-2015.rss 2015]		\| enregistrement = [https://mediaserver.unige.ch/collection/AN3-1220-2014-2015.rss 2014], [https://mediaserver.unige.ch/collection/AN3-1220-2014-2015.rss 2015]
	\| cours = [[~~La violence politique et la pratique de la sécurité~~]]		\| cours = [[Political Violence and Security Practices]]
	\| lectures =		\| lectures =
	*[[Political violence and the practice of security]]		*[[Political violence and the practice of security]]

Arthur le 11 février 2018 à 14:33

2018-02-11T14:33:56Z

← Version précédente		Version du 11 février 2018 à 16:33
Ligne 1 :		Ligne 1 :
			{{Infobox Lecture
			\| image =
			\| image_caption =
			\| faculté =
			\| département =
			\| professeurs = [[Stephan Davidshofer]]<ref>[[http://unige.academia.edu/StephanDavidshofer\|Stephan Davidshofer \| University of Geneva]] - Academia.edu</ref><ref>[http://www.cairn.info/publications-de-Davidshofer-Stephan--56940.htm Publications de Stephan Davidshofer] \| Cairn.info</ref><ref>Davidshofer, Stephan. “[http://www.theses.fr/2009IEPP0047 La Gestion De Crise Européenne Ou Quand L'Europe Rencontre La Sécurité : Modalités Pratiques Et Symboliques D'une Autonomisation].” Http://Www.theses.fr/, Paris, Institut D'études Politiques, 1 Jan. 2009</ref> <br> [[Christian Olsson]]<ref>[http://philoscsoc.ulb.be/fr/users/colsson Page personnelle de Christian Olsson sur le site de l'Université Libre de Bruxelles]</ref><ref>[http://ulb.academia.edu/COlsson Page de Christian Olsson sur Academia.edu]</ref><ref>[https://fr.linkedin.com/in/christian-olsson-2ba437b Profile Linkedin de Christian Olsson]</ref>
			\| assistants =
			\| assistants =
			\| enregistrement = [https://mediaserver.unige.ch/collection/AN3-1220-2014-2015.rss 2014], [https://mediaserver.unige.ch/collection/AN3-1220-2014-2015.rss 2015]
			\| cours = [[La violence politique et la pratique de la sécurité]]
			\| lectures =
			*[[Political violence and the practice of security]]
			*[[The birth of modern warfare: war-making and state-making from a Western perspective]]
			*[[Transformations of war and violence in Europe]]
			*[[War beyond the West: is the modern state a Western invention?]]
			*[[What is non-state violence? The Case of Afghan Conflict]]
			*[[Intervention: Reinventing war?]]
			*[[Security professionals: bureaucratization, institutionalization, professionalization and differentiation]]
			*[[The transformation of contemporary security practices: between war and global policing?]]
			*[[The transformation of contemporary security practices: the logic of risk]]
			*[[Privatized coercion: from mercenarism to private military companies]]
			*[[Intelligence and Surveillance]]
			}}

	We will look at war as the starting point for security practices. War is a form of organized violence. The point of entry is the birth of war, which is understood by war as a historical phenomenon. Through the war in the West, states have structured themselves around what it means to wage war. We will return to a historical sociology with Bourdieu, Tilly and Norbert Elias recounting how Western states were formed in a long process that allowed the concentration of power through war. By waging war, states become more powerful, state-controlled and bureaucratized. We are talking about the process of civilization of states. The state and the management of violence have been central elements in order to be able to talk about security today.		We will look at war as the starting point for security practices. War is a form of organized violence. The point of entry is the birth of war, which is understood by war as a historical phenomenon. Through the war in the West, states have structured themselves around what it means to wage war. We will return to a historical sociology with Bourdieu, Tilly and Norbert Elias recounting how Western states were formed in a long process that allowed the concentration of power through war. By waging war, states become more powerful, state-controlled and bureaucratized. We are talking about the process of civilization of states. The state and the management of violence have been central elements in order to be able to talk about security today.

Arthur le 9 février 2018 à 16:15

2018-02-09T16:15:08Z

← Version précédente		Version du 9 février 2018 à 18:15
Ligne 22 :		Ligne 22 :
	#Guerilla, etc.		#Guerilla, etc.

			{{Translations
			\| fr = La violence politique et la pratique de la sécurité
			\| es = Violencia política y práctica de la seguridad
			}}

	= The war: how? =		= The war: how? =
	The idea is not to wonder why some wars happen at one time and not at another, or even to wonder why some wars didn't happen when you might think they were going to start. In peace and conflict studies, we ask ourselves the question of the determinants of conflict in order to understand in which situation a war can be seen to emerge, why in certain situations a war has not emerged.		The idea is not to wonder why some wars happen at one time and not at another, or even to wonder why some wars didn't happen when you might think they were going to start. In peace and conflict studies, we ask ourselves the question of the determinants of conflict in order to understand in which situation a war can be seen to emerge, why in certain situations a war has not emerged.

Arthur : /* References */

2018-02-08T23:01:34Z

References

← Version précédente		Version du 9 février 2018 à 01:01
Ligne 146 :		Ligne 146 :
	<references/>		<references/>

			[[Category:political science]]
	~~[[Category:2014]]~~		[[Category:international relations]]
	[[Category:science~~-politique~~]]
	[[Category:relations ~~internationales]]~~
	~~[[Category:sécurité~~]]
	[[Category:Stephan Davidshofer]]		[[Category:Stephan Davidshofer]]
	[[Category:Christian Olsson]]		[[Category:Christian Olsson]]
			[[Category:security]]
			[[Category:2014]]

← Version précédente		Version du 18 avril 2021 à 18:09
Ligne 25 :		Ligne 25 :
	We will look at war as the starting point for security practices. War is a form of organized violence. The point of entry is the birth of war, which is understood by war as a historical phenomenon. Through the war in the West, states have structured themselves around what it means to wage war. We will return to a historical sociology with Bourdieu, Tilly and Norbert Elias recounting how Western states were formed in a long process that allowed the concentration of power through war. By waging war, states become more powerful, state-controlled and bureaucratized. We are talking about the process of civilization of states. The state and the management of violence have been central elements in order to be able to talk about security today.		We will look at war as the starting point for security practices. War is a form of organized violence. The point of entry is the birth of war, which is understood by war as a historical phenomenon. Through the war in the West, states have structured themselves around what it means to wage war. We will return to a historical sociology with Bourdieu, Tilly and Norbert Elias recounting how Western states were formed in a long process that allowed the concentration of power through war. By waging war, states become more powerful, state-controlled and bureaucratized. We are talking about the process of civilization of states. The state and the management of violence have been central elements in order to be able to talk about security today.

	[[Fichier:Allegory of War 1640s Jan Brueghel the Younger.jpg\|~~Allégorie de la guerre de~~ Jan Brueghel ~~le jeune~~.\|vignette]]		[[Fichier:Allegory of War 1640s Jan Brueghel the Younger.jpg\|Allegory of war by Jan Brueghel the younger.\|vignette]]

	War is not necessarily universalisable, it is not something natural and ahistorical. War as a form of political violence is historically easy to locate as a form of historical experience in Europe and the West. To understand the phenomenon of violence in Europe, tackling a European phenomenon may not be the best tool to deal with political violence in the world.		War is not necessarily universalisable, it is not something natural and ahistorical. War as a form of political violence is historically easy to locate as a form of historical experience in Europe and the West. To understand the phenomenon of violence in Europe, tackling a European phenomenon may not be the best tool to deal with political violence in the world.
Ligne 65 :		Ligne 65 :
	In political science, there is no consensual and unique definition of what an organization is, but we can define an organization as an arrangement of social activities that involves active control over human relationships that are deliberately ordered to achieve a goal. That is to say, an organization imposes particular forms on social relations between men, generally it implies a principle of hierarchy among the individuals within the organization, very often this hierarchy has a material base through organizational charts, laws, rules written in such a way as to give them a tangible existence, but this is not necessary, because there may be organizations that do not have an organizational chart defined by the organization chart.		In political science, there is no consensual and unique definition of what an organization is, but we can define an organization as an arrangement of social activities that involves active control over human relationships that are deliberately ordered to achieve a goal. That is to say, an organization imposes particular forms on social relations between men, generally it implies a principle of hierarchy among the individuals within the organization, very often this hierarchy has a material base through organizational charts, laws, rules written in such a way as to give them a tangible existence, but this is not necessary, because there may be organizations that do not have an organizational chart defined by the organization chart.

	[[Fichier:Discurso funebre pericles.PNG\|thumb\|300px\|alt=~~Tableau montrant Périclès durant son oraison funèbre.\|Périclès durant son oraison funèbre~~.]]		[[Fichier:Discurso funebre pericles.PNG\|thumb\|300px\|alt=Painting showing Pericles during his funeral oration.]]

	In this sense, organizations generally involve relationships that are different from those of primary groups that are presumed to be spontaneous, unplanned or informal, such as in the context of a family or clan. In general sociology, a primary group is the groups based on the fact that each individual shares the same referents, particularly cultural ones, who share the same beliefs, the same sense of solidarity within the group, and a common culture that implies socialization such as the family, the clan, the village community. An organization is much more about a principle of differentiation, it is not the fact that individuals within the organization have the same role or belief that makes an organization strong, but what makes socialization is the fact that everyone knows their place. An organization involves different relationships because it is hierarchical, organized and goal-oriented. The U. S. military doctrine clearly states that "The Army's mission is to fight and win our Nation's wars". There is an explicit written objective that is one of the characteristics of explicitly formulating an organization that is not the case for primary groups.		In this sense, organizations generally involve relationships that are different from those of primary groups that are presumed to be spontaneous, unplanned or informal, such as in the context of a family or clan. In general sociology, a primary group is the groups based on the fact that each individual shares the same referents, particularly cultural ones, who share the same beliefs, the same sense of solidarity within the group, and a common culture that implies socialization such as the family, the clan, the village community. An organization is much more about a principle of differentiation, it is not the fact that individuals within the organization have the same role or belief that makes an organization strong, but what makes socialization is the fact that everyone knows their place. An organization involves different relationships because it is hierarchical, organized and goal-oriented. The U. S. military doctrine clearly states that "The Army's mission is to fight and win our Nation's wars". There is an explicit written objective that is one of the characteristics of explicitly formulating an organization that is not the case for primary groups.
Ligne 79 :		Ligne 79 :
	The problem of collective action is a principle that was defined by Mancur Olson in the 1960s. The problem of collective action is the fact that if everyone in a group of individuals has an individual interest in collective action such as trade union mobilization, a strike or even a war, it is not because everyone has an individual interest that this mobilization will take place.		The problem of collective action is a principle that was defined by Mancur Olson in the 1960s. The problem of collective action is the fact that if everyone in a group of individuals has an individual interest in collective action such as trade union mobilization, a strike or even a war, it is not because everyone has an individual interest that this mobilization will take place.

	[[File:Conseil Tenu par les Rats.jpg\|thumb\|200px\|left\|~~Conseil Tenu par les~~ Rats.]]		[[File:Conseil Tenu par les Rats.jpg\|thumb\|200px\|left\|Council held by the Rats.]]

	In the advice given by the rats from a fable of La Fontaine, the rats hold a council because they are threatened by a cat who wants to eat them one by one. In the face of this threat, rats realize that they all have to do something individually. If they do nothing, they are threatened as a group and as an individual. The proposed solution is to put a bell around the cat's neck so that rats can be warned and run away. The question arises of who is going to put a bell around the cat knowing that the rat that is going to do it will take a consequent risk. Individually, no one in the board is willing to take the risk. Of course, if they don't put this bell around the cat they will all die in the long run, but if a rat proposes to put the bell around the rat he risks dying immediately.		In the advice given by the rats from a fable of La Fontaine, the rats hold a council because they are threatened by a cat who wants to eat them one by one. In the face of this threat, rats realize that they all have to do something individually. If they do nothing, they are threatened as a group and as an individual. The proposed solution is to put a bell around the cat's neck so that rats can be warned and run away. The question arises of who is going to put a bell around the cat knowing that the rat that is going to do it will take a consequent risk. Individually, no one in the board is willing to take the risk. Of course, if they don't put this bell around the cat they will all die in the long run, but if a rat proposes to put the bell around the rat he risks dying immediately.
Ligne 124 :		Ligne 124 :
	The Neolithic Revolution coincided with the first cities and defensive structures. The city of Jericho is considered to be one of the first cities known in the world, especially because of its defensive walls, which are defensive structures that suggest a preoccupation with attacks from outside. This shows the link between sedentarisation, the emergence of cities, complex structuring, the emergence of war and defence systems. Before the neolithic revolution, it would be anachronistic to talk about war, there would be forms of violence in hunter-gatherer societies. Lorenz shows in the book'' Aggression, a natural history of evil'' published in 1966, that hunter-gatherer societies used violence through sacrifices, bodily mutilation, but this is not proof of war. This shows that war is not something universal or eternal, it is something that appears at a certain point in history, in particular by analysing the forms and modes of organisation of the political societies in question.		The Neolithic Revolution coincided with the first cities and defensive structures. The city of Jericho is considered to be one of the first cities known in the world, especially because of its defensive walls, which are defensive structures that suggest a preoccupation with attacks from outside. This shows the link between sedentarisation, the emergence of cities, complex structuring, the emergence of war and defence systems. Before the neolithic revolution, it would be anachronistic to talk about war, there would be forms of violence in hunter-gatherer societies. Lorenz shows in the book'' Aggression, a natural history of evil'' published in 1966, that hunter-gatherer societies used violence through sacrifices, bodily mutilation, but this is not proof of war. This shows that war is not something universal or eternal, it is something that appears at a certain point in history, in particular by analysing the forms and modes of organisation of the political societies in question.

	[[File:Makedonische phalanx.png\|thumb\|300px\|~~Phalange macédonienne~~.]]		[[File:Makedonische phalanx.png\|thumb\|300px\|Macedonian phalanx.]]

	During classical antiquity, the war experienced a qualitative leap, linked to a higher degree of organization. It is often the Greek phalanx that is considered the father of modern forms of organized warfare. A phalanx is a group of warriors with spears and shields being compact units making attacking a phalanx a difficult task. When two phalanges face each other, it is very unlikely that the phalanges will disintegrate even if they are certain to die. The reason is simple, men are placed side by side, the principle is to hold the shield in one hand and the spear in the other, but the shield protects its neighbour. Everyone protects everyone, and if an individual escapes, the whole group is put at risk, so there is a collective constraint exerted so that no one escapes.		During classical antiquity, the war experienced a qualitative leap, linked to a higher degree of organization. It is often the Greek phalanx that is considered the father of modern forms of organized warfare. A phalanx is a group of warriors with spears and shields being compact units making attacking a phalanx a difficult task. When two phalanges face each other, it is very unlikely that the phalanges will disintegrate even if they are certain to die. The reason is simple, men are placed side by side, the principle is to hold the shield in one hand and the spear in the other, but the shield protects its neighbour. Everyone protects everyone, and if an individual escapes, the whole group is put at risk, so there is a collective constraint exerted so that no one escapes.
Ligne 151 :		Ligne 151 :
	The paradox is summed up by Max Weber in 1919 in his famous lecture "The Vocation of Politics": {{citation\|Today, the relationship between State and violence is particularly intimate[...] the modern State is a grouping of domination of an institutional character which has sought (with success) to monopolize, within the limits of a territory, legitimate physical violence as a means of domination and which, for this purpose, has brought together in the hands of the rulers the material means of management}}.		The paradox is summed up by Max Weber in 1919 in his famous lecture "The Vocation of Politics": {{citation\|Today, the relationship between State and violence is particularly intimate[...] the modern State is a grouping of domination of an institutional character which has sought (with success) to monopolize, within the limits of a territory, legitimate physical violence as a means of domination and which, for this purpose, has brought together in the hands of the rulers the material means of management}}.

	[[File:Max Weber 1894.jpg\|thumb\|200px\|Max Weber en 1894.]]		[[File:Max Weber 1894.jpg\|thumb\|200px\|Max Weber in 1894.]]

	Max Weber allows us to understand the intimate link between state building and the use of violence. Through these links, political modernity has a pacifying face, but also a political modernity characterized by mass massacres. If there is an organized human community that monopolizes legitimate physical violence on its territory, it means that this organization, the government and its bureaucracies will be able to mobilize capacities of coercion and violence that will make the war know a qualitative leap forward in the direction of war that is becoming more and more deadly and violent. By monopolizing violence on a territory, it means that the population living in the territory loses its capacity to use violence, but also the right to do so in a legitimate way. Today, it is understood that interpersonal violence in general is illegitimate, illegal, punishable and punished in the name of the law by State services, including courts and police forces. The monopolisation of violence allows total wars, but also this progressive movement of human and interpersonal relations in the sense that violence is no longer a normal, legitimate option in social relations. Some authors clearly show that in the relationships between individuals in individual rural societies of the Middle Ages, violence was one type of relationship among others not suppressed by law and socially tolerated as reprimandable if not legitimate.		Max Weber allows us to understand the intimate link between state building and the use of violence. Through these links, political modernity has a pacifying face, but also a political modernity characterized by mass massacres. If there is an organized human community that monopolizes legitimate physical violence on its territory, it means that this organization, the government and its bureaucracies will be able to mobilize capacities of coercion and violence that will make the war know a qualitative leap forward in the direction of war that is becoming more and more deadly and violent. By monopolizing violence on a territory, it means that the population living in the territory loses its capacity to use violence, but also the right to do so in a legitimate way. Today, it is understood that interpersonal violence in general is illegitimate, illegal, punishable and punished in the name of the law by State services, including courts and police forces. The monopolisation of violence allows total wars, but also this progressive movement of human and interpersonal relations in the sense that violence is no longer a normal, legitimate option in social relations. Some authors clearly show that in the relationships between individuals in individual rural societies of the Middle Ages, violence was one type of relationship among others not suppressed by law and socially tolerated as reprimandable if not legitimate.

Political violence and the practice of security - Historique des versions

Arthur le 29 mai 2021 à 21:54

Arthur le 18 avril 2021 à 16:09

Arthur le 14 avril 2021 à 08:16

Arthur : /* The war: how? */

Arthur : /* The war: how? */

Arthur le 15 avril 2019 à 13:52

Arthur le 11 février 2018 à 14:37

Arthur le 11 février 2018 à 14:33

Arthur le 9 février 2018 à 16:15

Arthur : /* References */

Arthur : /* The war: how? */

Arthur : /* The war: how? */

Arthur : /* References */