Security professionals: bureaucratization, institutionalization, professionalization and differentiation

This chapter is a changeover between two levels of analysis because so far we have been interested in the role of war in the construction of the State at the macrosociological level with different phenomena that have developed around the practice of warfare and we have also been interested in the way in which this historical sequence was exportable or not to the countries of the South, particularly as regards failed and failing States. From now on, we will focus on security practices. We will move from the macro level to contemporary security practices and we will understand why it is necessary to understand the historical process of state building. Not only do you change the level of analysis, but also the object. We will move on to a micro-level, but also in the context of state building, there is an indispensable condition for the construction and emergence of security bureaucracy. How important was the war in the construction of the State, especially in terms of the pooling of resources in this process, which lasted several centuries, and how did this process enable the State to establish itself as the main guarantor of security in the territories it controls? Beyond this monopoly of violence, there is also a monopoly on security practices. We are going to ask ourselves how this monopoly is being overtaken and how it will be transformed.

We will examine how the notion of "security professional" emerged only and specifically in a context of bureaucratization, which is the culmination of the process of state building.

We have seen earlier how, in particular the war that pre-existed the state was captured by more modern political units, whether they were city-states or empires or kingdoms. What has at the same time transformed these political entities, which are becoming more and more bureaucratic, territorializing and territorializing, which makes it possible to assert its authority, is ultimately leading to the emergence of the State and which has also transformed the practice of war in two very different directions, there is a diffraction of the historical evolution of war with, on the one hand, the march towards total war up to 1945 with increasingly lethal wars, and on the other hand, the march towards total war leading to death. The modern police do not have an enemy, but rather fight against criminals who do not in principle use maximum force as the military does, but minimum force, which is proportional force as a last resort and self-defence at the lowest possible level. There will be a different institutionalization and professionalization, both historically linked to the state's ability to monopolize the use or use of legitimate violence, but which are increasingly differentiated with the military on the one hand and the police on the other. It is important to understand the internal logic of these two professions at the microsociological level and to understand the role played by bureaucratization, which is responsible for security practices and even the advent of the modern security mission as we understand it.

We will see how the dynamics analysed in the first part of the course, bureaucratization and diffraction of state practices between total war on the one hand and police logic on the other, and how these two dynamics can be analysed sociologically.

The ability of the modern state to use coercion is linked to a legitimate security discourse. It seems to be obvious that the military, the police as holders and custodians of the state monopoly on legitimate violence, are security professionals. This may seem obvious, but at the same time, as a central objective pursued and monopolized by the State, security is still a recent phenomenon, which significantly transforms coercive practices by rationalizing and bureaucratizing them. That is to say, historically, the wars of the Middle Ages, the wars during the Renaissance were never fought in the name of security, these wars were waged in the name of the glory of the prince or king, in the name of his greatness, eventually of his will to avenge those who would have offended his office, but not in the name of security. At that time, after the construction of the modern state, security was achieved through practices of state coercion, whether police or military, security is above all a philosophical and religious concept, as shown by Frederic Gros in his work The Principle of Security published in 2012, in which he shows that historically there have been three hotbeds for the emergence of a discourse on security:

• A first focus is found in Greek Antiquity, where the very term "security" emerges as a Latin translation of the term "ataraxy" which designates the absence of worries, translated in Latin as "sedecura" or "securitas" which refers to the philosopher's state of fullness, which by reflection manages to disconnect himself from the worries of the world or to accept them and which thus reaches a level of "security". It is this historically "security" that is the absence of worry, but it is above all a physical state relative to an individual who has reached intellectual and philosophical maturity.
• The second home is the Catholic kingdoms in the Middle Ages in which security is presented by the Church and not by the monarch himself, but as a state referring to the redemption of the soul, the security that comes at the end of time and which is therefore a reference to the redemption of the soul at the end of history. As such, security is certainly monopolized by an institution, in the same way that we presume today that the State is primarily responsible for the security of the citizen, but this institution is not primarily political, but it is a religious institution, namely the Catholic Church and security refers to an order of the world.
• The third focus refers to the emergence of modern political philosophy, namely Machiavelli, Hobbes in the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries. Gradually, security will become the central objective of the State, not only of State security, but also of the security of its territory and population. Finally, it is in this sense that we generally use the concept of security today. We are situated in the continuity of this third centre of security, and it corresponds historically to the modern state's claim to conduct war in the name of the security of the territory and sometimes even of the population, but also to deploy police forces on its own territory in order to ensure the security of the citizen and, in a more secondary way, the security of the government apparatus itself in the face of internal rebellions. Historically, a distinction was made between "state security" and "state security", but nowadays, the concept of "security" is used only. The term "safety" is no longer used in its previous meaning.

At a time when the king was waging war primarily in the name of royal honour, in the name of the personal and collective glory of the military class, war was not primarily seen as a rational activity. In war, the king could be triumphant and glorious in victory, but also great in defeat. There was not really the notion of calculations and means at the end knowing that both defeat and victory could allow the king to claim a certain grandeur and glory in both victory and defeat. With security, we operate much more in a security - insecurity environment, in which the State's objective is to maximize security by minimizing the insecurity that is the framework that lends itself very much to efficiency calculations, which lends itself more to a rationalization discourse in which it is considered that a number of means must be made available to the security services so that they can achieve this state of security for the population, the territory and the country as a whole. This discourse corresponds to the emergence of security bureaucracies, which tends to give an aura of rationalisation in the sense of what Weber calls rationality as to the purposes, which is therefore instrumental rationality in terms of means and ends.

We must not pretend that the notion of security has any homogeneity in the practices of states that use security objectives. In reality, what we now call "security practices" are above all State practices, whether police, intelligence or military, which are very diverse, ranging from warfare, to security controls, to forensic science, a whole kaleidoscope and a whole host of different practices that actually have something in common, namely that the security objective is a particular concern for the population, knowing that, in reality, the following are some of the most important elements of the security agenda. Today, the diversification of security practices may even seem to go back in history, i. e. in the direction of a demonopolisation in the sense that we see the emergence of private actors and in particular entrepreneurial actors, security companies, insurance companies and private security experts. In reality, it is not a return to an exempted state in which non-state actors also have prerogatives in the use of legitimate force, because in reality what we see is a continuity between practices between private security and the logic of bureaucratization that now characterizes public security. On the other hand, private security practices, particularly private security companies, often do not call into question the State's monopoly on legitimate force for the simple reason that security today is no longer primarily the use of force, but rather the ability to produce a discourse on what is the threat, which is a discourse of experts claiming to be the truth about what threats are today, how to control them and how to prevent them.

Today, the partial privatization of security practices, particularly through private security companies or military security companies, is not necessarily a privatization of the use of force, but rather a transformation of security practices, which no longer refers to the operational and coercive dimension of the police and military, as in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. This is something that can also be seen at the level of the military and police, even though the police and the military are still often defined today, above all through their central function as the custodian of the state monopoly on legitimate violence. In reality, most military personnel will never shoot a bullet on the battlefield. The majority of military personnel are administrators, bureaucrats, experts, logisticians rather than soldiers on the battlefield. The same can be said of police officers.

What lies behind the rhetoric of the rationalisation of state violence in the name of security is not only a transformation in vocabulary, but also a transformation in practices which does not result in the disappearance of the coercive function of state power that the military institution represents today, but which is reflected in its diversification and bureaucratisation, and which results in the fact that even if the specificity of the military vis-à-vis the baker's office is not the same. However, the fact remains that their daily activities directly or indirectly refer to the notion of security, and it is therefore important to understand those security practices that encompass these coercive practices, but that increasingly also include non-coercive and bureaucratic assets.

Security practices are bureaucratic practices which, for the most part, are justified through the argument of security production and the fight against insecurity. Safety practices are repetitive and anchored in daily and routine actions. In Toward a Theory of Social Practices: A Development in Culturalist Theorizing, published 2002, Reckwitz defines practices as "a routinised type of behaviour which consists of several elements:[...] bodily activities,[...] mental activities,' things' and their use, a background knowledge[...] and know-how[...]". A bureaucracy operates through "routine" processes, known as "standard operating procedures", which by the missions are repetitive and routine and which, therefore, when it comes to security practices contradict a representation of the practice of security as something exceptional with the deployment of security practices in a crisis situation, when there is a terrorist attack or in a war situation where there is a terrorist attack. Security is often portrayed as something that happens in our daily lives and lives when there is a great crisis, war or terrorist attack, as if it were absent in normal times. If we look at security practices, we see that in reality, from crisis to crisis, from war to war, between these so-called "exceptional" periods, there is above all work on the routinization of practices, which shows that we must be interested in the daily dimension of security practices and not only focus on wars, whether civil or inter-state, or crises, but also on the bureaucratic activities of everyone.

Emergence of security professionals (state)

In order to address the notion of "security professionals", we must first focus on the concepts of bureaucratization and rationalization of the State. The war allows and obliges the monarchs to centralize and bureaucratize their administrative apparatus in order to be able to raise taxes, to make the census of their own population which is a necessary condition to be able to raise troops, but also taxes. These are essential warfare practices, both of which involve administrative practices and therefore a relatively efficient bureaucracy that is not primarily concerned with military tactics, with the use of force on the battlefield, but with a much broader set of administrative practices, but which are nonetheless essential to the king's view of warfare. From this point of view, it is important to focus on the notions of bureaucratization and the underlying notion of rationalization that we have approached in a way that does not question what is bureaucracy, which distinguishes a bureaucracy and its claim to legitimacy from other claims to legitimacy. However, understanding what a bureaucracy is is important to understand how coercive practices are transformed.

Bureaucratization of coercion

Bureaucracy in the strict sense is government by offices, i.e. by an apparatus made up of civil servants subject to anonymous procedures and administrative routines. This definition may give the impression that bureaucracy, in the end, does not mark a significant or drastic change in state practice. In reality, the emergence of the bureaucratic principle is a fundamental process insofar as it uses writing, it incorporates the principle of writing which is the principle of written documents in the exercise of power, which will have a much greater and significant impact on the exercise of state power. When we say that bureaucracy is "government by the offices", we think of offices as a physical place, but what is behind the notion of "office" in the term "bureaucracy" is above all the written work, the fact of recording, of leaving written traces about the behaviour of the population that we administer, but also about the bureaucracies that we administer themselves. Writing has a very important impact on the exercise of state power, since writing is above all an accumulation of information. Thus, the emergence of the informational capital that Pierre Bourdieu spoke to us about in "Esprit d' État genèse et structure du champ bureaucratique" published in 1993, which allows the current government to claim to have a considerable amount of information on the population it administers, is the fact of writing the information, recording the population, and setting up archives that also make it possible to create a collective memory that is part of the collective memory.

The "power of the offices" is inseparable from the written record, archiving of files, communications. It constitutes a significant informational power on the part of the State which results in the imposition of legitimate classifications accepted by the population, since this implies the creation of categories. There is a set of classification systems that seem "obvious" to us, as is the case with "socio-professional categories", but which are in reality the product of bureaucratic work. The emergence of bureaucracies is actually a process of accumulating information in the hands of a government and its apparatus that strengthens and consolidates state power. This shows that the bureaucratization of the state is not only a process that is instrumental in the logic of transforming wars, but it is also something that fundamentally transforms the relations between administration and administration and thus transforms the internal relations of the state into modernization.

Bureaucracy in its strictest sense is not something recent in itself, it can be traced back to the invention of writing that marks the transition from prehistory to history. Bureaucracy is inseparable from the written record and therefore from the invention of writing. Since the invention of writing, estimated at around 4000 BC, there has been a monopolization of writing activity by the powers of city-states and ancient empires, which already accumulate informational power by recording their population and documenting property rights in the territories they occupy. This is particularly the case with the scribes who had a function of administration of the Pharaoh's domain which allowed him to know his population, to use it both for the realisation of great works and for war activities, thus showing the importance of the link between power and writing, between power and the accumulation of informational capital allowed by the capacity to write which was initially reserved for a small elite which through this capacity to write and therefore to write.

The massive and intensive bureaucratization of political power is considered to be above all the property of the modern state. Weber was known as the theorist of rational legal legitimacy which is the specific legitimacy claimed by the modern state and which passes through its bureaucratization. According to Max Weber, bureaucracy is an omnipresent feature in the constitution of modern societies. This is not only the monopoly of legitimate violence, but also bureaucratization. In The Trial published in 1925, Kafka imagines a dystopia in which an excessively bureaucratized court traumatizes Joseph K. The whole dimension of absurdity and inefficiency that we tend to equate with bureaucracy unfolds. Weber insists much more when he talks about bureaucracy on the emergence of instrumental rationality in the exercise of state power, on strengthening the state's capacity to transform and shape society in its image. These are two somehow contradictory representations of the bureaucracy that are constitutive of modernity with the bureaucracy as something procedural, inefficient or even incomprehensible for ordinary people, but at the same time as an indispensable condition of effective political and administrative power allowing the government not only of territories, but also of populations. These are actually two images of the same process that actually mark the bureaucratization of the state and which Kafka and Weber see differently, but which is facing another process.

It is worth noting the link between bureaucratization and war. The first institutions to develop bureaucracies or systematic bureaucratization logic are the armed forces. The armies were bureaucratized very early on, and we can even go as far as to say that war is at the roots of the modern bureaucratization that began. Weber considers bureaucratization to be a lasting transformation of the modern state, and yet bureaucratization is seen throughout history, even though it is first and foremost the history of bureaucratization of the military apparatus before it becomes the overall bureaucratization of state administrations. Even in the nineteenth century, if we take a state like the Kingdom of Prussia, it was above all the Prussian General Staff, which was considered to be the most effective model of bureaucracy and was seen as providing an overall model in the administration of the Prussian state. This shows in the 19th century the link between bureaucratization and war and thus the perception of military headquarters as the provider of a model for state bureaucracy.

Why is it so important to understand the logic of bureaucratization when talking about security practice? One could say that if security is first and foremost a defence against threats and therefore presupposes the ability to fight, including by the force of armies, how do the bureaucracies intervene? In fact, professionals, as we rightly believe they are at the heart of security practices, are increasingly bureaucrats. If we take the example of the military, generally in the academic and sociological definitions of what a military man is, we can see what in the literature of sociology-military is known as the "military specificity", that is to say what the military institution has different from other institutions, and we insist here on the fact that the military is an expert in the use of force, which is a repository of military violence. It is a minority of military personnel who normally train for war or conduct war on the battlefield. In fact, the majority are bureaucrats in the discharge of their military duty is related to logistics, planning, support, command and control, and training, which are a set of practices that have nothing to do with the use of force. In this sense, most military personnel are bureaucrats before they become warriors. When we talk about the transformation of the military profession today, it is important to distinguish between the warrior's and the military's non-coercive functions, which are nonetheless important in understanding the security practices of this institution. Military personnel are not only warlords in any case in times of war and when they are on the battlefield at once, they are also military managers and as managers, they are also bureaucrats working in offices and exercising their professional power through offices as places where information is written, recorded, stored and stored.

This transformation can be seen in the "tooth-to-tail ratio", the tooth that refers to the coercive dimension of the military administration, the number of military personnel who are or may be involved in the use of force on the battlefield. Tail "refers to all that is the administration of military units, but also to the administration of the population, since it is a question of taking through conscription and military service to constitute soldiers, for logisticians, it is a question of listing all the material resources likely to be mobilized and used in times of war.

The "tooth-to-tail ratio" reflects the propensity of the military personnel, which conforms to the war image of the military, but which in reality is less and less prevalent in the military institution. During the American Civil War, this ratio was 9:1. For 9 soldiers who fought on the front lines of this war, there was an administrator or bureaucrat who specialized in the immediate delivery of weapons on the battlefield, which meant listing the weapons available and the arms manufacturing plants on the territory he administered to transport them to the battlefield, but also referred to those who were conducting the census of the population to raise armies in order to raise armies. During the Second World War, this ratio was 1:1, with an average of 1 military bureaucrat per combatant. Currently, this ratio in the Western states is 1:10. Through these ratios and this evolution, we can see that the armies are becoming more and more bureaucratized, less and less military personnel are using or likely to use force on the battlefield, and more and more military personnel are likely to work in the offices.

There is this evolution for a variety of complex reasons. One of the reasons is that the increased sophistication of weapons used in wartime, coupled with an enhanced capacity for destruction of these weapons, means that it is not necessary to have a 9:1 ratio to conduct a war effectively. When we have fighter planes and especially when we have drones, it is not necessarily necessary to deploy men in the field armed by hand, we can be satisfied with having an army of computer scientists, information and communication technology specialists or logisticians who conduct the war through drones. Pilots are needed for fighter pilots and behind the pilots, there is a whole army of administrators, bureaucrats, military intelligence specialists who work upstream to allow the bombing. The sophistication of weapons largely explains the bureaucratization of armies. The targeted killing, which is killing through the use of drones, is really in an indistinction zone in which it is very difficult to say whether we are in the dimension of a soldier who uses force immediately after the battle or whether we are rather on the logic of bureaucratic and administrative activities that take place before the use of force. What is certain is that this reflects a gradual distance between the soldier and his target, there is a distance from the long term inseparable from the emergence of more and more sophisticated weapons which, from the 15th century to the present day, allow the military to gradually move away from the battlefield and thus to distance itself from its ability to see directly the results of the damage and destruction it has caused.

This same preponderance of bureaucracy is found in police work and may be even more so than in military work since, from a military point of view, administration and bureaucracy are above all an instrument. From a military and war history point of view, the bureaucracy can be seen as a sine qua non instrument for raising taxes and troops, administering the military units themselves and thus being able to wage war immediately.

With regard to police work, it is a question of maintaining order and identifying a certain number of irregularities in the behaviour of a population. The regularity of behaviour forms the basis of the social norm for which the police officers are the guarantors, which implies that they fight against incivility and delinquency, but also against crime, whether organised or not. In order to identify behavioural irregularities within a population, to identify what does not constitute normal behaviour and what is deviant behaviour in a population, it is first of all necessary to know, record, observe and archive its movements and displacements and thus to administer populations and the territories in which they are found. In a sense, bureaucracy can be seen as the very heart of police work, because of its power to accumulate information and thus build up an institution's informational capital. Population records are used both to identify deviant, delinquent and criminal populations and distinguish them from the rest of the population, as well as to identify patterns of behaviour. A police officer who uses the right of self-defence to arrest someone is only part of the police reality, the main part of police work being above all a task of recording the population in order to identify behaviour patterns in relation to which deviant behaviour, delinquency and crime can be defined.

As far as intelligence services are concerned, this is also the case with the use of an accumulation of information on a given population. The principle is to collect information about a population and store it so that it can be used to identify individuals or groups against which we want to fight effectively.

The "Total information awareness" program is one of the major American intelligence service projects after 9/11, which was the project that sought to gather systematic information on individuals living all over the world in order to be able to write a 20-page report on any individual. This programme would have been substantially discontinued since 2004. In intelligence services, there is the fantasy of unlimited accumulation of information and thus of building up an informational capital enabling them to strengthen their power over their target population, which is no longer necessarily the population administered as in police work, but which is increasingly contained in the population's work with regard to the world population.

From this perspective, the recent trend in intelligence transformation is increasingly indistinguishable between police and military intelligence. Traditionally, police intelligence is the gathering of information in a criminal justice logic, that is, about individuals suspected of committing a crime. Military intelligence is not concerned with individuals, but with groups that are essentially the armed forces of enemy states.

Today we see mass intelligence directed both inward and outward, targeting not only groups through the enemy armed forces, but also mass intelligence on all the individuals inhabiting the planet. We can see the logic of police intelligence and military intelligence in some way merge into each other, notably through the "Total information awareness" program which illustrates and imagines modern intelligence services and above all shows the transformation of data collection practices of intelligence services towards a more and more important mass information practice, particularly in a logic of war on terrorism. It goes through the same process and logic as the bureaucracies, i. e. documenting, storing data and thus ultimately accumulating information on increasingly large population groups.

When talking about accumulation, it is important to stress that it involves a "change of mentality". The ideology that underpins state power will change as the state bureaucratizes. The functioning of the State will increasingly translate into "standard operating procedures". That is to say, in similar situations, we will reproduce the same type of behaviour defined through rules of engagement, established procedures and which correspond to the standards of the profession that puts this into practice, whether it is police officers or military personnel who must follow procedures defined in advance. This explains the often negative image of bureaucracy as being, in the end, very mechanical, inflexible and never adaptable to the transformations and flows through which reality is transformed every day. This "standard operating procedure" also explains the image of efficiency and rationality that Max Weber identifies in bureaucracies, because it is also through these standard operating procedures that inefficiencies are avoided and attempts are made to maximise the operational efficiency of bureaucracies.

Another characteristic of bureaucracy is that it is an impersonal power. In principle, a bureaucracy and a bureaucracy applying the same procedures to everyone regardless of who they are. Bureaucratic power must be impersonal, knowing someone should not make any difference, since in principle the bureaucrat is not the owner of his or her own principle of legitimation, which is found in an abstract principle of bureaucracy, the principle of "standard operating procedures", which implies disregarding the identity of individuals and not applying abstract principles.

State bureaucratization also translates into the increased transformative capacity of societies. Michael Mann explains how states, through bureaucratization, exercise a power that is less and less despotic and more and more infrastructure. He was trying to answer the question of whether the depositaries of state powers today have more or less power over the monarchs of the Middle Ages. There is a paradox because on the one hand the monarch of the Middle Ages could arbitrarily order this or that individual to die, his despotic power was very important, just as the Roman emperor could decide which population should be executed. In this sense, the monarch of the Middle Ages or the Roman emperor had more power than most executive powers in modern states which cannot in a purely arbitrary way decide to lead to the death of groups of people without any justification whatsoever. Thus, the modern state has much less despotic power than monarchical power or empires might have. On the other hand, they have an infrastructure power that is incomparably more important than the States of the Middle Ages. The king of the Middle Ages could not decide to homogenize the language spoken by his own people for the simple reason that he had never inventoried this population, there was no national education and therefore no school where the population was sent to learn a language that was identical to that spoken by the monarch. The same goes for the Roman Empire. The modern States have through their bureaucracy, their ministries and ultimately through the principle of national education and schools imposed relatively homogeneous languages throughout the territory. Within each linguistic unit, the language is homogenized, there is an official language on the one hand and dialectal practices on the other which was impossible to implement in the Middle Ages. This shows that the modern state has much more power through its infrastructure for profoundly transforming society. It also implies that these States are dependent on the transformations affecting these societies. The purely arbitrary power of the executive to sentence an individual to death is impossible.

Bureaucratisation also results in a functional division of tasks, i. e. bureaucracies are subdivided and become increasingly complex and specialised in increasingly smaller activities. They are thought in terms of a logic of "means - ends", i. e. their logic is that of instrumental rationality and a logic in which different levels of application of a decision are distinguished in order to maximize its impact. This can be seen through military administrations that distinguish between the strategic, operational and tactical levels of government. The distinction between the political level which is the government, the strategic level which is the interface between governments and the armed forces, the operational levels which is the territory in which the armed forces intervene and the tactical level is the level on which military units are deployed. This political, strategic, operational and tactical distinction is also a distinction between the objectives set by the political level and the means used to achieve this objective, which is deployed at the tactical and operational level. This typically bureaucratic distinction between political, strategic, operational and tactical is a distinction between thinking in terms of "means - ends", i. e. how to maximise the chances of achieving a political goal by maximising scarce or at least expensive means as far as the armed forces are concerned. This is a thought in terms of efficiency and maximizing utility.

Bureaucracies differ at different hierarchical levels. There is a higher bureaucracy giving orders to lower bureaucracies, but at the same time a bureaucracy is always presumed to be independent or at least autonomous in its own sphere of action. From this point of view, civil-military relations are very ambiguous because of bureaucratic rationality because there is both the logic of subordination of the bureaucracy to the political authorities in accordance with the hierarchical principle, i. e. a military is supposed to follow the orders of a general who himself follows political directives given by the Ministry of Defence, which itself, the Minister of Defence, is subject to the executive power, and the military is also subject to the authority of a general. At the same time, the military is assumed to be autonomous as a bureaucrat in its own sphere which is the military sphere. In principle, the executive branch cannot "micromanage" military operations on the ground. Military aircraft are autonomous in their own sphere of action, which is itself subject to politics. This is the ambiguity of bureaucracies that are both subject to politics and at the same time autonomous in their own sphere, and this is clearly the case for the armed forces.

What are the practical implications of this bureaucracy?

It is twofold and essentially ambiguous, since at the same time, the fact that there are bureaucracies makes politicians responsible because the fact that there are bureaucracies operating on the principle of the written record means that the directives given by politicians, whether in terms of repressive directives from the armed forces to their people or in terms of repressive activities by the police forces, leave written traces in the administrations and in the police force. If there had been no bureaucracy during the Bosnian war between 1992 and 1995, it would have been very difficult to charge Radovan Karadži? with a crime against humanity, because what made it possible to find traces of the orders he gave is in particular the fact that the bureaucracies, particularly military ones, took note of the political directives given and which in the execution of these acts also listed the way in which these political directives were used. Thus, the bureaucracy makes politicians responsible from this point of view.

But at the same time, paradoxically, sociologist Zygmunt Bauman showed how the bureaucratic principle itself disempowered the state apparatus. This is because the bureaucracies are more and more differentiated according to functional differentiation, each bureaucracy becomes more and more specialized in a reduced and very limited activity. At the same time, to the extent that it reflects in terms of "means - ends", its purpose is increasingly limited to its sphere of action. For example, in the implementation of the Shoah, we can question the responsibility of the railways in France, Germany, Poland and elsewhere for the execution of this genocide. Railroad bureaucrats can always say that their role was only to move a certain number of people to a certain location, which is not reprehensible as such, except that this essentially bureaucratic activity conditioned the very possibility of transporting people to concentration camps where they were eliminated. Each bureaucrat, in so far as he only deals with a very small dimension of an overall operation such as genocide, does not necessarily see the overall result of this myriad of bureaucratic activities. He sees only what he does, and what he does does not lead directly to the death of men. This means that the bureaucratization of the State, the functional division of tasks into ever more precise and reduced tasks, which are increasingly limited to micro-finalities, disempower the entire State apparatus. From this dual point of view, genocide is made possible by the bureaucratization of the state, but the identification of those responsible for genocide is also made possible by the bureaucratization of the state. In the same way, bureaucratization translates into increased efficiency of mass killings, because it becomes possible to organize a genocide in Rwanda in a few weeks in 1994, killing 800,000 people if there had not been state bureaucracies capable of ordering China's impressive numbers of machetes. In early 1994, the Rwandan state ordered a quantity of machetes that should have caused the Chinese to worry. It was the fact that this bureaucracy worked effectively that allowed this genocide. When analysing the Rwandan genocide, there is a tendency to focus on local specificities, particularly the tension between the Tutsi and Hutu ethnic groups, but the truth is that it was the bureaucratization of the Rwandan State that led to this genocide.

Rationalisation de la coercition au nom de la sécurité

La rationalisation de la coercition est une dimension qui en réalité est liée à la bureaucratisation. L’idée est que la bureaucratisation quelque soit ses analystes et notamment Max Weber prend l’expression d’un processus de rationalisation dans le sens où il y a une rationalité spécifique rattachée aux bureaucraties et qui sont la rationalité instrumentale en termes de « moyens-fins », c’est-à-dire maximiser les chances et la maximisation d’un objectif avec des moyens réduits. Dans une certaine mesure, la bureaucratisation chez Weber, en tout cas la bureaucratisation systématique et omniprésente est une caractéristique de la modernité politique. La rationalisation, également, est pour lui, un des critères qui caractérise la modernité pas seulement politique, mais la modernité tout court qui considère que la rationalisation est donc une composante importante des sociétés modernes. Weber parle de « cage d’acier » pour définir la rationalité dans le sens où on n’y échappe pas que ce soit dans le domaine économique avec le capitalisme, le domaine de l’État et des organisations avec la bureaucratisation et plus largement dans tous les domaines sociétaux à travers la prégnance du droit dans le domaine sociétal et le capitalisme. Il voit cela dans l’expression de l’émergence et de l’omniprésence des bureaucraties traduisant l’idéologie sous-jacente de ces bureaucraties à savoir la rationalité instrumentale dans laquelle on essaie de minimiser les coûts et d’augmenter les bénéfices au nom d’une conception de l’efficacité qu’il voit être au fondement de cette modernité. La rationalité est ici conçue quant à la finalité.

En réalité, il y a différentes formes de rationalité comme la rationalité quant aux valeurs qui fait référence au fait que parfois, on mène des actions non pas dans l’objectif d’atteindre un objectif matériel et concret, mais simplement pour atteindre certaines valeurs qu’elles soient religieuses ou autres. Ce type de rationalité quant aux valeurs, Weber ne la considère pas comme étant particulièrement caractéristique de la modernité ne serait-ce parce que la rationalité religieuse s’inscrit dans ce type de raisonnement. Par contre, la rationalité quant à la finalité dans laquelle on distingue strictement les objectifs recherchés et les moyens utilisés pour les atteindre est propre à la modernité lorsqu’elle devient systématique.

La rationalité consiste en des actions gouvernées par le raisonnement et le calcul des intérêts. C’est à la fois par l’activité de l’intelligence, mais aussi par la volonté de chiffrer le social, de réfléchir en termes d’intérêt qu’on essaie de maximiser en utilisant des biens ou des ressources rares en tant que moyens. C’est par ce biais que passe la rationalité spécifique à l’époque moderne qui est la rationalité en termes de « moyens-fins ». Weber voit la bureaucratie comme des actions politiques puisqu’une bureaucratie, si elle impose des « standards operating procedures », si elle fonctionne par des procédures anonymes et des normes de comportements standardisées, c’est aussi pour maximiser ses chances que le pouvoir politique atteint et maximise ses objectifs, quels qu’ils soient avec des moyens réduits.

La science, à travers son idéal de vérité et une des expressions dans le domaine du savoir de la rationalité moderne, la loi dans un domaine sociétal plus large en est également une des expressions non seulement parce que la loi n’a pas seulement vocation à séparer l’interdit du permis parce que le tabou religieux à la même fonction. Pour Weber, la prégnance du droit, de la loi dans le fonctionnement des sociétés modernes est liée à l’idéal de prédictibilité. C’est-à-dire que dans une société régie par le droit, en principe, on doit pouvoir prévoir le comportement des acteurs, il ne doit pas y avoir des comportements déviants liés à l’irruption d’émotions ou de logiques affectueuses que ce soit la vengeance ou encore la haine dans les comportements sociaux. La loi doit contraindre les individus à suivre une rationalité fondée sur l’idée de prédictibilité. Les comportements peuvent être prédits parce que conforment au droit et c’est parce que les comportements peuvent être prédits que l’on peut aussi réfléchir en termes de rationalité sur le long temps, c’est-à-dire élaborer des stratégies sur un long terme, essayer de faire des arbitrages intertemporels liés au fait qu’on sait comment les individus vont réagir à telle ou telle politique, liés au fait qu’on sait comment des entreprises vont réagir à un climat de compétition économique par exemple en réduisant les taux de salaires pour maintenir le taux de profit constant et ce qui permet donc un fonctionnement rationnel non seulement dans le présent, mais également dans les arbitrages que l’on fait dans l’utilisation des ressources rares dans le présent.

Le capitalisme dans le domaine économique est également, d’après Weber, l’expression de cette rationalité qu’on voit au travers la maximisation des taux de profits et des arbitrages intertemporels que permet notamment le respect de la loi mettant en évidence le type de rationalité quant aux « moyens – fins » qui caractérise la modernité. L’une des conséquences de cette prégnance de la rationalisation et de la bureaucratisation est ce que Weber appelle le « désenchantement du monde ». Le monde n’est plus régi par les valeurs des miracles religieux et des croyances en le mystère, mais plutôt est régit par la prééminence des intérêts, des calculs et de la maximisation d’un objectif que cela soit en termes d’objectif d’efficacité bureaucratique pour ce qui est de l’État ou en termes d’objectif de maximisation du taux de profit pour ce qui est des entreprises. Dans les deux cas, il y a une rationalité calculatrice et instrumentale qui se déploie et qui stagne entre des moyens et des finalités et qui essaie d’économiser les moyens pour maximiser les objectifs que l’on vise et cela que cela soit dans le domaine capitaliste ou de l’État bureaucratique.

Comment cette logique de la rationalisation se déploie-t-elle dans le domaine de la sécurité, sachant que l’émergence de la sécurité est aussi le fruit de la bureaucratisation de la violence. Quel est le rapport avec la sécurité ? Quels sont les critères de rationalisation ? Les critères sont :

• prédictibilité ;
• calculabilité ;
• efficacité ;
• technologie.

Comment ces principes se traduisent dans les logiques sécuritaires modernes et contemporaines ?

• les critères de calculabilité et efficacité s’inscrivent dans la rationalité moderne et c’est également le cas dans cette bureaucratisation de la violence ;
• la prévisibilité et le contrôle des incertitudes ;
• les technologies en tant que fruit du travail scientifique appliqué et qui de plus en plus est également utilisé dans les pratiques sécuritaires traduisant une rationalisation au sens de Weber.

En ce qui concerne la calculabilité et l’efficacité, il est évident que lorsque le monarque ou les empereurs du Moyen-Âge menaient des guerres, ce n’était ni au nom d’un idéal d’efficacité en tout cas pas énoncé en tant que tel, mais plutôt au nom de la gloire et de la grandeur du souverain et l’idée d’introduire une rationalité mathématique dans la guerre était également étrangère à la recherche de gloire et de grandeur du souverain. Par contre, dans les pratiques de sécurité contemporaines, l’idéal de calculabilité et d’efficacité inséparable de la rationalité moderne de Weber est clairement présent. On le voit au travers de critères de mesures de succès des opérations militaires. Si par exemple on regarde les opérations militaires de l’OTAN en Afghanistan depuis 2001, il y a des débats récurrents sur les mesures que l’on va utiliser pour évaluer l’efficacité des opérations militaires. En 2001, l’idée était que l’efficacité militaire, comme dans des guerres traditionnelles, se mesure au nombre de morts causés dans le camp ennemi rapporté au nombre de morts dans le camp ami. Cette mesure était la plus répandue dans le cadre des guerres conventionnelles. C’est une mesure réaliste du degré de succès que l’on a dans les opérations militaires. Sauf qu’en Afghanistan, plus on tue d’individus présumés ennemis, plus on crée d’ennemis possibles. Par ailleurs, le côté en face, notamment pour ce qui est des talibans, recherche parfois ou bien met en œuvre des stratégies sacrificielles. Le sacrifice des combattants talibans peut également être utilisé comme ressource symbolique pour recruter plus de combattants.

À partir de ce moment, on a remis en question la notion de « metrics » qui est de mesurer le succès des opérations militaires au nombre de combattants ennemis tués. On s’est plutôt dit qu’il fallait peut-être tenir compte de l’efficacité dans la reconstruction économique, dans la reconstruction politique, dans la consolidation des institutions afghanes. Est soulevée la question de savoir comment le mesurer au travers de l’argent dépensé dans les projets de reconstruction sachant qu’une grande partie de cet argent est également détourné notamment par les talibans et d’autres groupes en Afghanistan. Il y a eu cette recherche permanente dans les opérations militaires de « metrics » permettant de mesurer l’efficacité des opérations militaires sans qu’on soit sûr d’être parvenu à des mesures à l’échelle de l’objectif recherché, que ce soit au travers de la stabilisation et de la consolidation du gouvernement en place et de l’élimination autant que possible de l’insurrection. C’est un débat qui est en court et qui montre la prégnance de la calculabilité et notamment de l’importance de pouvoir chiffrer les degrés variables de succès dans les opérations militaires cela pour être certain de mettre en œuvre des opérations militaires rationnelles en termes de ressources et en termes de chance de succès que l’on a de son côté dans les opérations militaires.

On voit de plus en plus la même chose dans le maintien de l’ordre qui est les activités de police où l’idéologie dominante du « new public management »impose de plus en plus d’évaluer les administrations publiques. On considère qu’il faut pouvoir évaluer l’efficacité d’un ministère ou d’une bureaucratie d’une façon à avoir un nombre de fonctionnaires le plus réduit possible ne serait-ce que pour minimiser les coûts et maximiser l’efficacité de l’action publique de ce ministère. Le problème survient lorsqu’on essaie d’appliquer le principe de « new public management » aux opérations de sécurité et notamment de sécurité policière pour savoir comment on mesure l’efficacité des opérations de police. Si on la mesure au travers du nombre de personnes verbalisées, arrêtées ou encore suspectées, cela est simplement voir les policiers démultiplier les contrôles d’identité, démultiplier le nombre d’arrestations sur des critères de plus en plus flous pour les seuls besoins de remplir les statistiques ou les critères nécessaires à une bonne évaluation de l’efficacité des services policiers. Il n’en reste pas moins que le critère d’efficacité dans les opérations de police est de plus en plus la norme en Europe. Certains policiers essaient de résister à cette tendance en mettant en avant le fait que derrière cette tendance il y a une logique spécifique de la sécurité qui fait qu’on ne peut pas mesurer le succès d’opération de sécurité sous peine de produire des effets contreproductifs notamment en arrêtant des suspects et des personnes innocentes en verbalisant ou en contrôlant les identités de personnes sans raison objective. Il n’en reste pas moins que la logique dominante aujourd’hui est l’application de critères d’efficacités calculables y compris aux opérations de police.

L’objectif est de maximiser l’efficacité des professionnels de la sécurité que ce soit des militaires au travers des « metrics » ou que ce soit des policiers au travers des reformes des politiques publiques inspirées par les « new public management ». Ces effets sont généralement ambigus dans le domaine sécuritaire. De ce point de vue, on peut constater que la sécurité est un domaine dans lequel l’application de critères d’efficacité propre à d’autres champs d’efficacités, de produire des effets pervers. Un de ces effets pervers, par exemple, est que moins il y a de violence dans une société donnée, plus le sentiment d’insécurité résiduel peut paraître intolérable. Cela veut dire que moins il y a de violence dans une société, plus il y a le sentiment que ce qui reste de violence qui est la part irréductible de la violence qui perdure dans la société va apparaitre comme intolérable. C’est un paradoxe qu’on peut observer depuis les années 1970 et 1980. Si on demande dans la rue quel est le sentiment que les gens ont concernant l’insécurité et son évolution, on a bien souvent l’impression qu’il y a une explosion de l’insécurité dans les banlieues, dans les grandes villes, qu’il y a une montée du terrorisme, qu’il y a de plus en plus d’incivilités et donc de plus en plus de menaces à la société et aux individus alors même que les statistiques existantes, en particulier sur le long terme, montrent le contraire. Il montre par exemple que ce qu’on appelle le « terrorisme », les chances qu’il cause de blesser un individu lambda sont plus réduites que d’être frappé par la foudre. Pourtant, personne ne pense à dépenser les sommes dans lutte ou dans la prévention des décès liés à la foudre que l’on dépense dans la lutte contre le terrorisme. Or, si l’on suit strictement la logique mathématique rationnelle des statistiques, il serait bien d’aller dans ce sens.

Il y a un déclin général de la violence qui est une tendance depuis le XVIIème siècle, mais il persiste des formes résiduelles d’incivilité, de violence, y compris d’attaques dites « terroristes », et celles-ci nous semblent être d’autant plus insupportable qu’elles sont rares, alors que dans des sociétés dans lesquelles le niveau de violence est très important comme en Afghanistan ou certains pays d’Afrique subsaharienne, les préoccupations au jour le jour des individus ne sont pas forcément liés à cette violence, mais peuvent être plus liés à des formes ou des préoccupations telles que la pauvreté ou la famine et donc des problèmes liés au niveau de vie et au niveau de croissance. Le premier paradoxe est que plus une société recherche la pacification dans ses relations sociales, plus il y aura le sentiment que les formes de violences résiduelles qui persistent dans cette société sont intolérables, insupportables, et donc un sentiment d’insécurité.

Un autre paradoxe lié a la tentative de rationnaliser les pratiques de sécurité en les rendant de plus en plus efficaces, calculables et en permettant d’éliminer les facteurs d’insécurité les plus omniprésents, en tout cas ressentis comme tel, est que plus les outils de sécurité sont performants, plus grand sera le nombre des phénomènes considérés comme dangereux. Dans beaucoup de sociétés dans les pays du tiers-monde ou bien aussi dit les pays du sud, les forces de police lorsqu’il y en a en interne, ont plutôt pour fonction de lutter contre les rébellions, contre l’autorité en place, éventuellement de lutter contre les facteurs d’instabilité sociétale, mais certainement pas de lutter contre la délinquance ou la petite criminalité simplement parce qu’il n’y a pas suffisamment de forces de police déployées et que cela ne fait pas partie des préoccupations du gouvernement en place. Ce veut également dire qu’il n’y a pas forcément le sentiment que la petite délinquance est un problème endémique comme c’est le cas chez nous. Cela montre que plus les outils de sécurités sont considérés comme performants aux vus de ce qui est considéré comme le problème sécuritaire prédominant, plus grand sera le nombre de phénomènes que l’on considère comme dangereux. Effectivement, lorsque l’on commence à utiliser des statistiques pour mesurer les risques que tel ou tel individu devienne un délinquant, un criminel ou un terroriste, plus les politiques de sécurités deviennent intrusives puisque le nombre de risques et de menaces à la sécurité potentielle que l’on identifie est démultiplié. Cela montre qu’il est très difficile d’appliquer une logique mathématique, arithmétique et rationnalisante aux logiques sécuritaires de la même façon qu’on les applique aux politiques économiques ou à la globalisation financière.

Le deuxième critère de la rationalisation est le critère de prévisibilité et de contrôle des incertitudes. De ce point de vue, ce qu’il y a comme rationalisation que l’on voit à l’œuvre au travers des sociétés capitalistes de la bureaucratisation, on le voit également dans les pratiques sécuritaires contemporaines au travers d’une préoccupation pour le contrôle du futur. Lorsqu’on parle de sécurité, on parle toujours de menace potentielle qui pourrait s’actualiser dans le futur, mais il n’en reste pas moins aujourd’hui dans les logiques sécuritaires qui se déploient au travers des guerres dites « préventives » comme on le disait en ce qui concerne la guerre en Irak en 2003 ou que ce soit au travers des pratiques antiterroristes contemporaines qui sont orientées vers un futur de plus en plus éloigné. On voit souvent un glissement dans le discours sécuritaire contemporain de la notion de « menace » vers celle de « risque ». On parle de plus en plus de la « gestion des risques » dans les métiers de la sécurité que ce soit les miliaires, les policiers ou les services de renseignement, là ou avant, on parlait avant tout de « menace ». Ce glissement sémantique, précisément n’est pas simplement sémantiques, mais correspond aussi à un changement de vision des enjeux sécuritaires dans les de plus en plus, on se tourne vers un futur de plus en plus éloigné dans la mise en œuvre des politiques sécuritaires.

Quelles peuvent être les différences entre « menace » et « risque » ? La « menace » est toujours une éventualité. Il y a différent critère et différentes connotations attachées à ces deux termes. Sans dire qu’il y a une logique fondamentalement différente entre la « menace » et le « risque », c’est la manière dont ces termes sont utilisés par les professionnels de la sécurité qui traduisent des différences de connotations qui sont intéressantes à souligner. En principe, une « menace » est intentionnelle. Si on parle de « risque », il n’y a pas d’intentionnalité stratégique qui se cache derrière ce type de phénomène. Ce sont plutôt des phénomènes émergents que personne n’a voulus, mais qui représente néanmoins un risque pour nos sociétés et les individus qui la composent . En général, lorsqu’on parle de « menace », on fait référence à une intentionnalité, lorsqu’on parle de « risque », on fait plutôt référence à un certain nombre de phénomènes qui peuvent être intentionnels, mais également ne pas l’être et qui sont de plus en plus perçus sous le terme d’enjeux sécuritaires. La « menace » n’est pas forcement calculable sous l’angle de la probabilité. En principe, un « risque » est avant tout une probabilité. On ne parle de « calcul de risque » et non pas de « calcul de menace ». Le « risque » est calculable au contraire de la « menace ».

Aujourd’hui, dans la logique sécuritaire prédominante, on parle plutôt de « risque probabilisable » que de « menace » en ce sens là. Une autre différence est qu’une « menace » est toujours négative, alors qu’un « risque » peut être positif. Un entrepreneur se doit de prendre des risques si il veut maximiser son taux de profit. La « prise de risque » a une connotation qui est neutre là où la « menace » est forcement négative. De la même façon, lorsque les policiers ou les militaires parlent de « menace » et disent qu’il faut « contrer la menace », lorsqu’ils parlent de « risque », ce n’est pas pour « contrer un risque », on le gère, on arbitre différent « risques » entre eux, on essaie de minimiser le « risque », cela soulève d’autres risques. On fait des arbitrages en différents « risques », mais on ne les contre pas comme on « contre la menace ». Lorsqu’on parle de « menace », on considère généralement qu’elle est réductible, c’est-à-dire qu’un monde sans « menace » doit être possible alors qu’un monde sans « risque » ne peut être possible parce que la manière dont on gère un risque soulève toujours d’autres risques. Par exemple, si on cherche à lutter contre le terrorisme en limitant la mobilité des populations étrangères, cela soulève d’autres risques notamment parce que la libre circulation des personnes est un inséparable du libéralisme économique et il y a des risques de déstabilisation économique dans un certain nombre de mesures antiterroristes. Donc, il y a des différences de connotation entre « risque » et « menace », or, aujourd’hui, de plus en plus, les politiques sécuritaires s’intéressent à la notion de « risque » qui est beaucoup plus tournée vers le futurque la « menace » puisque le propre de la « menace », dans un sens strict, est d’être proféré, un groupe ou un État considéré comme « menaçant » est un groupe ou un État qui a proféré une menace. Alors que pour dire qu’une groupe ou un État représente un risque, il n’est pas forcement nécessaire qu’il ait proféré une « menace », il n’est pas forcement nécessaire qu’il ait une intentionnalité présente, mais cela peut être une intentionnalité future que l’on calcul sur la base de statistiques, c’est-à-dire que l'onconsidère ou on peut dire qu’un groupe se retrouvant dans telle ou telle situation, d’ailleurs c’est un argument qu’on entend parfois de certains hommes politiques autant de droite que de gauche, que des populations immigrées qui ont peu de ressources économiques représentent un « facteur de risque » en basculant dans le fondamentalisme religieux et le terrorisme alors même que dans le présent ils n’ont pas cette intentionnalité et qu’ils n’ont pas de dynamique de radicalisation. Lorsqu’on parle de « risque », de plus en plus de métiers de la sécurité le font et notamment le renseignement, on présente comme des « menaces » donc des « facteurs de risques », des populations dont on admet dans le présent qu’elles n’ont ni proféré des « menaces » ni démontrées d’intentionnalité de le faire dans le présent. Il y a une volonté de contrôler le futur et de lutter plutôt contre les « risques » que les « menaces ».

Il y a la prégnance des scénarios du pire, mais également une logique de proactivité qui va de pair avec les opérations de sécurités de plus en plus tournées vers le futur et vers un futur de plus en plus potentiel et virtuel qu’actuel. On parle plus de proactivité et d’anticipation plutôt que justice criminelle. Le renseignement policier traditionnel vise à identifier les individus qui ont commis un crime dans le passé de façon à les arrêter, à les soumettre à un procès et éventuellement les condamner si leur culpabilité a été prouvée alors qu’aujourd’hui, de plus en plus, il y a une logique de renseignement tournée vers le futur, c’est-à-dire qu’il y a des groupes à risque qui sont des groupes de personnes qui n’ont pas encore commis un crime, mais qui compte tenu de certains facteurs identifiés statistiquement pourraient le commettre.

Le troisième critère de la rationalisation au sens de Weber est l’utilisation de la technologie :

• de ce point de vue, les militaires ont toujours été à l’avant-garde de l’innovation technologique que l’on pense à l’avion à réaction, internet ou le téflon. Il s’agit dans ces trois cas d’innovations qui étaient militaires avant d’être appliquées dans la vie civile. Cela montre la manière dont les militaires et la guerre ont toujours été un facteur d’innovation technologique en mettant l’accent et en valorisant l’utilisation de technologies en contexte de guerre.
• en ce qui concerne les polices, il y a le développement de nouvelles méthodes d’investigation et de collecte d’indices. Les polices travaillent de plus en plus sur la base de bases de données, d’informations collectées sur des groupes de plus en plus larges à partir desquels on va essayer d’identifier des régularités statistiques pour essayer d’identifier les irrégularités qui pourraient laisser soupçonner des pratiques illicites. Donc, il y a l’utilisation de plus en plus prégnante de technologies informatiques, de logiciels de « data minding » et d’algorithmes sophistiqués pour identifier des populations à risque comme notamment aux Pays-Bas ce qu’on appel l’« intelligence-led policing » qui est la police par le biais de techniques de renseignements qui implique le recours notamment à des technologies sophistiquées dans les opérations de police.
• dans les appareils de renseignement, on voit également cette logique à l’œuvre. On travaille de plus en plus sur le « renseignement technologique » plutôt que sur ce qu’on appelait le « renseignement humain » qui sont les espions classiques. Les renseignements par les signaux à savoir le « signals Intelligence », consiste à stocker des flux d’informations transmis par ondes électromagnétiques soit en captant des discussions téléphoniques, que ça soit en interceptant des messages sur internet stockés dans des bases de données. Cela est notamment l’objet du Réseau Échelon qui avait été révélé à la fin des années 1990. C’est un réseau mis en place par les États-Unis et dont les radars se trouvent en Écosse et qui vise à rassembler et à stocker de manière massive des informations provenant des conversations téléphoniques passées sur le continent européen, mais également des messages internet stockés sur des bases de données aux États-Unis de façon à éventuellement avoir des éléments à charge si des terroristes s’infiltreraient aux États-Unis depuis l’Europe ou si des attentats étaient commis depuis l’Europe, cela permettrait de retrouver leur message dans cette base de données qui essaie également de prévoir des attentats qui vont se passer. Ce n’est pas seulement une logique de justice criminelle, mais c’est une logique de renseignement de masse à travers le stockage de masse d’information par le biais de capteurs électroniques.

Professionalization of security

These "intelligence-led policing" logics can be found in increasingly sophisticated technologies in wartime activities, in police activities, in intelligence activities and through the increasing professionalization of security professions, raising the question of what is the difference between a "trade" and a "profession". In general, in sociological literature on professions and on professionalization, it is considered that what distinguishes a "profession" from a "trade" is perhaps that a "profession" implies technical training accompanied by methods of validating skills, a "trade" can be "learned on the lateness", whereas a "profession" is learned at school, at university, to follow a theoretical and practical training, training which is not only necessary but also necessary for the development of a profession. The "profession" as opposed to the "profession" is intellectual. A "profession" has institutional means to ensure compliance with professional standards.

These three criteria of the "profession" that distinguishes it from the "profession", we see them more and more at work in what was traditionally the "security professions". In any case, as far as the military is concerned, we have seen that at the end of the Middle Ages, essentially a statutory prerogative linked to birth, there was a military aristocracy in which one was military from father to son, linked to belonging to a military family and this was totally disconnected from any possible formation or any particular intellectual skills. Today, there are more and more professional armies made up of professionals who work in the military profession primarily for reasons of salary rather than social status and who require advanced training, all the more so as the military technologies used are increasingly advanced. We see a transition from aristocracy to military meritocracy that translates into a professionalization of the "military profession" or the professionalization of what was once the "military profession".

Unlike the Versailles Congress of 1919, the Vienna Congress of 1815 was negotiated by aristocrats, while in Versailles it was civil servants illustrating the professionalisation, this transition from military and diplomacy to a social class rather than training for diplomats and militia who had specific training, regardless of their social origin.

The professionalization of security is the third element after bureaucratization and rationalization, which is the culmination of long-term transformations in security practices linked to the bureaucratization of the state.

Contemporary transformations in the world of security professionals

Bourdieu's text "Spirit of State Genesis and Structure of the bureaucratic field" published in 1993, synthesizes the course's argument. It is the idea that the formation of the State is the fruit of a long historical process that has emerged from a number of contingencies. When we tried to transpose these sequences to southern countries, it is impertinent and even illogical. The idea behind this text is when Bourdieu speaks of "practical utopia", which is the idea that we are not necessarily in a pre-established sequence, but precisely, at various times, different possibilities have been rejected until we arrive at the process as it is today.

Bourdieu's contribution is when he goes back to Weber's definition with the State as an enterprise of a monopoly of physical violence in a given territory. Bourdieu adds the idea of a physical and symbolic monopoly of violence in a given territory. Its contribution is that the State, in its efficiency, has not only imposed the monopoly of physical violence, but has also created the conditions for the population to accept this monopoly, particularly through the school which will create the conditions through diplomas through which the State will recognize the role that it will give legitimacy within society, to different actors and within different fields. The construction of the State is accompanied by the emergence of certain spaces that will differentiate themselves during the emergence of the State, that it was the fruit of a long process in which society becomes more complex through what Norbert Elias called the "process of civilization". We're going to have different spheres, different fields that will differentiate between them. Bourdieu gives the example of the legal field and how, as time goes by, when the jurists are at the base first of all close to the king, they will create an autonomous space which is the legal space that will lay down their own rules for the establishment of royal power, but gradually become autonomous as an independent field. He also talks about the field of coercion management, which is the professional turn of security, which is one of the constituent elements of the State, and if not one of the most important is the constitution of this monopoly of symbolic violence, which has been built up on a differentiation between the internal and the external.

We have seen that security is a moving target, that its meaning has evolved enormously throughout history. Frédéric Gros who spoke first of a philosophical understanding with a work on oneself that would allow us to arrive at a state of serenity, then through the emergence of a millenarian security by saying that security is a state that we reach in the hereafter, and at the time of the construction of the modern state, the notion of security can take on different meanings. One can find different tensions between these meanings, particularly through debates between "freedom" and "security", where "security" can have both a security dimension of "state security" and a security dimension of "state security" through the notion of "social security". Through time, different understandings can take precedence over one another. Security is a movement that evolves over time. For example, with "human security", the reference object of security is no longer the State, but the individual as such. This is a questioning of "security" only in terms of "state security".

Questioning the distinction between internal and external security

An important element is the differentiation between "internal" and "external" security, where it is often felt that this distinction is being questioned today. This observation is to be qualified because when we see a long process of monopoly of violence, the last logic which is rather coherent is that we secure an internal territory within which the monopoly of violence will be exercised and outside it is anarchy. International relations are relations between states and political science is internal. The same is true for security, where the outside world of anarchy is the military and the police are responsible for the outside world. There is a different relationship to force, since the military members on the outside use maximum force, whereas the police use minimum force inside, which is that of "security".

From the moment this fundamental distinction is made, at bureaucracy level, there are professions that differ between "external security" and "internal security" professionals. So, the stakes of having bureaucracies that differentiate themselves is that each one develops his rationality with different visions, his own autonomy and his own vision with an extremely clear division of work between the war for the military and the police inside.

With regard to the sequencing that has been put in place in relation to the emergence of the state and its relationship to war, we will see that we are in a typical ideal, that things have not always been like that and that this does not necessarily apply to other countries and the rest of the world. This distinction was made for the emergence of the state in the West, sometimes for instrumental logics. The idea that the distinction between internal and external security is constitutive of the State and that only today would we be questioning it, it is because we have to make a global security discourse, the global security context as much in terms of imposed discourses, whether it be the articulation or the form that the threat takes today, we have left the Cold War threats in terms of the danger of a nuclear war or invasion. This vision is simplistic and the line between internal and external has never been completely hermetic. In the colonies, there have always been military personnel involved in police missions. The Algerian War, which was not always recognized as a "war", was justified according to police operations, but led by French soldiers in a territory that was France. Military personnel intervene in a colonial war in a French department underlines a blurred line. Several countries have gendarmerie forces that are police forces with military status. Another example is transnational police bureaucracies, for a very long time there have been police officers involved in international investigations. As early as the 19th century, the fight against anarchists was a case in which police forces from different states cooperated with each other and therefore worked internationally. These police officers have become what we call "Interpol", which is a case of transnational police bureaucracy where we have police officers who specialize in transnational issues that call into question the distinction between internal and external security.