Paris School of Security Studies

The roots of this school date back to the early 1970s, influenced by French theorists in North America and Canada, such as Michel Foucault and Pierre Bourdieu. They brought forth a constructive research agenda and sparked intense debates in political theory, post-colonial studies, history, sociology, political science, and international relations by the mid-1980s. This opened avenues for research topics encompassing migration, identity, borders, sovereignty, the role of professional policies, and a reflective technological approach. However, the direction of research and academic discussion within France was characterized by a certain insularity, focusing on specific fields such as sociology, political science, public policy, history, criminology, philosophy, and political theory. The Paris School seeks to modify the prevailing perspective on security through three main approaches:

1. Rather than analyzing security as an inevitable concept, the Paris School proposes a Foucauldian approach to security, viewing it as a “technology of government.”
2. Instead of investigating the underlying intentions behind the use of force, this approach emphasizes the effects of “power games.”
3. Rather than focusing on “speech acts,” the Paris School emphasizes practices, crowds, and contexts that enable or hinder the production of specific forms of governance.

Contributions of the Paris School to Security Studies:

Security as a Mode of Policing and Surveillance:

The work of the Paris School primarily focuses on policing activities, which have intensified in recent decades. These activities occur through connections among various institutions operating within networks. As police take on a broader spectrum of new activities and functions, their work increasingly transcends national boundaries and moves beyond traditional policing methods, affecting even foreign affairs. The idea of surveillance, or the “electronic eye,” as articulated by David Lyon, embodies a contemporary reflection of Foucault’s concept of the panopticon. Here, the essential idea is that power must be both visible and intangible, manifesting in various forms in our contemporary society: telecommunications surveillance, electronic surveillance, radar surveillance, and image surveillance, all operating under the banner of technical intelligence, which creates a new power system in international relations capable of providing detailed information devoid of value concerning the topic of surveillance. The notion that “the image does not lie” serves as a technical strategic source of security truth.

Furthermore, globalization in the 21st century has linked the local with the global and merged the internal with the external, leading to an interdependent and intertwined security landscape. This has resulted in an increase in the volume of security impacts. Consequently, the Paris School focuses on the role played by security agencies, referred to as “Bigo’s security professionals.” In the Paris School’s framework, security, as a form of governance, is encapsulated in policing practices through surveillance techniques, grounded in networks that embody the connections among various functional security institutions that transcend national borders. Thus, the school emphasizes the importance of coordination among different security professionals through cooperative cross-border policing efforts, which could establish a techno-strategic concept based on surveillance techniques. Consequently, security agencies—such as national gendarmeries, customs, border guards, and immigration agencies—have become the core and focal points of security interests related to combating insecure phenomena. The Paris School’s conception of security can be summarized in the following key points:

1. Security is a governmental technology.
2. It is exercised by policing agencies.
3. It employs surveillance techniques.
4. It monopolizes knowledge to determine the nature of threats and the form of security truth.

Integration of Internal and External Security:

The Paris School attempts to integrate internal and external security and critiques the traditional distinction between the two. Its proponents argue that merging them reinstates the relevance of certain security actors and agencies that have previously been overlooked, such as the gendarmerie, customs, border guards, and immigration officers, positioning them at the heart of the security field. Their productive capacities appear suitable for addressing contemporary challenges. Didier Bigo posits that the security field is not merely founded on the exercise of force and coercion but is also established on the capacity of actors to produce the information and data that underpin security truths and strategies. According to Bigo, the security field must achieve four conditions:

1. The security field as a realm of power.
2. The security field as a battlefield or arena of conflict.
3. The security field as a domain of dominance over another field.
4. The security field as a space of transformation, reorganizing social changes.

Source of Security Truth Production:

According to the school, security professionals are the primary source of knowledge and security truth production. Security agencies and technologies, such as gendarmeries, customs, police, prison guards, intelligence, counterintelligence, and remote surveillance systems, play a significant role in determining what is regarded as a threat or security issue. In the Parisian view, security truth is the product of transnational systems. Security professionals strategize to transcend national borders and form alliances, engaging in cross-border police cooperation, sharing databases, and exchanging security techniques and experiences among transnational actors and agencies. Thus, security, according to the Paris School, is not merely a subjective reference but also a governmental technology—the capacity to exercise surveillance. Therefore, these professionals assert that they must possess the ability to determine the nature and priority of threats to delineate what precisely constitutes a security issue. This authority, rooted in their routine technological capabilities for data collection and classification, enables these professionals to create a security field in which they recognize themselves as qualified specialists, all while finding themselves in competition with others to monopolize legitimate knowledge concerning what constitutes legitimate concern and real danger.

References

1. The article “Multidisciplinary Approaches to Security: The Paris School and Ontological Security” provides an overview of the Paris School’s approach to security studies, highlighting its use of concepts from international relations, sociology, and criminology.
2. The academic paper “When Foucault met security studies: A critique of the ‘Paris school’ of security studies” offers a critical analysis of the Paris School, particularly focusing on the work of Didier Bigo, one of its prominent members.
3. The Oxford Research Encyclopedia entry on “Realism and Security” includes a section on social constructivism that contrasts with the Paris School approach, providing context for understanding the school’s position in security studies.
4. The article “Securitization Theory and the Paris School of International Security Studies” in the journal Vestnik MGIMO-Universiteta provides a comprehensive overview of the Paris School’s theoretical and philosophical underpinnings.
5. The book chapter “Security Practices” by Balzacq et al. in The International Studies Encyclopedia Online is cited as an important resource for understanding the Paris School’s approach to security practices.
6. Works by Didier Bigo, particularly his articles on globalized (in)security and the field of security professionals, are foundational texts for the Paris School.
7. The C.A.S.E. Collective’s 2006 article “Critical Approaches to Security in Europe” is mentioned as an important resource for understanding critical security studies, including the Paris School’s perspective.
8. The Sciences Po Paris School of International Affairs’ Master in International Security program provides practical information on how the Paris School’s approach is taught and applied in an academic setting.