Sécurité et Défense dans l’Enseignement Supérieur en France et en Europe

O propósito deste texto é reflectir sobre os objectivos e metodologias de ensino dos assuntos de segurança e defesa. A sociologia militar francesa contrasta com a realidade de outros modelos tais como o americano ou o europeu. Segundo o autor, este tipo de ensino serve para incrementar a profissionalização dos quadros militares do futuro, sensibilizar a opinião pública, para fomentar o debate entre os meios civil e militar e manter uma base de peritos em assuntos de defesa independente do sector privado, a custos reduzidos. Estas iniciativas podem ser alcançadas através da mobilidade de profissionais especializados – para evitar a segregação intelectual de áreas de estudo – e do aprofundamento da ligação entre a cidadania e a defesa. Infelizmente, existe ainda um preconceito contra os cientistas sociais que se ocupam destas matérias. Por este motivo é necessário promover a pesquisa e formação nesta área. Na verdade, os países anglo-saxónicos estão mais avançados que a Europa continental estando os Estados Unidos e o Reino Unido na vanguarda do ensino e da investigação em defesa e segurança. Por fim, o modelo aplicado do sistema de formação/decisão nos temas de defesa e segurança deve ser pluralista; nem demasiado centralizado nem demasiado disperso

Reserva estratégica do medicamento – uma ferramenta (in)vulgar

Como têm respondido as Forças Armadas à emergência COVID-19? Que impactos tem esta crise na organização e nas missões militares? Em que medida afetará os recursos que lhes são alocados, ou o peso relativo de diferentes serviços ou áreas internamente? Que lições para a articulação com outras forças de segurança e organizações civis? Estas são algumas das questões que colocámos aos especialistas convidados neste IDN Brief. Para além de participantes nacionais desafiámos também analistas de França, Reino Unido, Holanda, Canadá e África do Sul que nos trazem reflexões a partir da experiência dos seus países. Os desafios que enfrentamos exigem cada vez mais partilha de informação, aprendizagem cruzada e respostas cooperativas.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Les décisions américaines en matière de défense : comment les sociologues y contribuent

Bernard Boëne : Die amerikanischen Entscheidungen zur Verteidigung. Wie die Soziologen dazu beitragen. Die Soziologie ware nicht was sie heute ist, wenn eine grosse Anzahl von Soziologen zwischen 1941 und 1945 ihren Beitrag zu den amerikanischen Kriegsanstrengungen nicht geleistet hätten : viele heute klassischen Arbeiten entstanden aus dieser den Umstanden entsprungenen Zusammenarbeit. Dieses goldene Zeitalter endete gleichzeitig mit dem zweiten Weltkrieg. Der vorliegende Aufsatz untersucht die kulturellen, institutionellen und praktischen Aspekte der Beziehungen, begrenzt und oft schwierig, zwischen den Entscheidungsverantwortlichen (Politik und Militar) und den sozialwissenschaftlichen Forschern der Vereinigten Staaten seit dieser Periode, wobei besonders die kürzliche Vergangenheit unterstrichen wird. Es wird eine Liste der Aktoren der militarischen Entscheidungshilfe zusammengestellt : « Verbraucher » und « Hersteller » der soziologischen Forschung. Der Verfasser schlägt eine Typologie ihrer Beziehungen vor und versucht, die Nutzlichkeit und den Einfluss der in diesem Rahmen durchgeführten Arbeiten zu würdigen. Er streift kurz die Debatte zur Funktionsweise der Berufsarmee, Debatte die in der Oeffentlichkeit Wirtschaftler und Soziologen gegenüberstellt, die ihrerseits vom Ministerium und den parlamentarischen Kommissionen unterstutzt werden. Dem Aufsatz folgt eine kurze Vorstellung verschiedener für diese Forschung repräsentativer Beiträge.Bernard Boëne : American defence decisions. The sociologists' contribution. Sociology would not be what it is today if a great many sociologists had not participated in the American war effort between 1941 and 1945. Many of the works that have since become classics, arose from the collaboration imposed by the circumstances. This golden age came to an end at the same time as the war. This article studies the cultural, institutional and practical aspects of the limited and often difficult relations between the deciders, both political and military, and the social scientists in the United States since that period, particular emphasis being placed on the more recent past. A list of the actors involved in aiding military decisions is drawn up : 'consumers' and 'producers' of sociological research. A typology of their relationships is proposed with an attempt to evaluate the usefulness and influence of the different projects carried out within this framework. The article touches briefly on the debate over the functioning of the professional army, in which economists and sociologists, supported respectively by the Ministry and the parliamentary commissions oppose their antagonistic opinions in the open. A succinct presentation of several contributions considered representative of this type of research completes the article.Bernard Boëne : Les décisions américaines en matière de défense. Comment les sociologues y contribuent. La sociologie ne serait pas ce qu'elle est aujourd'hui si un grand nombre de sociologues n'avaient apporté, entre 1941 et 1945, leur contribution à l'effort de guerre américain : beaucoup de travaux aujourd'hui classiques sont nés de cette collaboration imposée par les circonstances. Cet âge d'or a pris fin en même temps que la seconde guerre mondiale. L'article examine les aspects culturels, institutionnels et pratiques des rapports, limités et souvent difficiles, entre décideurs (politiques ou militaires) et chercheurs en sciences sociales aux Etats-Unis depuis cette période, en mettant un accent particulier sur le passé récent. Il dresse une liste des acteurs de l'aide à la décision militaire : « consommateurs » et « producteurs » de recherche sociologique. Il propose une typologie de leurs relations et s'efforce d'évaluer l'utilité et l'influence des travaux effectués dans ce cadre. Il aborde brièvement le débat sur le fonctionnement de l'armée de métier, débat qui oppose sur la place publique économistes et sociologues, respectivement soutenus par le ministère et les commissions parlementaires. L'étude est prolongée par la présentation succincte de plusieurs contributions jugées représentatives de ce type de recherche.Bernard Boëne : Las decisiones americanas en materia de defensa. Cómo contribuyen a ello los sociólogos. No sería la sociologia lo que es hoy si gran numero de sociólogos no habian llevado entre 1941 y 1945 su contribución al esfuerzo de guerra americano : muchos trabajos hoy clásicos nacieron de esa colaboración impuesta рог las circunstancias. Esa edad de oro se acabó con la segunda guerra mundial. Examina el articulo los aspectos culturales institucionales y prácticos de las relaciones, limitados, y a menudo dificiles entre arbitros (politícos o militares) e investigadores en ciencias sociales en los Estados Unidos desde ese periodo acentuando peculiarmente el pasado reciente. Establece una lista de los actores de la ayuda en la decision militar : « consumadores » y « productores » de investigación sociológica. Propone una tipologia de sus relaciones y se esfuerza de evaluar la utilidad y la influencia de los trabajos efectuados en ese cuadro. Empieza brevemente el debate acerca del funcionamiento del ejército, debate que opone en la plaza publica a economistos y a sociólogos respetivamente sostenidos por el ministerio y las comisiones parlamentarias. Se prolonga el estudio con la corta presentación de varias contribuciones juzgadas representativas de ese tipo de investigación.Boëne Bernard. Les décisions américaines en matière de défense : comment les sociologues y contribuent. In: Revue française de sociologie, 1983, 24-2. pp. 203-226

G. Caforio (ed.), Social Sciences and the Military: An Interdisciplinary Overview, London: Routledge (Cass Military Studies), 2007, 320 pages.

The military field in the social sciences has from the start involved all disciplines. Furthermore, not content to juxtapose disciplinary angles of attack, it has often articulated them – witness Samuel Stouffer's The American Soldier, Raymond Aron's work or that of Morris Janowitz. Another distinctive feature of the field is that it is one of the most internationally integrated in the social science community. The reason is that except for the United States, the numbers of social scientists ..

Qu’est-il advenu du complexe militaro-industriel ?

While military force has long been regarded in the American tradition as a threat to liberty, democracy and peace, the notion of a military-industrial complex (MIC) appeared on the scene as late as 1961. It owed much to the power elite thesis offered a few years earlier by C.W. Mills. In the 1970s, however, the much weakened consensus on defense and foreign policy, changes in the international context and the substitution of neoclassical for keynesian paradigms combined to limit the legitimacy and influence of a MIC in which fault lines became apparent. At the time of the Reagan defense build-up, a military reform movement led frontal attacks on 'waste, fraud and mismanagement'. In the last five years, the two components of the MIC have become increasingly dissociated in analyses of the issues involved. The recent period has shown that influence can be derived from a position of relative weakness as well as from one of strength, which certainly bears out the notion that civil-military relations are best approached in institutional rather than in quantitative terms.Boëne Bernard. Qu’est-il advenu du complexe militaro-industriel ?. In: Revue Française d'Etudes Américaines, N°63, février 1995. Lobbying et lobbyists. pp. 65-76

Nora Kinzer Stewart, Mates and Mucha-chos : Unit Cohesion in the Falklands/Malvinas War, 1991

Boëne Bernard. Nora Kinzer Stewart, Mates and Mucha-chos : Unit Cohesion in the Falklands/Malvinas War, 1991. In: Sociologie du travail, 34ᵉ année n°4, Octobre-décembre 1992. pp. 514-516

Janowitz Morris, On social organization and social control.

Boëne Bernard. Janowitz Morris, On social organization and social control.. In: Revue française de sociologie, 1992, 33-4. Organisations, firmes et réseaux. pp. 690-691

Janowitz Morris, On social organization and social control.

Boëne Bernard. Janowitz Morris, On social organization and social control.. In: Revue française de sociologie, 1992, 33-4. Organisations, firmes et réseaux. pp. 690-691

Populism in Western Democracies : A View from France

The present article is the author's own English translation of a French piece entitled "Le populisme contemporain en Occident : Une autre lecture".Drawing upon the extensive literature on populism that has accumulated since the 1960s, this article first tries to characterize contemporary Western populist movements (I). It then details the key points of one of the most penetrating analyses of populism-E. Laclau's On Populist Reason (II)-, with a view to using it in a perspective other than its author's own (III). Having identified "civic" nuances among populist currents of the Left as well as of the Right, and in between them a moderate populist vote expressing disenchantment with government parties, it hypothesizes (on the basis of secondary analysis of existing studies) that the centre of gravity of the populist nebula in the West resides in a reference to the demos, rather than ethnos or plebs, and that the balance of forces within the populist support base is in its favour. It goes on to probe the causes of growing citizen alienation-the main source of populism. It suggests (based on fifteen unstructured interviews) that while the social aspect-the destabilization of the lower-middle classes induced by the neo-liberal order-is important, it does not exhaust the issue (IV). One reason is that the audience of populist themes is much wider than that central segment of societies ; another is that social demands only serve to trigger protests, and are soon followed by institutional demands to remedy a perceived disenfranchisement of majorities that has come about over the last half-century due to the rise of culturally-defined minority groups, accommodated by ruling and expressive elites. The ensuing "tyranny of minorities" has resulted in multiple everyday life constraints and reduced freedoms for the many, generating more frustration than meets the eye (V). The same result is achieved when citizens are treated as minors by a "framed democracy" in which their capacity for discernment is deliberately ignored, and their assent dispensed with, by ruling elites in the name of a presumed higher moral good, or directives from unelected faraway power centres (VI). The root cause of the malaise that has set in is the ascent of individualism and relaxation of citizenship norms from the 1960s onwards, which has led to a situation where authority and power are questioned or feared, and political leadership becomes weak. Now reduced to a managerial role, it takes to accommodating activists and militants, delegates policy-making to independent, nonpartisan authorities, expert committees or international organizations, and thus becomes unresponsive to the will of majorities, which (because they had hitherto been passive) it does not fear to ignore or manipulate. In reaction, majorities first went through a phase of apathy (which saw abstention rise), then started resorting to protest votes. Elite deafness or impotence has eventually led to a third stage, in which majorities are now abruptly reasserting their power and demanding a reaffirmation of citizenship. The current surge of populism bluntly informs us that the outer limits of the master-trend initiated in the 1960s have now been reached. Seen in that light, "civic" populism is a response to a deactivation of democracy rather than a threat to it (VII). Systems of representative democracy, put in place over two centuries when the masses were uneducated, are not aging well now that average education have considerably increased and majorities want to make themselves heard. Should that demand be ignored, the problem raised would become structural-and more acute : institutional reform in the direction of redefining the relationships between elites and grassroots, majority and minorities, is thus in order-the sooner the better (VIII)

La spécificité militaire conduit-elle à l’apolitisme ?

Le propos qui suit n’est pas d’un historien. Il est celui d’un sociologue répondant à la sollicitation amicale de ses voisins. Pour qui n’est pas familier des mœurs de sa tribu, sa démarche pourra surprendre, et elle mérite sans doute d’être précisée d’entrée. La différence entre historiens et sociologues (dont les politistes ne sont guère éloignés sur ce point) tient moins à l’objet étudié, surtout qu’il est historique, qu’à l’approche à lui réserver. On peut la formuler ainsi : là où les pr..