Cet article analyse le rôle de l’écrit législatif dans le processus de « sécuritisation » identitaire en France, en étudiant spécifiquement les évolutions législatives en matière de nationalité depuis la loi de 2003 « relative à la maîtrise de l’immigration, au séjour des étrangers en France et à la nationalité ». Il démontre que la loi, à travers sa dimension écrite et son cadre étatique légitimateur, agit aussi bien au commencement de la sécuritisation que dans sa finalisation. L’étude de la situation d’énonciation législative du corpus des quatre lois ayant fait évoluer les droits et les conditions d’accès à la nationalité française (2003, 2006, 2007, 2011) révèle que la sécuritisation opère un processus de légitimation à partir de mécanismes analogues au concept de « violence symbolique » de Pierre Bourdieu, c’est-à-dire à travers des actes d’énonciation sécuritisants non reconnus comme tels par l’audience.
This article analyzes the role legislative texts play in the identity process in France by examining the evolution of French nationality legislation since the passage of the 2003 law on immigration control, the residence of foreign nationals in France, and nationality. It shows that legislation, through its written dimension and the legitimizing framework of the state, has played a role both in instigating and finalizing the securitization process. Our examination of the situation in which the four laws amending the rights and conditions of French citizenship (2001, 2006, 2007, 2011) were enunciated reveals that securitization operates using mechanisms similar to Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of “symbolic violence,” i.e., by enouncing securitization acts that are not recognized as such by the audience and that consequently legitimize the securitization process.
‘Posthuman security’ should here not be understood in distinction from ‘post-human security’. It is not a question here of marking or describing the end or the aftermath of some historical era in which ‘human security’ in its conventional use would no longer play a roll. It’s not because such a claim could not—or should not—be made. Indeed, there are indeed many voices that claim that such a need is at hand, and that just such a historical analysis would be of considerable service. If we were to attempt such a post-mortem reconstruction, we might begin with the early inspirations in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations Charter, the Cold War shutting-down of the concept of ‘security’, the ‘discovery’ of the subaltern, and the new institutional challenges faced in crisis response and development work. We would surely include the break-through 1994 Human Development Report (UNDP, 1994), the creation of the Human Security section at the United Nations, the intellectual triumph, and practical ambivalence of the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect. Instead, the aim of this article, is to ask the question of ‘the human’, whose security it is human security’s ambition to advance and preserve. New research and new reflexion—by anthropologists, psychologists, philosophers and others suggests that the humanity of humans is, as with most phenomena, finite, that the definition or concept that regulates it has limits, that these limits have become more tangible, and that, as a consequence, a new look at ‘human security’ is warranted.
This article revisits the concept of sovereignty in political theory by applying tools adapted from Lacanian psychoanalytic theory. It critically reviews the premises of political subjected assumed by sovereignty, and formulates a widened concept of sovereignty based on a general understanding of the ‘self’, ‘self-relation’ and ‘identity’ as the fundamental components of sovereignty. With this concept in hand, the article then focuses on the concept of the ‘sovereign good’ common to French histories of political thought and of particular interest to Jacques Lacan in his 1959-60 seminar on the Ethics of Psychoanalysis and his 1963 article ‘Kant with Sade’. By reinterpreting the sovereignty of the sovereign good, Lacan points to a path according to which an idealised and universalised notion of the sovereign is made possible and energised through an identification of the ‘real’ with the sovereign good. By understanding sovereignty as supported by the Lacanian real, be can better understand both the forces that drive it to self-preservation and the insecurities that make its survival and longevity powerful hindrances to its dissolution