Security is at the center of modern life today. In its simplest form, the concept can be defined as the absence of any danger. It is the most important factor that unites a group against a danger, the subject of which is often uncertain or desired to be uncertain.
But let’s face it, the concept of security is much more than that. As we know from the contractualist philosophers, the most important cement that holds a society together is the concern for security.
We can trace the roots of this anxiety back to the beginning of life. The apparatus called the state emerged in modern times with the claim that it would respond to this anxiety. The paradox lies precisely at the center of this claim. The question is simple, does a state, with all its bureaucratic machinery, want to literally eliminate a concern to which it ontologically owes its existence? Does a state want to destroy itself?
Philosophy professor Frederic Gros’ “The Security Principle”, translated by Servet Ugan and published by Kolektif Kitap, deals with this concept, which is at the center of our lives, from different dimensions. Let me state right away that the most important problem with books of this kind is usually the translation. However, Gros’ book has a really successful translation. The translator should be congratulated for this.
Gros’ book consists of four main chapters. Firstly, he defines the concept of security as a state of mind and discusses it from an individual perspective. Here, of course, the Greek philosophers provide the greatest help; their views on the concept and the effects of the phenomenon on people’s mental state are explained.
Then, within the framework of the millennial utopia of the Christian faith, the concept of security as a happiness inherent in meliorated humanity is examined. Although the Church labeled this belief as heresy very early on, we can see traces of this utopian expectation in political, social and religious movements throughout the Middle Ages.
The last chapter deals with biosafety. However, the real chapter that prompted me to write this article is the third chapter in which Gros describes the state as the guarantor of security. Because the main clause of the contract we all make with the state is the concept of security.
The State as a Guarantor of Security
The modern state promises security to its citizens through three key elements. Independent courts to ensure that the common law is applied to all and that the fundamental rights of individuals are respected; a police force to ensure the security of life and property and public order; and finally an army to prevent hostile attacks from outside… Although these three elements are presented as guarantees of citizen security, they mostly work as a guarantee of the continuity of the complex bureaucratic structure called the state.
In trying to explain the concept of the state, Gros, of course, primarily refers to contractualist authors. Hobbes, Spinoza, Locke and Rousseau can be considered as the founders of our political modernity, of course without ignoring the important differences between them. However, in his book, Gros touches on commonalities and rightly places the concept of “security” at the center of their theoretical structures of these authors. Moreover, in doing so, he subjects some of their theses to a modern reading and makes some references to the present.
Of course, the commonalities Gros establishes between these authors are not limited to security. All of them make a distinction between an anarchic state of nature and an orderly civilized state and place political authority at the center of this distinction.
All four of these authors were declared objectionable by the existing governments in their time. Hobbes struggled with censorship from the very first text he wrote. Leviathan was sued. The book was soon considered cursed and began to circulate secretly from hand to hand. Hobbes was forced to remain silent on political issues.
Spinoza was forced to publish his book “Theological Political Treatise” anonymously. Locke took care to have his works copied by a secretary, as he thought that this way he would not be recognized by his handwriting. Rousseau’s “Social Contract” was banned from entering France and the editors who risked publishing it were arrested. All these texts were cursed, declared heretical, banned or printed with extreme caution.
But what makes them so dangerous? Is it the premise that “the state is security”? So what was it about this notion of security that disturbed the current administrations? Because if a book were published today saying that the purpose of the state is security, the current governments would not be disturbed by it. Gros pursues this question.
First of all, all four authors start from an accepted duality. They define two opposing structures: the state of nature and the civilized state. The state of nature is a period of primordial anarchy before civilization. A state of humanity not governed by an accepted authority. In short, a point of absolute negativity. Moreover, this point of negativity is not completely lost. It can seep into everything at any moment. It even seeps into the civilized state and threatens its integrity.
But the state of nature is not a monolithic period in itself. Anarchy within the state of nature is an end point. For example, according to Locke, the state of war (anarchy) emerges as the inevitable corruption of a happy and peaceful state of nature. Humans are free and happy without an authority to rule over them after they have left the hand of the Creator. This is at the heart of the state of nature. But like all beauty, it does not last long. The first dispute marks the end of this happy state. In the absence of judges, power will be right. The mere absence of a judge is enough to structurally evolve from the state of nature to the state of war.
In Rousseau, the transition from the state of nature to the state of war is slower, but more elaborate. In “Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men”, a tragedy in three acts awaits man. In the first act, man is alone, innocent and happy. He has two natural passions: survival and the avoidance of pain. In the second act, a disaster forces people to form small communities. These are small clans that hunt together and organize great feasts. But then agriculture and mining come along and turn everything upside down. This is what the last act is about. The division of labor and the development of private property will lead to conflicts based on hatred and envy.
At this point the formula of the primitive contract with the state is clear: Everyone pays for their security through obedience. For security at the expense of equality and freedom, one obeys the laws set by the state. Thus, a principle emerges that legitimizes the state and its activities in advance. However, to interpret the arguments of contractualist thinkers as “give your freedom and take your security” would not only be unfair to them, but also to fail to understand why they were declared persona non grata during their life. The duty and responsibility they assigned to the political authority is not that simple.
First of all, they have taken the legitimacy of political authority from the heavens and placed it in a utilitarian perspective. This in itself is a great crime. In addition, the state must realize the political and social power of the individual. Security can only exist where there is maximum freedom, true equality and social solidarity. Moreover, after public order, the most important thing for them is the independence of justice to protect against the abuses of the ruling power, which in itself explains why they were considered dangerous by the governments of their time. For them, despotism is inherent in power.
Security is one of the fundamental concepts that preoccupies people in every period. In Ancient Greece, philosophers interpreted security as an insight into wisdom. For some, however, absolute security is merely an illusion or, to put it mildly, a great folly. Perhaps in both cases it would be appropriate to recall the story of Pyrrhon, the founder of scepticism.
Pyrrhon was traveling by ship one day when a storm suddenly erupted and the ship began to rock like a cradle. Everyone on board turned pale, fear was written all over their faces. And the storm increases in intensity. Just then, Pyrrhon sees a piglet at the foot of the mast, calmly putting its snout into the feed bowl. Pointing his finger at the animal, he exclaims to those around him, “Here I present to you the only true philosopher on board.” Because he is the only one who feels safe.