French military careers and European security integration: How internationalisation changes military socialisation
| DOI | 10.1177/0010836716671758 |
| Date | 01 June 2017 |
| Published date | 01 June 2017 |
| Author | Thibaud Boncourt |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836716671758
Cooperation and Conflict
2017, Vol. 52(2) 241 –260
© The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0010836716671758
journals.sagepub.com/home/cac
French military careers and
European security integration:
How internationalisation
changes military socialisation
Thibaud Boncourt
Abstract
This study uses qualitative data on the trajectories of French military officers to provide
preliminary hypotheses on the internationalisation of military careers and the dynamics of
international military socialisation. It is divided into three sections. The first section provides
an overview of the structure of the French armed forces and gives details on the biographical
qualitative methods used throughout the article. The second and third sections describe the
types of internationalisation that occur during the first and second phases of military careers
respectively. The article mainly contends that French officers are unprepared for the type of
internationalisation they experience in the framework of European security institutions. In spite
of prior experiences of international contexts, they are forced to learn most of their work on
the job and to improvise in their handling of international interactions and negotiations. These
findings are shown to have implications for debates in the sociology of professions and the study
of European security integration.
Keywords
Biographical interviews, European security, France, internationalisation, military careers,
socialisation
Introduction
European security integration has puzzled social scientists for more than two decades
(Krotz and Maher, 2011). Scholars disagree on the extent to which such integration has
indeed taken place: some believe that European security cooperation has increased since
the end of the Cold War; while others are ‘pessimistic that little, if any, meaningful secu-
rity cooperation has occurred in Europe’ (Jones, 2007). There is also little agreement
Corresponding author:
Thibaud Boncourt, Centre Européen de Sociologie et de Science Politique (CESSP), 59 rue Pouchet, 75017
Paris, France.
Email: t.boncourt@gmail.com
671758CAC0010.1177/0010836716671758Cooperation and ConflictBoncourt
research-article2016
Article
242 Cooperation and Conflict 52(2)
about the relevant explanations for these evolutions: neorealist scholars emphasise the
role of the structure of the international system (Art, 2004; Jones, 2003; Mearsheimer,
2001; Posen, 2006; Rosato, 2011); neo-institutionalist authors focus on institutional
mechanisms (Gegout, 2002; Güssgen, 2002; Howorth and Menon, 2009; Rayroux, 2011;
Smith, 2004); and constructivist studies use cultural and normative dynamics as explana-
tory factors (Katzenstein, 1996; Meyer, 2007; Vennesson et al., 2009; Wendt, 1995).
While these theses all have their specific merits and limits, they tend to share a common
limitation. By focusing on the ‘macro’ question of whether European security integration
is indeed occurring, they tend to pay little attention to what happens at the ‘micro’ level of
individuals. Sociological studies of the European Union (EU) have shown that, irrespective
of the extent to which European countries are getting closer at the diplomatic and defence
level, the careers and practices of some professionals have changed significantly over the
last two decades. The creation of European institutions has led to an increase in the inter-
national mobility of experts (Robert, 2010), journalists (Baisnée, 2007), lobbyists (Michel,
2005), lawyers (Vauchez, 2007), civil servants (Georgakakis, 2013), diplomats (Buchet de
Neuilly, 2009) and politicians (Beauvallet and Michon, 2010), thus altering the tradition-
ally national patterns of their careers and socialisation (Hooghe, 2005). Working in
European settings has also pushed these professionals to adapt their professional practices
and norms to these new contexts. European integration has thus provided the impetus for a
significant change in the structure of several professions.
These changes have also affected security professionals and particularly military per-
sonnel. Since the Second World War, European armed forces have been subject to a
strong professionalisation (Genieys et al., 2001; Irondelle, 2011; Joana, 2012) and inter-
nationalisation (Cross, 2011, 2013; Mérand, 2008). Officers now work in a wide variety
of international settings in the course of their careers (Table 1). These forms of interna-
tionalisation, which vary in their objectives (military training, institutional cooperation,
and multinational operations) and geographical scope (from two to more than forty coun-
tries), have deeply changed the shape of military careers, socialisations and networks,
which used to be strongly structured by the national framework.
This article argues that this strong internationalisation of key security actors is of
interest to social scientists as it raises two sets of questions. The first has to do with the
sociology of professions: What are the profiles of the military actors who work in inter-
national settings? How valuable are these positions for their careers? How does interna-
tionalisation change the training, socialisation, and work practices of a profession that
has historically been, perhaps more than any other, closely tied to the state? Prior litera-
ture has suggested that internationalisation is often an elite endeavour: dominant profes-
sionals at the national level use international positions to accumulate more resources and
strengthen their national position, thus fuelling elite reproduction (see, for the case of
military officers Andreotti et al., 2010; Dezalay, 2004; Dezalay and Garth, 2002; Mérand
and Barrette, 2013; Sklair, 2001; Wagner, 2007). Other studies have argued otherwise
and suggested that internationalisation leads to the rise of new professional profiles: like
other types of activities, internationalisation implies the learning of specific knowledge
and skills, which some elites, distinct from national ones, specialise in, thus parting com-
pany from national career patterns (Beauvallet and Michon, 2010; Georgakakis and De
Lassalle, 2007; Vauchez, 2007). This article will contribute to this debate by showing
To continue reading
Request your trial