Jean-Louis Loubet del Bayle

Historien des idées et sociologue de la police
Professeur émérite de Science politique
à l'Université des Sciences sociales de Toulouse-Capitole

“1968. The origins
of police sociology in France.”

In revue Cahiers de la sécurité, no 6, October-December 2008, pp. 12-19. Un numéro intitulé : “Cyber criminality.” Rubrique : “Feature.” L’Institut national des Hautes Études de la Sécurité et de la Justice, France.

Introduction [12]

Before 1968 : a bibliographical void [12]

The 1970s bring change [14]

Developments during the 1980s [15]

Obstacles and reservations [17]

A problematic scientific topic [18]

Introduction

In commemoration of May 1968, I would like to talk about one of the consequences of these events, which, at first might seem paradoxical. It concerns the way France, and subsequently the rest of Europe, changed its attitude towards the development of research into the institutions of the police force. Over time, the discipline has evolved and we now talk about police sociology (here the term police, relates to the general function, and covers all the institutions involved).

The fact that the protesters were against the « repressive » attitude of the political and social establishment, focussed attention on what was a major instrument of this repression, namely « the police ». People became more interested in the different institutions of the police and how they worked. Some were ideologically motivated and very critical of any behaviour not considered "normal". They were looking to denounce any signs of the police becoming the "strong arm" of the establishment. Even though these initial motivations were ambiguous, they have led to the institutions of the police service becoming the legitimate subjects of intellectual and scientific research and analysis.

Before 1968 : a bibliographical void

Up until that time, and in France in particular, the police had never really been the subject of any type of systematic analysis : in 1970 one observer noted with reason "We are a Latin nation, full of inhibitions, you can't do this, don't do that : so many subjects are taboo. The police are one of them. When asked about the place of this institution in our country, both government and opposition politicians are suddenly struck dumb by some form of false modesty" [1]. And the so called intelligentsia are no different. In 1970, the first edition of the Encyclopaedia Universalis had no articles about the police, whereas the English equivalent, the Encyclopaedia Britannica has twenty pages on the subject. Furthermore, in the index of the Revue francaise de science politique (French Political Science Journal) for 1951-70, no reference was made at all to the "police". In 1970, the same magazine published a critical review of David H. Bayley's book "The Police and political development in India", where the reviewer was "astonished that such an important amount of research and time should be devoted to such a subject !".

Jean-Louis Loubet del Bayle

Jean-Louis Loubet del Bayle is Professor of Political Science at the University of Social Sciences and the Institute of Political Studies in Toulouse, where he founded and directed the Centre for Studies and Research into the Police. He also oversees the "Security and Society" collection published by Harmattan. Furthermore, as a historian of ideas, his personal contribution to the sociology of police institutions has particularly focused on the role of police institutions in the socio-political organisation of societies, according to changes in types of social control. He is noted as author of the book "Police et politique. Une approche sociologique - Police and Politics. A Sociological Approach". (Paris, L'Harmattan, 2006).

[13]

The number of contemporary reference works concerning the French police services was at that time, to say the least, limited [2]. In fact, this has always been the case, with only a few articles by journalists [3] or polemicists or works by members of the police force themselves. Most were memoirs or collections of police stories, others were more technical. Some were even theses on law written by senior officers. The latter often including reformist ideas, which tried to counter the fragmentation of the service which typified the French police force up to 1941. There were also a number of historical works written concerning the police, particularly relating to the force in post 17th Century Paris.

Even after the Second World War, the situation did not change much until the 1970's. Modern literature concerning the police service is still mainly a collection of articles by senior officers, but sometimes their personal experiences lead them to make more pertinent comments about the general state of their profession.

This was the case with the historical works of the senior officers Henri Buisson [4], Jacques Delarue [5] and Willy-Paul Romain [6]. Add to this a number of works by teachers in the different Criminology Institutes, such as senior officer Fernand Cathala, of the Institute of Criminal Studies in Toulouse, or Marcel Le Clerc, at the Institute of Criminology in Paris. The latter published two articles in the collection « What do I know », the first in 1947 on The History of the Police and the second in 1972, more focused on the functions of the service, entitled simply The Police. In an article for the Encyclopaedia Larousse in 1971, Le Clerc recommended developing the subject of "policology" [7], which would include "all the pragmatic, technological and ethical rules and regulations used by the police in their daily operations". The idea being to "improve the uncomfortable position of the police in developed countries", and protect citizens from the risk of "unnecessary force and coercion use in law enforcement". This approach increases the emphasis on knowledge and experience, accompanied by a generalisation of the controls and rules governing the activities of the police : reformist yet based on the rule of law. The title of one of Cathala's articles is more explicit "Our much maligned police service" [8].

Similar reformist ideas were expressed by another senior officer, Jean Susini, who was also General Secretary of the Police Chiefs Union from 1955 to 68. He proposed that more scientific research should be made into police activities. In early 1968 he helped create the "Bureau de criminology et sciences humaines-the Criminology and Human Sciences Bureau", in the Headquarters of National Police Training. Unfortunately, the idea did not survive the events of May 1968. Although mainly concentrating on research into criminology, the Bureau also used "human sciences" as a vehicle to study the latent problems of various branches of the police service [9]. In the early 1970s, Susini left France and took up a post as Associate Professor in the School of Criminology at the University of Montreal. During these few years in North America he discovered the research work in this field which had started in the early '60's in the US. He decided to make it available in France by publishing articles in the quarterly journal the Revue de Science Criminelle et de Droit Penal- The Journal of Criminal Science and the Criminal Code. He argued not only that this type of research should be developed in France, but also, that the results should be included in any future analysis of the evolution of the institutions of the French police service and their activities [10].

This approach, although sometimes anecdotic, was based on professional experience. The magistrate Serge Fuster published a number of books, using the pseudonym Casamayor, making the same argument, but from the judiciary's point of view [11]. Although these works remained very much concerned with the law and its interpretation, they were occasionally reformist. Jean Susini provided new perspectives, given his North American influences.

[14]

The 1970s bring change

The situation changed radically after 1968. As previously indicated, the scientific reasons behind this change were relatively ambiguous. Nevertheless, the style of research changed from ideology and militantism, to scientific analysis. This change in philosophy did not only take place in France, but also in the UK and Germany, where, during the last quarter of the 20th Century, a number of articles were published which started off as idealistic investigations and developed into mature research documents. During the 1970s both the police service and this intellectual reflection formed the centre of lively ideological and political debates [12]. From 1974-75 the problem was exacerbated in France by the emergence of delinquency and insecurity. This led, for example, to the publication of the Peyrefitte Report on civil violence in 1977 [13]. The reality of this "insecurity" was, however, considered by some, up until 1981, as an ideological alibi for the government's excessive enforcement of law and order.

Given this context, the first academic research undertaken by a University which did not involve a member of the police, was the thesis on public rights supported in 1972 by Jean-Jacques Gleizal entitled The National Police Service : rights and police practices in France. Starting from a legal-administrative premise, it studied the modernisation process of French police services, which concluded with the establishment of the National Police Service in the late 196's. It also covered the centralising reforms of 1941, which were completed in 1966 by the inclusion in the National Police Service of the Police Headquarters in Paris. It went on to interpret this act of centralisation in socio-political terms as the creation of a "police state" to combat "the ever increasing class war", and resulting in the emergence of "a monopolistic capitalist state" [14].

Jean-Jacques Gleizal, who considered himself a "politico-jurist", created a Study and Research Centre, concentrating on training and administration, at the University of Grenoble, where he was a lecturer in the Law School. He continued to develop his research and organised a number of programmes focusing on various problems with policing. His opinions were close to those of the right wing group "Critics from the right". In the late 1970s, this group partially included under its influence, the Lyon based political scientist, Claude Journes. He worked at the Centre for Legal and Political Epistemology, where he was a specialist on the UK.

In the early 1970s, Bernard Asso had been a member of the Cabinet of Raymond Marcellin, the Minister of the Interior. In 1974 he was a lecturer in civil law at the University of Nice's Law School, where he created a Study Centre in Police Rights, in the Centre for Administrative Studies. Part of the Centre's activities was preparing students for the National Police Service entrance exams. In 1977 the Centre organised a conference around "Urban Security", bringing together speakers from both the police and aca-demia. The report on the conference was published in the National Police Service's Journal. In 1979, the speakers at the conference published a presentation of the « Missions and Structures of the National Police Service » [15].

In 1976 we helped create, at last, the Centre d'etudes et de recherches sur la police (CERP - Centre for Police Studies and Research) as part of the Institute of Political Studies at the University of Social Sciences in Toulouse. The Centre was influenced by some of the works of Jean Susini. It wanted to set itself apart from other institutions by concentrating on three specific objectives : paying more attention to the sociological and political science aspects of the way the police institutions function, rather than just the legal aspects : trying to study problems as objectively as possible without being influenced by the ideological and partisan arguments which normally surround such questions : concentrating on distinguishing the scientific approach necessary to understand the reality of police activities, from the standard approach [16].

By the end of the 1970s, the research into police practices and activities was organised around four institutions in France. In should be noted than none of them were in Universities in Paris, but at Grenoble, Lyon, Nice and Toulouse. Unfortunately, the development of this research is still retarded not only by the centralised system of the National Police Service in France, but also the reticence of its institutions to cooperate. This is even more disquieting as the police officers themselves would prefer that the specificities, characteristics and difficulties of their profession are better known and more widely appreciated.

[15]

This impasse means that field work and research can only be successful if individual officers take the personal initiative to cooperate. This was the case for the thesis on "Caught in the act police practices" by Rene Levy, as part of the Ministry of Justice's Criminology and Penal Studies Service, headed by Philippe Robert. In 1984, this service became the CESDIP (Centre d'études sociologiques sur le droit et les institutions pénales - the Centre for Law and Criminal Institutions Sociology Studies). The few works published during the late 1970s were by individuals, and did not require institutional authorisation. Such as the thesis by Irene Dootjes-Dussuyer on the The Public Opinion of the Image of the Police (Grenoble II, 1979), or by Marie-Helene Cubaynes on the The Police and the Press : the institutions and the men (Toulouse I, 1980) [17], or by Henri Souchon on the The discretionary power of the police [18], or the bibliographical research made by Marcel Le Clere [19] and Jean-Claude Salamon [20], or the historical seminar on The State and its Police [21], organised in '77 by the Institute of Administrative History.

The scientific legitimacy of this type of research was still very fragile at the end of this period. Academia remained unconvinced and reticent due to the overriding influence of the dominating ideologies of the late 1960s. My article "The Police in the Political System" was accepted and published in 1981 in the French Journal of Political Science, however, the work sociologist Dominique Monjardet had to publish his small monograph on the police force under the pseudonym Pierre Demonque [22].

Developments during the 1980s

After the beginning of this movement in 1968, 1982 was another very important year. With the arrival of a socialist government in 1981, police training was reformed. The initiative behind these reforms came from the Chief and Staff of National Police Training. Sociological research was included in the curriculum to help understand the realities of police work. A scientific committee was created to organise these changes, including both researchers and police officers. It reported to both the National Police Training Staff and the Ministry of Research [23] and had a dual mission : defining the orientation of the research to be undertaken and organising the allocation of the funding provided by the Ministry to encourage and develop this research.

This initiative was important as it endorsed the legitimacy of such research in the eyes of the National Police Service and other scientific researchers. Dominique Monjardet organised a special edition of the. Journal of Work Sociology in 1985 covering these problems. The opening article, by Jean-Claude Monet [24], expressed the police's views on the use of social sciences. This new found legitimacy, and its acceptance, was a major step forward for researchers. The National Police Service was now prepared to collaborate with investigative research work and provide access to information previously withheld. Furthermore, as a consecration of this new beginning, an external research organisation, the company Interface, was mandated to undertake a major internal sociographical study of the National Police Service personnel. It included the analysis of the replies of nearly 9000 questionnaires [25].

These encouraging measures achieved their aims. They supported and encouraged the existing institutional centres in Grenoble, Lyon, Nice and Toulouse. In 1985 Jean-Jacques Gleizal published The police in disorder [26], Claude Journes edited The political science of the police [27], and both worked with Jacqueline Gatti-Domenach on a book subsequently published in 1994 on The police in western democracies [28]. In Toulouse the activities of the CERP included our publication of two works with the IEP Press, A guide to research on the police in 1985, and Police and society in 1988. Other studies were made in collaboration [16] with Serge Albouy on "The police-public relationship in police officer training" [29]. George Portelli published a thesis on The socio-cultural portrait of senior police officers and we organised a seminar on "Police and politics", which subsequently formed the basis of a publication entitled The police, a socio-political view ? [30]. The same measures motivated other researchers, close to CESDIP, to work in this area, such as Rene Levy on "the criminal investigation department" [31], or Frederic Ocqueteau "concerning private security" [32]. The CESDIP regularly organised seminars to bring together all the French researchers in this field. Other foreign researchers subsequently participated, under the auspices of the European Research Group on Normativities (GERN), created by Philippe Robert with the help of the NRS in '85.

French researchers, such as Denis Szabo [33] and Jean Paul Brodeur, began to develop relationships with researchers from the University of Montreal's "International Centre for Comparative Criminology", and the "French Language International Criminology Association". New researchers became interested in the subject and were funded by the National Police Service's Scientific Committee. Political scientists also started to show an interest. For example with Philippe Braud [34] at the University of Paris I, or Pierre Favre [35] at the Institute of Political Studies in Paris. Sociologists [36] also became interested , for example Dominique Monjardet started research fieldwork, the results of which he later published under the title What the police do [37]. This period also saw Georges Carrot finish his major work The History of Law and Order in France from the Revolution to 1968 [38]. Michel Berges, Jean-Marc Berliere and Marie Vogel began their research on The History of the Police under the 3rd Republic, which they completed in the early 1990s [39].

Most of research work and publications concerned the National Police Service. Some work was done, however, on the other French police service, the Gendarmerie Nationale, but over a different time frame. This research was specifically approved by the Gendarmerie Nationale and funded by the Ministry of Research towards the end of the 1980s. The investigative work was carried out by Hubert Lafont and Philipe Meyer, and subsequently published under the title The new order of the Gendarmerie Nationale [40]. Unfortunately, as the research had a lukewarm reception, there was no immediate reaction or follow-up. In fact the Gendarmerie Nationale only became interested in this type of investigative research after the considerable changes in their organisation, provoked by the "rebellion" in the summer of 1989. Francois Dieu from the Police Studies and Research Centre in Toulouse was then invited to do the research work [41].

[17]

These are the main developments of the academic, intellectual and scientific research undertaken in France on the subject of the French police force. They are a direct consequence to the events of May 1968. One other element took place in 1989, when the scope of the research was widened to include internal security, with the creation of the IHESI, the "Institut des hautes études de la securité interiéure - the Institute of Advance Studies in Internal Security", which has since become the INHESI, the "Institut National des hautes études de sécurité - the National Institute of Advanced Studies in Security".

Obstacles and reservations

This historical overview is interesting, not just to know what happened, but also to learn from the past, relative to the present and the future. For example, the comments and questions raised concerning the psychology and sociology of knowledge, could be used to underline the intellectual obstacles already experienced, or yet to be experienced, in terms of police sociology.

An initial observation concerns the nonconformism of the initiatives taken in France : in terms of timing, given that the process took place at least two decades before in the Anglo-Saxon countries and the US [42] : in terms of geography, with research and development taking place initially outside of Paris, which is quite significant given the well known hyper-centralisation in the Capital of intellectual and university life in France. The conclusion is that this type of research and analysis could only have taken place, for whatever reasons, on the periphery of the status quo of conformist thinking and ideas. Unfortunately this intellectual conformist ideology still remains one of the biggest brakes on research. Whether amongst the researchers themselves, or in their work environment. Most of the time, it is the fault of the media. As usual, the press likes a good story, mixed with other considerations, perhaps more ideological or political, depending to the circumstances and current opinion.

Paradoxically, it is very obvious that the questions raised are not marginal when it comes to the general public and the way society is organised. In fact an important positive element of the May 1968 events and what happened subsequently throughout the 1970s, is that these questions were actually asked and brought out into the open. It is quite fascinating and surprising that sociologists and political scientists took such a long time to realise this fact. The American researcher David H Bayley is right when he questions the attitudes of the political scientists : "The fact that they showed absolutely no interest in the police and its workings is very curious. Maintaining law and order is a fundamental responsibility for a government. Not only is a government's legitimacy dependant, in a large part, on its ability to maintain law and order, but conversely, the existence of law and order proves whether or not the government is able to govern. Conceptually and functionally, government and law and order are inextricably linked Even though political scientists recognise the utility of analysing the functions of government, they have neglected to study one of government's fundamental responsibilities. This is evident when you consider the number of articles, analyses and theses covering the way parliament works, the legal system, the armed forces, different governments, political parties and the civil service. Yet there is hardly anything concerning the police who are responsible for determining the limits of freedom in an organised society. Their powers, and the way they carry them out, are a good reflection of the political regime they report to" [43]. This relationship with the political current can also be paradoxical. It could provide even more obstacles to successfully maintaining law and order. At the same time there is a general tendency for all involved, whether the police, politicians or the media, to manipulate the facts or to reduce the reality of the situation to a superficial and partisan interpretation [44].

Although the facts and their reality have become slightly more important to certain sociologists and political scientists, there is still a long way to go before the scientific legitimacy of research is recognised and accepted in sociology and political sciences. If you open a university political science textbook, and there are quite a few, it quickly becomes obvious that nearly all of them completely ignore this dimension of political reality. Many books take a Weberian approach to politics, referring to the "monopolisation of legitimate violence", while at the same time ignoring those internal institutions which are the manifestation of the same violence [45]. The ideological blockages [18] from the 1970s have not completely disappeared [46]. Certain political scientists seem to be bogged down in intellectual prejudices dating back to this period, and they are automatically reflected in their work. A recent example are the severe comments made by Marcel Gauchet concerning the intellectual climate in France, "severely handicapped by henchmen of questionable talent and hangers on, groupies of laconicism, derridism, foucaldism and bourdivism" [47].

A problematic scientific topic

In parallel to these ideological prejudices, David H. Bayley [48] focuses on the few objective reasons which might explain the intellectual blindness which has existed for a long time, and not only in France. The police do not give the impression of being an active participant in the important events in history. Its role seems to be limited to a daily routine, more in tune with everyday life in our communities than the fate of nations and states. Because if this, being a policeman is not considered as a very prestigious job, and is very often characterised as mixing with the dregs of society. For a long time, senior police officers were rarely recruited from the middle and upper classes. The use of violence to solve internal problems and civil conflicts, with a reputation for being naturally conservative, is bound to create a certain amount of reticence amongst the population. This is enhanced by the fact that the police are often involved with sordid activities which cannot compete with the heroic image society has of its military. These inherent difficulties create problems in terms of achieving objectives, and also in the way they can be achieved. In France, the situation is made worse by the lack of research undertaken in criminology, which has never really achieved university status. This is mainly due to the fact that law schools tend to confuse researching criminal acts with researching criminal law [49].

Added to this are the real difficulties brought about by police confidentiality, which sometimes borders on being secretive. This often causes problems with research projects in administrative sciences. It should be appreciated and understood, however, that this type of confidentiality is part of the police's professional function and is often essential to the success of their missions. This obsession for confidentiality, or professional secrecy, has been pointed out by all researchers interested in « the culture of the police service » or those who try and describe the « professional personality » of police officers. It comes as no surprise that the police service has far less historians and sociologists that the armed forces. Some critics believe that this excessive secrecy is the reason why the police force escapes from all forms of observation. "The police force is better equipped to obtain information about others, than it is to divulge information about itself". [50]

Furthermore, the police service seems to be an institution which spontaneously attracts contrasting opinions and judgements. Most of which, however, are based on ideological or partisan prejudices or affective reactions more or less relative to the existing social, media or political environment. When questions about the police service are highlighted in the media, they tend to be adopted by politicians. More often than not, the party in opposition uses this as a vehicle to destabilise the government. Right wing opposition parties tend to focus on themes like "insecurity" or police "inefficiency", and the left, on subjects like "misconduct" or "mistakes" and "freedom of liberty". The situation in the 1970s provides a convincing example of such observations. It can become ambiguous, however, when researchers are tempted to advise on government policy. In many cases, therefore, articles on the police service are more or less openly and explicitly critical or apologetic, a mix of both scientific and general standards [51].

As Auguste Compte recommended, it is better for a researcher to adopt a "neutral attitude" than to consider [19] the subject of the research as something to be criticised or admired. Unfortunately, even if such neutrality is achieved, it will be very difficult to recognise, admit and defend when faced with contradictory prejudices and suspicion. For some, including more often than not the police service themselves, it is the curiosity of the researcher that is suspect, hiding malicious even subversive intentions. For others, it is more the reaction of academia that is at fault. It is obvious that the interest scientists have in the police service cloaks their real, intellectual complicity with the powers that be. And even worse, with its most authoritarian and repressive aspects. Researchers regularly fall foul of ideological censorship, even sometimes self-censorship, which is difficult to avoid. This not only penalises the development of research but also makes it very difficult for some researchers to investigate and assimilate facts and knowledge. Under normal circumstances, improving knowledge is the basis of all scientific progress, regardless of the subject matter. The lack of references and bibliographies for certain scientific papers and articles is the prime example of this problem. It is regrettable that French academia are not yet cured of this disease.

In Olivier Philippe's treatise The police in French cinema [52], he advocates that one of the main, underlying and subconscious reasons for the reticence amongst researchers to study or question the activities of the police, is that in doing so it is a sign of the intrinsic failure of society to integrate its members. It is, therefore, a revealing example of "what is not working" and draws attention to those shadowy, dark areas that our social subconscious would rather hide than exhibit in public. Conversely, these types of comments and observations underline the difference in treatment between the police service and the army. The latter is used as a prime example and symbol of the unity of society. We are proud and respect the army. It represents our collective identity mobilised against the external menace.

From the 1950s onwards, most intellectual reflections, studies and analyses of the police, its activities and practices, were, in the majority of countries, directly related to a specific crisis. In many cases the police were more or less directly involved. In the United States, it was the urban riots and the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. In the UK, the police had to cope with racial riots, IRA terrorism, trade union conflicts and strikes. As previously mentioned, in France it was only the crisis with the police service during the late 1960s and 1970s that enabled progress to be made during the 1980s. The first "crisis" where questions were raised concerning the nature and legitimacy of the institutions of the police, was during the so called "libertarian" climate of May 1968. The next crisis came during the second half of the 1970s with the growing problems of "insecurity", and increased petty and serious crime levels. This was coupled with an antagonistic environment generated by opposing ideologies and partisan opinions.

This shows that, in general, the development of research into police activities and practices is not just relative to history, knowledge and facts. It is also related to the problems these institutions experience adapting to the profound transformations of a society and environment which they reflect directly. Denis Sabot believes that the police service is a veritable "social seismograph" [53], particularly sensitive to the movements and changes which affect the evolution of society, from the most superficial to the most profound. If this is the case, then the present changes we are seeing in the police service and its practices and the questions they raise, are the due to far more general, wide ranging phenomena. Whether the change in the way society is controlled, or, the anomic tendencies that generate the individualism in modern day society, or, more fundamentally, questions concerning the nature of social cohesion, its consequences and justification.

1968 was a very important date in this development process. It illustrated the paradoxical connections that can be made between social history and intellectual history. As far as police sociology is concerned, the heritage of 1968 is quite ambivalent. It set in motion an era of curiosity and reflection concerning realities, which up until then had been considered of little social importance. It also brought French research on this subject in line with the international development of the scientific analysis of these problems. Even today, this movement has problems shrugging off the difficulties of its initial experiences. They still weigh heavily on contemporary research. Researchers are still infected with ideological prejudices or partisan politics. It is very difficult to make the necessary abstraction, when under constant pressure. Unfortunately, there is a real tendency for politicians to instrumentalise these problems, and the media to give them excessive coverage. This infection also has an effect on the institutions of the police themselves as well as on the police officers, government and the civil service. It makes them believe either, that there is nothing to learn from police sociology, or, that they can limit their interest in police sociology to a few simplifying formulas.

Jean-Louis LOUBET DEL BAYLE