Commander SAGE advocates greater proximity of sociology, sociologist and military leader. On purpose, he purposefully challenges the hermeticism that seems to characterize the humanities and social sciences to reposition sociology in the toolbox of decision-makers.

In the year 2000, Pierre Morin and Eric Delavallée, management specialists and teachers at the Institute of Business Administration (IAE) of the University of Paris 1 Panthéon - Sorbonne, published the following article in the Éditions d'Organisation: "... the military is the only one that can be considered as an independent entity.The manager listening to the sociologist». This book, which also won the Grand prix du livre de management et de stratégie, judiciously put the main sociological teachings, in particular an analysis of organizations, to the benefit of the business world. As we know, the achievements of the human and social sciences are often "recuperated" and used in unexpected fields such as advertising marketing, political discourse or executive training. It is these "recuperators" in particular that Pierre Bourdieu castigated in his time as "social engineers", accused - not without contempt - of prostituting sociology, so to speak, for the purposes of domination and, ultimately, profit. To usefully finalize in practice the achievements of scientific researchers seems to be sometimes felt by the latter as a real dispossession . But despite all these controversies, in our societies, which are widely covered by the media and digitised, researchers' knowledge is within everyone's grasp, and it is still necessary to pay attention to what they teach. So, if the manager now takes advice from the sociologist, why shouldn't the military also benefit from it, not only to improve his understanding of the world, but also to better understand his own socio-professional environment, his own institution and, consequently, why not live better in it? Admittedly, an invisible wall sometimes seems to separate sociologists and the general public, but this obstacle is very often nothing more than an illusion, still too often maintained artificially by the exclusive and ideological jealousy of a few, as well as by a certain intellectual pusillanimity of others.

The Illusion of Sanctified Human and Social Sciences

Somewhat in the same spirit as Bourdieu, but with a significantly different aim, the Association of American Anthropologists thus condemned in autumn 2007 the secondment of young researchers who were close to the "sanctuary" of the humanities and social sciences.In the autumn of 2007, the American Anthropological Association condemned the secondment of young researchers to the American troops as "ethnic advisers" in order to gain a better understanding of what the American military doctrine calls "human terrain". The aim was then to put a clear stop to the compromise of science for military intelligence purposes, and therefore for political purposes, which are, moreover, judged here and there to be questionable. The main argument was to avoid distorting the role of anthropologists by making them auxiliaries to the army, and thus prevent the peoples they study from suspecting them of hidden intentions other than the advancement of science. But it is clear what is at stake for social scientists: to reveal mechanisms, but not to allow anyone to use their conclusions for their own purposes, or at least for purposes that their conscience would not approve of. This illusion of keeping science - at least partially - in a theoretical sphere outside the sphere of human daily practice certainly has an ethical source, and it is an honourable one. But it remains an illusion. We cannot "reserve" science permanently, any more than we can "reserve" literature or music. Since the First World War, for example, people have vowed not to use chemistry in future wars, because the process was decidedly too inhuman. But in the second war it was worse, because it was even used in organized massacres of civilians; and we know that since then, chemical weapons, beyond the façade conventions, remain a real and terrifying threat in the conflicts of today and tomorrow. Why else would we decree that nuclear, bacteriological and chemical (NBC) techniques must be at the heart of our tactical thinking and military foresight? Finally, how can we assert that the sciences, including the human and social sciences, must remain square meadows reserved for an academic aristocracy, the only legitimate intellectual authority capable of delivering its knowledge? This common heritage of the human and social sciences is today within everyone's reach, via large-circulation journals such as "Sciences Humaines", television documentaries and, above all, the Internet, which is now a universal encyclopaedia. Would Diderot have dreamed of a better solution than WIKIPEDIA, if not in its production process, then at least in its extraordinary distribution?

In spite of certain tensions and reservations in academic circles, the human and social sciences, and among them sociology, are therefore increasingly called upon by men of decision and action in all sectors of activity. Our era has seen the advent of the consulting firm, where sociologists are swarming. However, sociology still leaves some people perplexed... Frankly speaking, sociology is still too often considered by most people as a complex science, requiring a lot of theoretical references, and moreover it is politically very marked on the left. A subversive science, so to speak (even if all the great French sociologists do not follow, in their system of thoughte, but also those of Aron or Crozier), which is sometimes even denied the title of "science", wherever it is classified in so-called "soft" sciences. This image of sociology is in fact very ambivalent. Under very austere and politicised exterior, sociology in fact quickly becomes a passion, even for those who don't necessarily have a university background. This is because it often deals with what the media call "social phenomena", which are none other than those dealt with in prime-time television documentaries, such as Capital, Droit de savoir, Reportages or Enquêtes exclusives and many other programs that flourish on DTT. The subject of sociology is, in fact, very accessible, very close to our concerns; but sociological science itself can be too. In fact, one does not need to be a university doctoral student to read very accessible authors like Goffman ("The rites of interaction(" "), Sennett ("Work without qualities"), Becker ("Outsiders") or even some of Pierre Bourdieu's works ("").Sociological issues"», «On television"», «Counterfires"1 and 2), which is often considered esoteric... Of course, each author defends a thesis or confirms a hypothesis in the most direct terms, but let us acknowledge that he rationally adopts a method, arguments and a theoretical system that will demonstrate it. But let's recognize that he rationally adopts a method, arguments and a theoretical system which will prove it. Still, we must read it to know if we adopt, even partially, or not at all, his point of view on a given question, and especially if his argumentation is scientific, in short, if what he asserts "holds up"...

Why wouldn't the military also listen to the sociologist?

Parallel to this media and managerial diffusion at the end of the last century, military sociology has been relatively developed in the academic world, and the contributions of sociology in our armies have already been taken into account for about forty years. But its image for the military has not always been very clear or well understood. For common sense, the sociologist who investigates in the armed forces can easily be suspected, if not of anti-militarism, at least of voyeurism, at worst of espionage for the benefit of the hierarchy. In fact, coming out of the Algerian war, it was above all a question of taking an interest in the military condition, a notion which has appeared quite recently. The overhaul of regulations and the adjustment of the status of the military went hand in hand with a certain functionalization of the military, which had to be controlled in order to definitively outlaw the trauma - lasting, whatever one may say - of the sedition of the Algiers putsch. More recently, sociological studies have made it possible to monitor specific social phenomena that have profoundly changed the face of our armies: feminisation, civilianisation and the integration of the descendants of recent immigrants, among others. They also have the merit of monitoring the morale of the troops through an annual report; but here again, it may seem discouraging to some, including those who reHowever, here again, it may seem discouraging to some, including those who are responsible for it, that morale is sometimes so low and that so little consideration and corrective action is taken, with the budgetary argument - especially in times of crisis - acting as a systematic "screen speech". Admittedly, for a military man, but also in general opinion, it seems that sociology is mainly interested in what is wrong, or might be wrong. Moreover, does a sociologist not investigate, whether through interviews or questionnaires, as a police officer investigates after a misdemeanour or a crime? This science, which seeks to unveil mechanisms hidden by discourse, self-presentation or even institutional display, has everything to be subversive and, potentially, it is: a priori, it seeks to know something that is not yet known!

And it is precisely this exciting purpose that sharpens our intellectual curiosity: when reading the work of a sociologist, what preconception will he or she break down, what counter-intuition will he or she uncover, and with what skill and credibility? Would I agree with his analysis? What will he reveal to me? Curiosity can sometimes be mixed with a certain anxiety: that of questioning, that of the erosion or disappearance of deep-seated beliefs, of ingrained certainties, perhaps even of instilled principles, or even of comfortable prejudices. But for the honest man, we will agree that the fear of knowing cannot outweigh the need to know. BoltanskI even says that sociology should "make reality unacceptable", meaning that we should not "swallow" any state of affairs fatalistically, but should seek above all to understand it. This is why the military must listen to the sociologist, just as it already listens to the geographer before an external projection. Listening does not mean, of course, in any way to mock stupidly, but to appropriate intelligently and usefully the result of the work of others. This is all the easier since the branches of sociology are becoming more and more diversified: from family, education, organization, work, culture, sex, the working classes, prison, to the cultural studiesand gender studies currently invogue in the United States... Of course, not all fields of sociology arouse the same interest in us, but this is legitimate: what science enthusiast has the material time to be interested in all branches without exception of physics or biology?

In order to better understand one's leaders, subordinates and peers, but also events, processes, attitudes and behaviour, there is no shortage of sociological concepts relevant to the military institution: the area of uncertainty between the organisational chart and regulations on the one hand, and the reality of daily practice and human relations on the other, are examples of this. The concept of the symbolic capital that a member of the military may hold is another: the insignia of arms, decorations, the regiments in which one has served, the number and difficulty of external operations, the fact of being in the "melee", the fact of being in the "melee", the fact of being in the "melee", the fact of being in the "melee".e" or "support", are all indicators of prestige that differentiate us, give us a cumulative capital of the symbolic order that legitimizes our aspirations to Finally, the socialisation of the soldier, finally, through school and then through the weapon, which begins as soon as he puts on the uniform, is very different for an OASA and a Saint-Cyrien, then, in the career, for a parachutist hunter-sniper and a hot and cold maintainer... These are all theoretical tools that civilian researchers have developed in a non-military context, and which are tools to be appropriated to better understand, and therefore better live within our institution.

In any case, there is nothing to be lost in knowing these notions and concepts, because, at worst, if some of them are not relevant to describe this or that aspect of a military condition that is decidedly too specific, they will no doubt enable us to understand other aspects that have been so far and, more generally, other phenomena of our society, thus strengthening our intelligence of the world and our reassured understanding of the great paradoxes, which some already call post-modernity... Faced with such potentialities still offered by military sociology, and if one is fond of polemics, one could then ask oneself whether this should be done by university researchers (guarantee of scientific rigour and objectivity, etc.).) or by the military themselves (better knowledge of the "human terrain"), or even by both in cooperation, but this is already another debate...