At a time when the issue of a common security is being put forward more than ever before (because of the onward progress of technology and its influence on us), it seems interesting to question this so-called “social security” concept in relation to our migrations…

In a way, would a “would-be social” security become a “paradise” when it comes to taking stock of our migrant freedoms?

And, in fact, shouldn’t we be speaking more about social securities that are diversified and mobile than about a social security that is oriented towards or credited to a privileged few, in the sense that their security would begin when/where the security of others ends?

What is more: how can I link my social “security” in its uniqueness with the social security of others? Those securities sometimes become in-securities. How can we let these (in-) securities live together (singularly, particularly or universally)?

Therefore, it would be possible to consider “social” security as an in-finite path according to the scope of our migrations in connection with a dynamic, migrant, unique (renewable) security: our migrations, revealing our “social in-securities”, themselves, sources or foundations of possible renewed and renewable securities.

Security on the side of the subject, the singular; social on the side of the individual, the collective. Between the two, beyond the two, in both, our migrations are each time unique, each time new.

Would the so-called “social security” be a barrier or a guarantor? For it is a matter of understanding our social securities in the mirror of our migrations, while seeking to “define” their challenges and terms. Depending on the point of view, social security can be reduced to social confinement; and, then, our migrations appear as an exit, a beyond, from this limiting security.

Does social security see itself as a support for a closed or open society? A dynamic social security, sensitive to our migrations, to you, to me, to us, or not. A social security at the risk of losing my security...?

We could say that the tension between migration and social security would dissipate if the respect for each other’s social uniqueness was clearly preserved; which would then lead to migration becoming a real social object to the point of building, or even deconstructing, our acquired or a-priori security.

In a way, do we think of social security as a constraint or as a service? Utility, pragmatism or construction: what is at stake for our migrations, or even for migration in general, versus our “securities”?

Here, the transition can be made from our migrations to my migration, which is unique, the source of my security. Somehow a possible path of individuation.

In fact, if security is understood “socially”, my singular, personal security is potentially also affected, because of (internal or external: illness, violence, etc.) contingencies: security is only social under “my uniqueness”.

Each migration, which is unique, is a seeking of “security” for oneself, for all. Certainly, my migration is a mistrust of said social security.

In fact, rather than talking about “social security”, we should be talking about the migration of a body called “social security” while emphasizing its political dimension: the issue of authority goes beyond “my social security”.

Together, in migrant security/in-security(ies): is it a question of preserving a conservatism of what is acquired or is it about opening up the possibilities which are destabilized each time?

Our security based on our migrations takes many forms and are sources of “social relations”, internal or external. Here, we could ask a question about the notion of “security”: is it temporal or spiritual, physical or intellectual?

If our migrant condition questions our security, it is above all a matter of borders to be crossed or not. The issue is located, among other things, between one another: a space/passage from one migration to another, within the exercise of our Common Good; there is no social, in the sense of existence, except from oneself; a Common Good that really begins with oneself.

In conclusion, our migrations are part and parcel of our social, and more broadly our cultural, security…

A genuine social security will take the risk of migrating, or deconstructing, a pseudo “social security”; in a way, everyone will be given a “form” of social security.

It is in this previously, naturally “empty” space that the real “social security” is; it is at the cost of preserving a still possible migration, of oneself, of ourselves, that security can be called “social”, always under construction.

“Social security” is not an end, nor even a means, but a possible path of transformation, of migration, of individuation. It is neither social nor not social: it is movable and adjustable, updatable for each one, living. But it cannot be frozen, lest it become social insecurity.

Our true social in-security can only be thought of by extending it to our migrations. Social security: a living thing, but only on one condition – it has to be paved with all our (good or bad) migrations.

Gilbert