The concept of security and the security culture of the state are always social constructs reflecting the outcome of interactions between state and society. Key categories of security, like dangerous social groups and activities are usually negotiated through these interactions. Politicians, secret agents, gendarms, denunciators, journalists, or the indicted, all shape the broader social meaning in a dynamic way. While in Greater Romania the state attempted to extend its control to ever broader segments of society in order to fend off perceived threats it had to rely on its own personnel and on people who cooperated in this effort, creating room for maneuver for everyone involved in this process. Due to its scarce resources the state could not even control entirely its own representatives, who often pursued a personal agenda different from the state’s own goals. Irredentism, associated with ethnic minorities exemplifies this situation quite well. In an effort to preempt any threat from national minorities with a kin-state gradually led to the association of irredentism with ethnicity, without having control over the latter’s exact meaning. Thus, its practical application depended on a series of factors, personal and structural ones, that finally led to a confusion and to the emptying of the concept that was applied without consistency. It was exactly this development that reconstituted the gap between state and society that actively engaged each other in the resulting process of negotiation. Under the surface of the rule of law and against the backdrop of the image of an ever more powerful state security apparatus, state and society defined together those informal rules of everyday co-existence that were often meant to hide reality from the watchful eyes of Bucharest.

中文翻译：

---

我们之间的世界：战间罗马尼亚的国家安全与社会类别的谈判

安全概念和国家安全文化始终是反映国家与社会互动结果的社会建构。安全的关键类别，如危险的社会团体和活动，通常通过这些互动进行协商。政治家、秘密特工、宪兵、谴责者、记者或被起诉者，都以动态的方式塑造了更广泛的社会意义。在大罗马尼亚，国家试图将其控制扩展到更广泛的社会阶层，以抵御感知到的威胁，它不得不依靠自己的人员和在这项工作中合作的人，为参与这项工作的每个人创造回旋余地过程。由于资源稀缺，国家甚至无法完全控制自己的代表，他们经常追求与国家自身目标不同的个人议程。与少数族裔相关的不团结主义很好地说明了这种情况。为了防止来自具有亲属关系的少数民族的任何威胁，逐渐导致民族统一主义与种族联系在一起，而无法控制后者的确切含义。因此，它的实际应用取决于一系列因素，个人的和结构的因素，最终导致混乱和没有一致性应用的概念被清空。正是这种发展重建了国家与社会之间的差距，并在由此产生的谈判过程中积极参与。在法治的表面下，在国家安全机器日益强大的形象背景下，