Organic Nation and Population in Security Society

I would like to do a little exercise and compare the concept of organic nation in German idealism, as described by Cheah, and Foucault's analysis of the rise of population as the key concept in the security society. Frist of all, a very obvious difference - the organic nation goes on to involve mostly cultural institution or development of Bildung, while the security society, at least in Foucault's examples, engages in economic and medical /reproductive technologies. Put in a crude way, the organic nation employs life as a metaphor for the collective, while the security society manages individual lives as the foremost task.

Despite the totally different domains of inquiry, some similarities may be observed. If we remember the examples Foucault gives about the technocrats and the economic picture of scarcity, we notice the tendency to treat the whole of population and the economic system as an organic whole which plays out by itself, over time. The state or government, on the other hand, is only to ensure that the population will realize its natural cycle which would sustain its own existence and, subsequently, the governing power's subsistence. It stikes me as smiliar to the formulation of the nation as the organic actualization of the ideal of the people. Through a process of cultivation (Bildung) over time, the people will realize themselves in the ideal of freedom and an organic collective.

What is interesting is the place of the state in relation to the nation - since Cheah argues that there are different formulations among the German thinkers. It seems that the goal of the security society Foucault describes is closer to Hegel's formulation, where the state functions as the institution ensuring the development of the organic body of nation. However, as the ultimate goal of the security society is its own substenance - to stay in power, in other words - there seems to be a gap between the self-development of the organic population (or nation) and the functions of the state.

I am not really sure what I am trying to get at with this comparison after all. Maybe I am trying to argue that the later development of the nation-state simplifies the gap between the self-development of the nation and the goal-driven operations of the state - and thus comes closer to the governmental technology of security. But is it one of the reason why nationalism has gone awry in its later developments?