The topics of focus in this chapter are three issues of profound importance in the context of Swedish security policy; thus, they constitute vital issues in the estimates, discussed in Chapters 8–11. Although the goal of the intelligence service is to be value neutral and strive for objectivity, the three issues were constructed on assumptions that were not defined or reflected upon, creating a normative interpretive framework suggesting an intelligence discourse as a consequence of a specific textual discursive practice founded in a ‘style of thought’.

This intelligence discourse may be uncovered by searching for traces of assumptions appearing before the analytical conclusions and based on arguments and facts, in the form of value statements and rationalisations. The traces of assumptions can also found in the character of the language practice used in the concepts, terms and adjectives that frame the issues. Informed by the understanding that a discourse is ‘a structure of a meaning in use’, the empirical study of the language practice in the estimates will be investigated through the analytical method called predicate analysis (see Chapter 2 above). To recapitulate, predicate analysis is suitable for analysing the construction of subjects found in representations in texts. Predicate analysis usually focuses on verbs, adjectives and adverbs (hereafter, these are referred to as qualifiers).

LANGUAGE PRACTICE

The overall language practice in the estimates has relatively few qualifiers in relation to the topics in focus (in this case NATO, Russia and terrorism). However, the ones used are value statements, indicating that there is a distinct ‘style of thought’ in regard to the issues. The frequent use of valuations as qualifiers rather than the use of descriptive or factual qualifiers creates a general character for the text that is based on implicit assumptions and value statements instead of on factual arguments.

The qualifiers used are distinctly different in the assessments of the different issues. There is a distinct coherence of the positive connotation in the descriptive language used for NATO. Throughout the estimates, the qualifiers used in the representation of NATO are positive and/or affirmative. On the other hand, there is a distinct coherence of negatively connoted qualifiers in relation to Russia.

IN SEARCH OF THEORY

At present intelligence-related research is an area in progress. James Der Derian argues that ‘[Intelligence is the] least understood and “undertheorized” area of international relations.’ I agree with Der Derian and suggest that the under-theorisation extends far beyond the intelligence role within international relations, and is valid in the social sciences for all research concerning intelligence. Although the research area is under-theorised, there are theories and theoretical concepts that may be productively used to better understand and bring new perspectives to intelligence in general and to intelligence analysis in particular. It is argued in this book that intelligence should not be viewed as sui generis, as is often done within intelligence research. Instead, established social theoretical concepts will be used to bring new insights to and investigate intelligence knowledge.

As discussed, the perspective of critical policy analysis emphasises that the knowledge (produced by the actors) within the policy process is influenced by ideas and assumptions formed within a discourse or paradigm. This implies that although knowledge in the policy process may be argued through factual arguments, additional approaches are needed. Hence, the critical policy analysis position emphasises the need to pay attention to how policy knowledge is produced, the assumptions and presuppositions on which it is based and the social context within which it is constructed.

In this chapter, I propose a theoretical framework for investigating intelligence knowledge production and the social context within which it is produced. In addition to the critical policy analytical perspective drawn upon in the introductory chapter, the theoretical framework is founded on ideas from New Institutionalism, socialised knowledge and critical discourse analysis.

A VIEW ON INSTITUTIONALISM

Since all knowledge is produced by individuals within a social context, we need to (theoretically) understand this social context. In a sense, all collective action is structured and ordered according to a set of accepted rules and practices within a social context. (An example of this is individuals coming together within an organisation such as the MUST with the aim of producing intelligence.) This situating of action in a structured social context may be conceptualised as an institution.

The institutional setting and the formal social practice within which intelligence is produced is characterised by two sets of features. The production process is formally ordered and hierarchically structured in a way that identifies and directs various actions and interactions within the MUST and in the MUST's external relations with intelligence consumers. The roles, routines and procedures for the analytical process within the MUST (structuring the actions of analysts and managers) are characterised by a set of informal social and textual discursive practices. These informal practices imply a disregard for discussing, reflecting on and critically reviewing vital aspects of the analytical process. The intelligence social discursive practices at the least discourage a reflective and critical perspective on the analytical foundations and conduct of the intelligence analysis. The intelligence knowledge is created, upheld and affirmed within a specific intelligence ‘collective of thought’ and an intelligence ‘style of thought’.

The intelligence ‘style of thought’ is founded within a worldview corresponding to political realism, which defines what the intelligence holds as being important objects of knowledge. Hence, the worldview becomes primarily state-centric, arguing and interpreting world events through a (undefined) concept of power, and becomes inattentive to factors such as non-state actors, ideology and ideas. However, the analysts do not consciously recognise that realism is the frame of interpretation. Hence, the assumptions underlying the intelligence analysis are not argued, discussed or defined; rather they might be conceived as complying with an established way of thought – a tradition of conceptualising.

Rather than an explicit reliance on a defined worldview, it is the emphasis on seeking consistency and continuity within the established ‘style of thought’ (and the traits of the ‘collective of thought’ to cohere with the social and textual practices) that directs the approaches used for problematising, articulating issues and drawing conclusions. The search for continuity and consistency with accepted approaches to issues and to how conclusions have been argued and substantiated constitute an intelligence knowledge discourse. The drive for continuity and consistency in the intelligence knowledge discourse dominates the analytical distinction between assumptions, arguments and conclusions. The arguments and facts used for substantiating the analysis are not distinctly separated from assumptions and valuations. Hence, the intelligence knowledge discourse suggests a reproducing of knowledge rather than a creation of new insights.