THE ROLE OF THE INDIVIDUAL AND IDENTITY IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF ‘DEFENCE’ IN THE UK

Year 2016, Volume: 1 Issue: 2, 31 - 39, 01.12.2016

Gabrıela Thompson

Abstract

Today, the notion of ‘defence’ and its practice differs greatly from the military-centric version of the twentieth century. To understand what this new, transformed ‘defence’ is, I have used my position within a well-respected defence and security think-tank to access those individuals who make the large, sweeping policy decisions as well as those who make the smaller, less newsworthy decisions. From these conversations I have found that a large part of the defence identity is being constructed around how the notion of ‘value’ is perceived in defence. I argue that the demilitarisation of defence in practice is a result of a fundamental shift in the UK’s defence identity—one which is made up of the identities of the numerous individuals who form the defence community as well as those members of the public who have expectations of what defence should be and/or do. Although there is a perceivable push to frame value as an ‘objective’ and ‘measurable’ fact, the conceptualisation of ‘defence’ is inherently linked to those personal values individual decision-makers hold—in particular, to the frames of reference which enable them to determine and legitimise their concept of ‘value’. In evoking the term ‘frames of reference’ I am recalling Foucault’s theory of ‘regimes of truth’, which, coupled with Lukes’ theory of the third dimension of power, form the pillars of the theoretical framework which underpins this research

References

• Bargh, J. A. & Chartrand, T. L. (1999), ‘The Unbearable Automaticity of Being’, American Psychologist, 54:7, pp. 462- 479
• Bell, V. (2007), Culture & Performance: The Challenging of Ethics, Politics and Feminist Theory, Berg
• Bell, V. (2012), ‘Declining Performativity: Butler, Whitehead and Ecologies of Concern’, Theory, Culture and Society, 0:0, pp. 1-17
• Berger, P. & Luckmann, T. (1991), The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge, Penguin
• Bowen, G. A. (2009), “Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method”, Qualitative Research Journal, 9:2, pp. 27- 40
• Butler, J. (2005), Giving an Account of Oneself, Fordham University Press
• Chartrand, T. L. & Bargh, J. A. (1999), ‘The Chameleon Effect: The Perception- Behavior Link in Social
• Interaction’, Journal of Personal Psychology and Social Psychology, 76:6, pp. 893- 910
• Connerton, P. (2013), How Societies Remember, Cambridge University Press
• Cooley, C. H. (1922), Human Nature and the Social Order, Charles Scribner’s Sons
• Forti, S. (2014), ‘Parrhesia between East and West: Foucault and Dissidence’, in Lemm, V. & Vatter, M.
• (eds.), The Government of Life: Foucault, Biopolitics and Neoliberalism, Fordham Fortier, A-M. (1999), ‘Re-Membering Places and the Performance of Belonging(s)’, in Bell, V. (ed), Performativity and Belonging, Sage Foucault, M. (1979), Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, Penguin Books
• Foucault, M. (1988), ‘The Masked Philosopher’, in Kritzman, L.D., Michel Foucault: Politics, Philosophy
• Culture- Interviews and other writings 1977-84, Routledge
• Fromm, E. (2004), The Fear of Freedom, Routledge
• Giddens, A. (1992), The Nation-State and Violence: Volume Two of a Contemporary Critique of Historical Materialism, Polity
• Goleman, D. (1998), Vital Lies, Simple Truths: The Psychology of Self-Deception, Bloomsbury
• HM Government (2010), Securing Britain in an Age of Uncertainty: The Strategic Defence and Security Review, Cm 7948
• HM Government (2015), National Security Strategy and Strategic Defence and Security Review 2015: A Secure and Prosperous United Kingdom, Cm9161
• Hood, B. (2011), The Self Illusion: Who do you think you are?, Constable
• House of Commons Defence Committee (2015), Decision- Making in Defence Policy, Eleventh Report of the Session 2014-15
• Lemke, T. (2014), ‘New Materialism: Foucault and “the Government of Things”’, Theory, Culture & Society, 0:0, pp. 1-23
• Loxley, J. (2007), Performativity, Routledge
• Lukes, S. (1974). Power: A Radical View, Palgrave Macmillan
• Marshall, C. & Rossman, G. B. (1989), Designing qualitative research, Sage
• Ministry of Defence (1996), British Defence Doctrine: Joint Warfare Publication, (JWP) 0-01
• National Audit Office (2015A), Ministry of Defence, Defence Equipment and Support: Reforming defence acquisition, HC 946 Session 2014-15
• National Audit Office (2105b), Ministry of Defence: Strategic financial management in the Ministry of Defence, HC 268 Session 2015-16
• Parsons, T. (1963), ‘On the Concept of Political Power’, Proceeding of the American Philosophical Society, 107:3, pp. 232- 262
• Schensul, S. L., Schensul, J. J. & LeCompte, M. D. (1999), Essential Ethnographic Methods: observations, interviews, and questionnaires (Book 2 in Ethnographer's Toolkit), AltaMira Press.
• Schmidt, J. (2001), Disciplined Minds: A Critical Look at Salaried Professionals and the Soul-Battering System that Shapes their Lives, Rowman & Littlefield
• Single Source Regulations Office (2015), SSRO Corporate Plan: 2015- 2018
• Van Maanen, J. (1979), ‘The Fact of Fiction in Organizational Ethnography’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 24:4, pp. 539- 550
• Weber, F. (2001), ‘Settings, interactions and things: plea for multi-integrative ethnography’, Ethnography, 2:4, pp. 475- 499
• Zinn, H. (2009), The Zinn Reader: Writings on Disobedience and Democracy, 2nd Edition, Seven Stories