Shifting Dangers in the Shape of Threats and Risks : The Discourse of Swedish Security Policy, 1979-2020

Modern societies have become increasingly preoccupied with the identification and preemption of risk, represented as future possibilities of harm. The study demonstrates how the concept of risk has influenced the contemporary Swedish security discourse and what it means to construct security following a risk logic. Previous research has highlighted both the continuing influence of traditional threat-based security and the increasing influence of risk thinking and preemptive security as primarily separate areas of study. This dissertation examines both perspectives in an integrated approach in order to achieve a deeper understanding of the meaning and implications for security policy constructed according to two coexisting logics. This study shows that the Swedish security discourse has been shaped by varying degrees of both threat and risk logics for the past four decades. The dissertation constructs an analytical framework that makes it possible to identify these logics empirically. The analysis allows us not only to uncover the influence of risk and threat logics but also to see the wider implications of the ways in which they are represented and related to one another. In contrast to concrete and identifiable threats, a risk logic constructs security problems as spatially complex, without concrete form or a specific place from which emanate. Risks are also, by this definition, future-oriented and lack concrete form in the situation in which they are constructed. The dissertation shows that both security logics have had varying degrees of influence on Swedish security policy and analyzes three sets of implications that flow from how security issues are constructed: the constitution of security policy as a policy area, responsibility and accountability, and the power relationship between government and citizens. The varying security logics produce a discourse on security with different societal implications, where the concept of risk entails increased complexity and less clarity than the threat logic, which has historically been more influential. Identifying and analyzing the influence of both logics therefore provides a new and more complete understanding of the meaning of modern security policy and its consequences. The analytical framework identifies influences on threat and risk logics according to how they are constructed following four dimensions of danger construction: space, time, agency and manageability. Methodologically, the dissertation uses a discourse-analytical text analysis as an organizing tool for sorting and processing the empirical material. In combination with the theoretically derived analytical categories, the theoretically generated political implications show the meaning of the security discourse in a new light, both empirically and theoretically. The dissertation examines shifts in the meaning of how security and dangers are constructed and shows how this is linked to significant political implications for the policy area, accountability and power. The overall findings reveal that risk has become a key aspect of how security policy is constructed and enacted but also that it has not replaced the threat logic. Rather, they coexist in a dynamic that produces varying discourses and policies over time. This dissertation demonstrates the necessity of understanding both approaches in parallel in order to attain a more complete understanding of current security policy and its implications