Search results

Väitöstutkimus analysoi julkisia poliittisia performansseja poliittisena viestintänä. Poliittiset performanssit voidaan ymmärtää julkisissa tiloissa toimeen pantuina 'näytöksinä', joiden tavoitteena on luoda arkisiin rutiineihin yllättäviä katkoksia ja synnyttää uutta toimintatilaa jonkin yhteiskunnallisen ongelman esiin nostamiseksi. Performanssit synnyttävät katkoksia monin tavoin, mutta erityisen leimallista niille on näkyvän, vallalla olevan visuaalisen järjestyksen murtaminen tuomalla siihen erilaisia 'häiritseviä' (disruptive) elementtejä: resistoivia kehoja, valtaa parodioivia kuvia, karnevalistista protestointia, katuteatteria jne. Poliittisten performanssien viestintä perustuu puheen sijaan tai ohella toimijoiden oman kehon ja sen kantamien erilaisten visuaalisten merkkien julkiseen esittämiseen, joskus hyvin äärimmäisellä tavalla, kuten esimerkiksi nälkälakoissa ja polttoitsemurhissa. Väitöskirjassa tällaista viestintätyyliä kutsutaan visuaaliseksi ja esteettiseksi politikoinniksi. Tutkimuksessa analysoidaan useita esimerkkejä performatiivisesta poliittisesta viestinnästä ja kehitetään teoreettisia ideoita sen ominaispiirteiden tulkitsemiseksi. ; In this doctoral thesis I study a phenomenon which I have titled as public political performance. By public political performance I refer to a public event (a 'show', display, demonstration) the purpose of which is to expose in public and challenge those social-political norms, practices, and relations of power which usually remain invisible in the sway of routine political life. I am interested especially in how performance works as a form of non-linguistic, or wider than linguistic, political communication. I theorize and analyze, through several illustrative examples, performances from three perspectives: as corporeal (bodily), visual, and aesthetic communication. In construction of theory I use and partly rework ideas from thinkers such as Jürgen Habermas, Michel Foucault, Hannah Arendt, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, and Jacques Ranciere. The study shows that public political performance is a sensitive, even volatile phenomenon because it often manifestly exposes the fundamentally violent power structure of society – as when, for example, street demonstrations induce strong counter reactions from the police and political authorities – and puts this order under critical public scrutiny. Political authorities do not take such challenges lightly, which is why public performances sometimes instigate serious political controversies. The key theoretical ideas of the study relate to performance as something done and en/acted. On the one hand, performance discloses the nature of politics as a 'doing.' This means in simple terms that, in order to subsist, the political world needs to be done, performed, and 'iterated,' every time anew. The term performative describes this social-constructivist side of politics. That the constitution of the social and political power is based not on any 'natural' ground but on continuous re/iteration of certain ways and routines is often revealed only when it is visibly and noticeably disrupted. This is what political performance typically does. On the other hand, performance signifies a particular kind of public show which resembles but does not equal theatrical shows. Performance is theatrical in being an 'art-like' communicative act, yet it is more surprising and unpredictable compared to regular theatre and, because of this, usually more difficult to approach and interpret. Political performance as a contingent and sometimes oddly appearing public event with a surprise effect brings forth the importance of disruption for politics. It alerts us to situations where the normalized political performatives are being visibly questioned by bringing into public space – 'in your face' – diverse disrupting elements like resisting bodies, parodying images, and carnevalism. The relationship between these two, performatives and performances, creates an edgy and 'chiasmatic' political space from which much of political life gains its driving force. This basic idea and relationship constitute the key starting point for this study's theoretical reflections. Political performance is an important subject for political studies for several reasons. The purely knowledge-based reason is that that in directing attention to the corporeal and visual aspects of politics and political communication, performance brings into view phenomena and conceptual possibilities which are too often ignored by political researchers and theorists. The relevance of performance for the field can also be justified from another perspective, through reference to its political and democratic significance. The discussions and analyses carried out in the study show that there are political circumstances where citizens see public performance as the only available means of participation in political communication, with other channels of communication forbidden or marginalized. There are also situations where citizens create, through setting up a performance, space for public communication and action where it has not existed before. Political performance as a way of contesting existing political realities can therefore have special value for political freedom. Political and democratic theory needs to understand, I shall argue, also that category of political action which performs political freedom rather than asks for it.

Tutkimuksen kohteena on kokonaisturvallisuus julkisena toimintapolitiikkana, ja sitä tarkastellaan sekä monimutkaisena ja yhteenkietoutuneena ilmiönä että turvallisuuspoliittisena strategiana. Kokonaisturvallisuus on laajaan turvallisuuskäsitteeseen perustuva, aiemmasta kokonaismaanpuolustuksen käsitteistöstä ja strategiasta kehitetty toimintapolitiikka, jolla tavoitellaan kokonaisvaltaista yhteiskunnallisen turvallisuuden hallinnan mallia. Tutkimuksen päämääränä on analysoida kokonaisturvallisuutta systeeminä, arvioida sen kelpoisuutta, toteutettavuutta ja edellytyksiä vastata turvallisuusympäristön muutoksiin. Tutkimus on metodologisesti laadullinen. Aineistona ovat suomalaiset kokonaisturvallisuuden alaan liittyvät erilaiset ja eritasoiset strategiat, ohjelmat ja muut dokumentit, ja toimintaympäristöön ja sen muutokseen liittyvät Euroopan unionin strategiat ja ohjelmat. Teoriaviitekehys perustuu Niklas Luhmannin systeemiajatteluun, jossa systeemin perusrakenteita ovat kommunikaatio, tieto ja merkitykset, ja joka korostaa valintoja kompleksisuuden hallinnan välineinä. Ajattelussa korostuu myös huiputon ja keskukseton yhteiskunta. Prosessimaisen otteensa vuoksi tutkimus kiinnittää huomiota yksittäisten osatekijöiden tai toimijoiden sijaan prosessiin ja kokonaisuuden systeemisyyteen, mikä korreloi sekä kokonaisturvallisuuden tavoitteiden että kompleksisuuden vaatimusten suhteen. Kokonaisturvallisuuden analyysi sekä tunnistaa tutkimuksessa sen kehittämiseen liittyneen merkityskamppailun, että tuo esiin käsitteen epäselvyyden, epäanalyyttisyyden ja "jaetun merkityksen" puuttumisen, mikä heijastuu strategian ohjaavaan vaikutukseen sekä siihen, miten politiikkaideaa on kehitetty. Kokonaisturvallisuuden politiikkaidea on sinällään laajasti hyväksyttävä ja sillä on positiivista valenssia. Yhteistyön ja koordinoinnin korostamisella uskotaan olevan kokonaisuuden hallintaa kehittävä vaikutus. Turvallisuuden kokonaisuuden koordinointitarve onkin jo pelkästään uhkien keskinäisriippuvuuden vuoksi ilmeinen. Poliittista kelpoisuutta haittaavat kokonaisuuden strategisen ohjauksen ohuus ja hajanaisuus, mikä näkyy erityisesti yhteensovittavan tehtävän vaikeutena. Monet systeemin rakenteellisista peruselementeistä ovat jääneet kokonaisturvallisuuden kehittämisessä vähälle huomiolle. Tutkimuksen mukaan tämä vaikeuttaa sen toteutettavuutta. Kokonaisturvallisuuden hallinnassa olennaista on keskinäisriippuvuuksien ja systeemisyyden tunnistaminen ja hallinta. Tutkimuksen tulosten avulla kokonaisturvallisuutta systeemisenä turvallisuuden hallinnan mallina voidaan kehittää ja edistää. Tutkimus päätyy suositukseen kokonaisturvallisuuden kehittämisen ratkaisumallista (ns. älykkään adaptiivisen kompleksisen turvallisuussysteemin idean avulla). Tutkimus tarjoaa eväitä myös uusien kokonaisturvallisuutta koskevien poliittisten linjausten ja politiikkatoimien muotoilulle. ; The main objectives of this study are to clarify and deepen the understanding of the phenomena of comprehensive security and to analyze and evaluate the political viability and administrative operability. Furthermore, the study aims to analyze comprehensive security as a political process and a complex system. In addition, the research deals with changing security environment, emerging security threats. Originally, the concept of comprehensive security derived from the previous concept of comprehensive defense and preparedness in Finland, but it also has roots in the Nordic states' cooperation processes of civil security since 2009. At policy and doctrinal levels, the 2000s saw a converging trend in Nordic states to-wards the definition of societal or comprehensive security concepts that might co-exist with military-led planning for war-time, but within which the softer aspects of security were paramount. The "societal" approach defines the protection of society as a whole – with its own complex mechanisms, values and culture – as its goal, rather than physical boundaries or the isolated and abstract individual. It also rec-ognizes the capacity of non-state actors within society, from businesses to social organizations and individuals, to play a large role themselves in warding against, coping with, and recovering from disasters. The research questions are: 1. What is comprehensive security like as a policy or meta-strategy, political process and complex system? 2. Is the comprehensive security policy or meta-strategy politically viable and administratively feasible? What kind of conditions the strategies (policies) provide for the administrative operability and the development of capabilities? The theory framework is based on Niklas Luhmann's systems and complexity thinking. Luhmann perceives society as centerless and topless system in which communication, information and meanings are considered as the basic elements. The aim of communication is to cause action in systems and formulate new system levels by creating new chains of communication. The empirical part of the research is established on the methodology of concept analysis, content analysis and policy-analysis. The policy-analysis was conducted by the method of political reading. Political reading can be characterized as 'de-mapping', which refers to opening up new aspects of contingency and thus ex-panding of the presence of the political therein (Palonen 1993: 13-15). Through the analysis of the political process the struggle of meanings was iden-tified. As a concept, comprehensive security is ambiguous, unanalytical and unclear. There is a lack of shared meanings, which reflects on how difficult it is to steer the comprehensive security. By emphasizing its cooperative and coordinative nature, is believed to promote better governance of security. However, the lack of steering hampers the political viability which the difficulties of the coordination clearly indi-cate. Many of the basic elements of a system (information/knowledge, communica-tion and meanings) have been ignored in the development of comprehensive secu-rity. This hampers its administrative operability. The study emphasizes that systemic instruments, systems intelligence, identified interdependence and systemic nature of threats and security environment are essential components of comprehensive security governance. The research produced also 10 normative conclusions, by which the compre-hensive security can be developed further with. In addition, it gives the recommen-dation for the development of a model, according to the idea of intelligent adaptive complex system. It also offers information for new political aligning and policy formulations. Due to the process approach of the research, it pays attention to societal security system as a whole, not to single functions or actors. This fits to-gether with the goals set for comprehensive security and the requirements the se-curity environment and complexity imposes.