Informatsioon, selle “loomine” ja liigutamine mängib nii globaalsel kui individiaalsel tasandil märkimisväärset rolli nii igapäevase sotsiaalse reaalsuse mõtestamisel kui komplekssetes küsimustes otsuste vastuvõtmisel.Siinviidatud vabalevis olev tekst võiks pakkuda huvi nii politseinikele, “luurajatele” kui ka näiteks ajakirjanikele. Tegelikult küll kõikidele, sest mõtestab (luure)informatsiooni sotsioloogilisest perspektiivist koos empiirilise analüüsiga.


“In a recent article, intelligence scholar Pepijn Tuinier argues that intelligence theory continues to suffer from neo-realist presumptions and fails to explain ‘the increasing depth and breadth of international intelligence cooperation’.1 Tuinier joins a growing critique of the dominant understanding of intelligence agencies as rational, neutral, service providers, that only communicate with their international counterparts as a last resort.2” (Hoffmann et al., 2022, p. 1)


“Intelligence cooperation, broadly, refers to contacts between the intelligence agencies of different states; more accurately described as ‘the international relations of intelligence agencies’. Intelligence cooperation is also commonly referred to as ‘liaison’.4 Intelligence cooperation comprises many different types of contacts, of varying degrees of closeness and continuity.” (Hoffmann et al., 2022, p. 1)

Luureinfo vahetamine:

“Especially since 9/11, attempts to develop theories that explain the existence and impact of intelligence relations on international politics have gained ground, albeit from a low base.13 These efforts have been hampered by a prevailing belief that intelligence agencies regard each other with suspicion and are generally extremely hesitant to share information with each other.14” (Hoffmann et al., 2022, p. 1)

Sotsioloogia tuum:

“Sociology starts from a focus on relations between individuals, groups and institutions.” (Hoffmann et al., 2022, p. 2)

Luureinfost sotsioloogilisest perspektiivist:

“Sociological approaches to intelligence ask from the start: what are the (national and international) social relations that shape intelligence?” (Hoffmann et al., 2022, p. 2) […] “sociological approaches focus on everyday intelligence practice, and the motives and values that animate it, which are often overlooked in intelligence scholarship.” (Hoffmann et al., 2022, p. 2)

Positivistliku perspektiivi ületamine:

“From a sociological point of view, intelligence relations are determined by a much more complex set of factors than strategic aims and shared threat perceptions, which neo-realist approaches have emphasized. International intelligence relations no longer appear as primarily state driven, competitive and rational decisions. Instead, they depend on social questions, such as shared knowledge frameworks or similar understandings about practices and daily routines.” (Hoffmann et al., 2022, p. 2)

Autorid lubavad:

“in this article we introduce three prominent sociological concepts to an intelligence readership and highlight their applicability to intelligence relations. The three concepts are ‘epistemic communities’, ‘field theory’ and ‘knowledge circulation’.” (Hoffmann et al., 2022, p. 2)

Episteemilise kogukonna kontseptsioon:

“Firstly, the epistemic communities concept addresses the fact that intelligence professionals in different countries work from the same professional knowledge systems, and frequently share similar values and norms. Such epistemic communities of intelligence professionals can be empirically determined by comparing the professional knowledge used by different intelligence agencies.” (Hoffmann et al., 2022, p. 3)

Episteemilise kogukonna karakteristikud:

“He argues that epistemic communities share (1) normative and principled beliefs in their actions, (2) causal beliefs, which are derived from their analysis of practices leading or contributing to a central set of problems in their domain, (3) notions of validity of their analysis in their field of expertise and (4) a common set of goals, a ‘common policy enterprise’.39” (Hoffmann et al., 2022, p. 4)


“The key scholar associated with field theory is the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, who first developed the concept. A field is a relatively autonomous social arena structured by the relations and social” (Hoffmann et al., 2022, p. 7) […] “positions of individuals or institutions struggling over access to specific resources.63 Each field follows a different logic according to the ‘stakes which are at stake’.” (Hoffmann et al., 2022, p. 8) […] “Actors within a field behave according to a shared body of categories and behavioural patterns which are a product of collective history, a set of dispositions which forms the so-called ‘habitus’.65” (Hoffmann et al., 2022, p. 8)


“Drawing on historian of science James Secord84 and knowledge circulation theorists Nicolas Guilhot and Wiebke Keim,85 Hoffmann points to several fruitful aspects which the knowledge circulation concept emphasises, such as various modes of circulation (reception, exchange, negotiation), different levels of analysis (state, institution, individual) and the materiality of international intelligence relations.86” (Hoffmann et al., 2022, p. 10) […] “Firstly, knowledge does not develop within ‘exclusive settings’, but emerges from (virtual or actual) ‘laboratories’, whose technologies, discourses and practices themselves developed elsewhere, perhaps even with a different intended purpose.87” (Hoffmann et al., 2022, p. 10)

Lugemishuvi suurendamiseks:

“Sociological analyses of intelligence show that intelligence activity does not just develop in reaction to external, strategic challenges and threat perceptions. Instead, internally produced knowledge, bureaucratic procedures, and material structures shape intelligence work, which emerges as a deeply social activity, embedded within both national and transnational relationships.” (Hoffmann et al., 2022, p. 12)

Hoffmann, S., Chalati, N., & Dogan, A. (2022). Rethinking intelligence practices and processes: Three sociological concepts for the study of intelligence. Intelligence and National Security0(0), 1–20.