Miina Kaarkoski & Pekka Koistinen
16.9.20201

Examining and defining the meaning of concepts is an important part of both the scientific and public debate. People use concepts to express how they see and understand their living environment and the use of concepts structures our understanding about issues. In the public debate, the defining of concepts, and especially the arguing over them, might in some instances seem like futile pedantry over nuances. A feeling might arise, where one thinks that everyone partaking in the conversation must understand what is meant by a commonly used word or term. 

Concepts that are commonly used within a certain field might be commonly understood within a discussion at a certain level, but might end up taking more or less a wholly different meaning when presented in more detail by a certain speaker or in a certain context. In the Finnish context, an example of this could be the concept of the will to defend one’s country, maanpuolustustahto in Finnish. The concept of maanpuolustustahto is widely used in various orations and political discourses related to national defence and security politics. The difficulty of defining the concept arises when trying to decide what actions could support or maintain the phenomenon or attitude referred to as the will to defend one’s country.

Concepts that are commonly used within a certain field might be commonly understood within a discussion at a certain level, but might end up taking more or less a wholly different meaning when presented in more detail by a certain speaker or in a certain context. In the Finnish context, an example of this could be the concept of the will to defend one’s country, maanpuolustustahto in Finnish. The concept of maanpuolustustahto is widely used in various orations and political discourses related to national defence and security politics. The difficulty of defining the concept arises when trying to decide what actions could support or maintain the phenomenon or attitude referred to as the will to defend one’s country.

The controversy over the meaning of concepts should not be ignored, quite the contrary, attention should be paid to it. The same concept might mean different things in different contexts, which is of great importance for decision-making and the organising of societal matters. For example, with regard to the concept of disinformation, it is important to note what definitions parties in decision-making and legislative positions end up adopting in different contexts. What is meant by disinformation? What kind of action or phenomenon is it considered to be? What kind of significance and weight is placed on the phenomenon called disinformation in societal terms and in terms of decision-making or the allocation of resources? Different ways of defining a particular concept, such as disinformation, embody, among other things, different ways of thinking about and valuing things, delimiting phenomena, and structuring the surrounding society and factors that affect it.

From a scientific point of view, disinformation ought to be seen as content that is purposefully produced and disseminated to pursue goals that are detrimental to society. The substance in the disinformation is not necessarily false , but is framed in a way that serves a desired purpose. Disinformation is generally associated with a societally negative outcome or destabilising societal impact.

The dispute over the meaning of disinformation is a prime example of a dispute over the meaning of a concept that is of great importance both in the public and political debate. The understanding of the importance of the topic develops and becomes more specified as a result of debating. As Kai Palonen, the Professor Emeritus of Political Science, has emphasised, expressing different points of views on a topic is a prerequisite for the topic to be understood. Often, the positive effect of critical and questioning statements manifests as a refinement of the topic discussed and solutions to it. Uncertainty and the broadness of the issues discussed are natural parts of the decision-making process, even when that process is based on science. Seen from a philosophical point of view, the French philosopher Paul Ricouer for example, has brought forth the notion that the polysemic nature of concepts is not a reflection of their lack of clarity or accuracy, but rather an opportunity to produce contrary and knowledge enriching interpretations of the concept.

The Government  Report on Finnish Foreign and Security Policy from 2020 sees the spreading of false, wrong or misleading information as a central means for hybrid influencing, where a state or other external actor seeks to influence societal vulnerabilities in order to achieve their own goals. From the point of view of state security, disinformation has thus been defined in the document guiding foreign and security policy as having a potentially destabilising effect on society and structures. In the Finnish Government’s Defence Report from 2021 the political weight of information influence has increased compared with any previous reports. Alongside with cyber and space, information is defined as a domain that Finland must be able to monitor and to defend with necessary measures. Analysing the political debate reveals choices, justifications and possible points of contention over how severe of a security threat disinformation is seen as, compared to other potential security threats, how it should be responded to and what kind of politics and structures should resources be guided towards.

The concept and structures of the Security of Supply, and the development of these, are topical questions. What role does counteractions against disinformation seem to play in the debate over the concept and structures of the Security of Supply? The IRWIN project is creating a scientific basis for including knowledge as a dimension of National Security of Supply. How can this be done in a way that does not challenge, but rather supports and safeguards the functioning and principles of democracy?

Miina Kaarkoski, Doctor of Philosophy, National Defence University
Pekka Koistinen, Doctoral Researcher, National Defence University