Totalförsvaret – vems ansvar? : En diskursiv analys av det svenska totalförsvaret mellan åren 1985 och 2021

Sammanfattning: Since the Cold War, Swedish total defence and security management have experienced organizational or discursive changes that have given rise to a considerable shift in responsibility. This thesis aims to analyse the shift of responsibility and the strategies used to encourage awareness and preparation among citizens by using the theory of governmentality. The thesis uses critical discourse analysis as its method, and the analysed empirical data consist of governing documents and investigations presented by the government and state. By analysing the central governing document regarding total defence between 1985 and 2021, I have demonstrated a discursive shift in responsibility from the state to individuals. During the Cold War, the state was responsible for its citizens in crisis or war. After the end of the Cold War, the state perceived that individuals could not take responsibility in case of war and crisis. After 2001, there was a shift in the security strategy, which resulted in a broader focus on crisis management. The individuals were considered to have the primary responsibility for their safety. After 2014 the state wanted to return to a more traditional view of security to include total defence, which blurs the lines between war and peace. The current view on security calls for a new type of resilient neoliberal individuals willing to accept uncertainty and more significant responsibility for their and society's security. The thesis concludes that the governance of individuals' awareness and preparations follows liberal rationality in that it does not contain disciplinary and juridical strategies. The state used strategies to sustain the choice and freedom of individuals. The shift in responsibility challenges the philosophical and theoretical basis of the liberal state. These challenges enlighten central questions of the boundary of the state contra the individual's responsibility for individual security. These questions may evoke concerns for the fundamental legitimacy of the state because of the liberal theory of the "social contract".