Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Two of the central and enduring debates in scholarship on military doctrine concern its sources and purposes. While the dispute on sources is marked by a differentiation mainly between rationalist and constructivist understandings of external threats versus (strategic) culture, the discussion about purposes largely has remained confined to the rationalist side only, with debates focusing on doctrine's relative importance to military efficiency and effectiveness. In contrast, this article contributes to and further develops constructivist-inspired understandings of military doctrine as being about creating/sustaining identity and ontological security. By bringing scholarship on military identity into conversation with constructivist/critical research on organizational identity (OI), military doctrine is read as an authoritative top-down narrative aimed at constituting OI by providing ontological security. This is of particular salience in times of change when the central purposes and goals of an organization, such as the military, are affected by major developments in the organization itself, domestic politics, the international environment, or society. The theoretical propositions are illustrated by an exemplary empirical analysis of contemporary Swedish military doctrine from 2002 to 2022.
Nicola Nymalm (Wed,) studied this question.