To be able to introduce and implement a European Criminal Intelligence Model it is important to understand in which societal environment such a model is embedded.
To understand to which extent law enforcement agencies at Member State level do represent a homogeneous set-up in which such a model can be applied is as important.
Having addressed these questions it remains to evaluate if such a model has to stay at a generic level, allowing for individualised approaches when implementing the model or if the model needs to be more detailed down to the level where strategic findings are
operationalised to allow for a unified approach at national level, which in return will result in a unified European approach for tackling organised crime. Law enforcement does not exist in a vacuum. Being at the heart of what constitutes a state policing and law enforcement are heavily influenced by existing social, cultural and historical variables present at national level. Moving up to the European level these considerations are even more important as it currently still is unclear which role the EU can play when it comes to defining common law enforcement strategies based on a universally applicable criminal intelligence model.
In this context it is necessary to analyse the state society is currently in. Another aspect to be considered refers to the question if societal developments are mirrored in the law
enforcement community or if the change-rate of the law enforcement community is of a different speed, which might result in conceptual models that do not reflect the needs of an existing reality.
Law enforcement is regarded as one of the cornerstones that are central to the concept of a state and the state for a long time has been regarded as the smallest indivisible entity - to a certain extent comparable to the concept of the atom as the smallest part of matter before scientific advancement showed that this concept has been considerably wrong. Along these lines it might be that also the traditional Weberian state concept has reached a cross-road, where it remains to be seen if the state continues to represent a single unified entity or will have to be looked at as a ‘discontinued model’ which is replaced by a more fluid concept.
Continued globalisation and virtual realities introduces by the ever expanding cypher-space have already impacted on the understanding of the nation state concept already.
10.1 Modern, postmodern - does it play role for the ECIM?
Society has gone a long way. During the Middle Ages life in Europe was dominated by religious beliefs. When moving out of the Middle Ages new ways of thinking started to challenge this view. In the sixteenth century the Reformation movement and new scientific discoveries led to a different perspective on the nature of the world. The outcome of these developments is generally referred to as Enlightenment or modernity.
The main characteristics of modernity are referring to the acceptance of the explanatory power of the natural sciences and the existence of meta-narratives, providing a logical and holistic perspective of the world. However, modernity is not the final state of the art.
On the contrary, the certainties of modernity have led to the uncertainties picked-up by postmodernism. Modernity can be described as the intellectual and cultural conceptualisation of the era of Enlightenment, especially the rejection of traditional sources of authority in favour of reason and knowledge as the actual corner stone to explain and understand the world. Modernity has produced a variety of social, political, legislative, technological and economic developments, including democratization and consumerisation.
Another key element of modernity is linked to the concept of progress.
With modernity moving into a societal context of consumerisation compared to production before, rational certainty and self-awareness more and more have developed into scepticism and fragmentation. These developments have considerably changed the paradigm of
modernity. Some refer to this shift as ‘late modernity’, implying an existing continuity with the concept of modernity, whereas others have taken a step further by arguing that
postmodernity has ended modernity, introducing a new conceptual framework.
Postmodernity refers to the increasing number of questions marks regarding the era of Enlightenment and its conceived ability to provide overarching answers in a more complex growing world after the Second World War. The development gained further momentum from the seventies to the nineties as the negative consequences of modernity became more apparent, e.g. climate change, dominance of economic interests, exploitation of natural resources, experienced social and judicial injustice.
Postmodernity is characterised by Relativism, Pluralism, Subjectivism and Fragmentation.
Relativism means that what is regarded as valid (true) for a specific group may not be valid (true) for others. Pluralism, accepts that diverting opinions are equally valid.
Claims of exclusivity are not substantiated. Subjectivism, as opposed to the modern concept of objectivism, allows for the fact that a specific truth value can alter depending upon the perspective of the observer. In addition, a judgement which perspective is right or wrong cannot be made. Fragmentation takes into account that an overall cohesiveness amongst different groups does not exist, rather the opposite, there is a tendency towards smaller groups trying to lobby for their individual course. These groups are characterised by their single dimension, which is often expressed by one-dimensional attributes like ecological, gay, feminist, or fundamentalist. Consumerism is the role model for the priority of freedom of choice. Opinions and preference change quickly and are to a large extent influenced or defined by the media. In the sense that modernism focused on human self-confidence and an overarching contextualisation, postmodernism focuses on instability. Not only time is relative, everything else is: truth, reasoning, civilization, or justice. Postmodernity regards knowledge as contextual in scope and interpretation. Contexts are not universal, rather local, depending upon time, place, and culture. Objectivity is seen as an attempt to present an ideological perspective hidden as an established fact. The difficulty that came to light with modernity was that modernity after the Second World War offered a world without a constant. The ultimate belief that technological progress would be able to solve whatever problem in a positive way could not be turned into reality. Modernity was a way of making sense of the world, to finally close in on the ‘Theory of Everything’. Modernity was
convinced that science based entirely upon undisputed and objective facts would replace the need to rely on any other kind of value systems, especially those based on belief.
The concepts of epistemology and hermeneutics in modernity were clear and straight
forward, only scientific methods were able to detect objective truth and when interpreting the significance of such findings again only science was able to do so. Postmodernity disputes such an approach, instead of striving for a holistic answer postmodernity is trying to find a tailored approach for coping with life. Postmodernity recognizes the limitations of the human condition and the difficulties of a value free approach in a contextualised reality. It accepts that truth can be generated from a variety of different sources, acknowledging at the same time that truth as such does not exist. Truth is rather perceived as of a subjective nature depending on perspective - what is true for some may not be true for others.
Nietzsche (1886) described this approach much earlier when he referred to his perception that so-called objective truth claims have to be seen as merely covert assertions of power. 75
Criticism linked to postmodernity is often based on the underlying theoretical concept of denying objectivity. By insisting that all truth claims are relative and that no single truth system can claim singular objectivity postmodernity again has just created another absolute truth system, although based upon pluralism and tolerance. This criticism is reflected by Best and Kellner (1997) when they conclude: ‘does not the very concept of postmodernity
presuppose a master narrative, a totalizing perspective.’76
There are no universally agreed definitions regarding the meaning of postmodernity.
Different authors express different ideas. Some even prefer the term ‘late modernity’ to
‘postmodernity’. However, there seems to be a broadly accepted general understanding that there are fundamental differences when talking about modernity and postmodernity.
Modernity is changing, the degree of which still subject to ongoing discussions.
To be successful the ECIM has to take these developments into account. The validity of traditional law enforcement approaches placed within a Weberian state concept are questioned. Even if the EU structures in Brussels are requesting an overarching OCTA to define strategic priorities there seems to be too much of a modern perspective believing in a grand-narrative as the appropriate answer to tackle organised crime. There are many
indicators pointing in a postmodern direction which require from the ECIM to be more diversified. The regionalisation of the OCTA (hub approach) and the focus on the individual set-up of organised crime groups are the first step to align a European perspective with the needs resulting from a more postmodern societal context. To be clear on the modern or more postmodern nature of society plats a decisive role for the ability to effectively implement the ECIM.
75 F.W. Nietzsche, Chapter I: Prejudices of Philosophers (no. 9), Beyond Good and Evil, Aziloth Books, 2010
76 S. Best and D. Kellner, The Postmodern Turn, Guilford Press, 1997