This article explores an emerging "cultural turn" in intelligence studies, which, if fully realized, could entail the expansion of the discipline to include new methodologies and theories, and a more integrative understanding of historical causality that locates intelligence agencies within the widersocio-cultural domain they inhabit. It has two parts. The firstexpands upon what I mean by a new 'integrative' understanding of historical causality. The second explores three areas of interest for intelligence scholars where the "cultural turn" has clear and important implications: the study of secrecy, publicity, and "mentalities". In recent years a new wave of scholarship, focusing upon the representation of secret intelligence services in various media, has added new vitality to the discipline of intelligence studies. 1 It is tempting, therefore, to identify this topical interest in the popular mediation of intelligence agencies as the titular 'cultural turn' of this article, and leave it at that. But topicality alone cannot constitute a disciplinary 'turn'. At stake in this expansion of the discipline to include a consideration of 'culture' is something much more fundamental than simply a question of what topics are permissible. In this article I will argue that two conditions are necessary for a fully fledged cultural turn in intelligence studies: the first is an openness to new methodologies and theoretical paradigms, often borrowed from other disciplines, and in particular from the fields of cultural studies, literary theory and the philosophy of history. The second is a new understanding of historical causality that is integrative, recognising that intelligence, as with the rest of the political domain, 'does not constitute itself independent of and external to societybut is a place of almost continuous sociopolitical interaction.' Intelligence scholars, to borrow Steven Pincus and William Novak's wording, 'should not assume that their chosen area of inquiry can be studied abstracted from other elements of historical experience.' 2 Nor, it should be added, are many of those other elements of historical experience entirely abstracted from the history of secret intelligence. This article is therefore not intended as a comprehensive literature review of recent cultural studies of intelligence, though it does identify what this author considers some of the more significant works that assume one or both of the conditions described above. Nor is it a purely descriptive account of a 'cultural turn' in intelligence studies that has already occurred. Rather, it seeks to extrapolate from an emerging tendency within the field, a nascent cultural turn if you will, still in the making, in order to outline some guiding principles for its future development, as well as explore some of its implications for the study of intelligence. There are two sections to this article. The first expands upon what I mean by a new 'integrative' understanding of historical causality, and contrasts it with traditional historical approaches to...

No abstract

No abstract

This article examines the relationship between the Central Intelligence Agency and the Hollywood film industry from 1947 to 1959. Surprisingly, the CIA was almost entirely absent from American cinema screens during this period, and their public profile in other popular media, including television and the press, was virtually nonexistent. This conspicuous lacuna of publicity coincided with what some scholars have termed the “Golden Age” of US covert action – an era of increasing CIA intervention in Italy, Iran and Guatemala, to name only the most prominent examples. How was it that the CIA managed to maintain such a low public profile and in the process evade popular scrutiny and questions of accountability during such an active period of its history? Utilizing extensive archival research in film production files and the records of the CIA themselves, this article suggests that Hollywood filmmakers adhered to the CIA's policy of blanket secrecy for three interrelated reasons. First, it suggests that the predominance of the so-called “semidocumentary” approach to the cinematic representation of US intelligence agencies during this period encouraged filmmakers to seek government endorsement and liaison in order to establish the authenticity of their portrayals. Thus the CIA's refusal to cooperate with Hollywood during this period thwarted a number of attempts by filmmakers to bring an authentic semidocumentary vision of their activities to the silver screen. Second, up until the liberalization of American defamation law in the mid-1960s, Hollywood studio legal departments advised producers to avoid unendorsed representations of US government departments and officials through fear of legal reprisal. Finally, this article suggests that the film-industry censor – the Production Code Administration – was instrumental in reinforcing Hollywood's reliance upon government endorsement and cooperation. This latter point is exemplified by Joseph Mankiewicz's controversial adaptation of Graham Greene's The Quiet American. Overturning existing scholarship, which argues that CIA officer Edward Lansdale played a decisive role in transforming the screenplay of Greene's novel, this article suggests that Mankiewicz's alterations were made primarily to appease the Production Code Administration.

Don DeLillo once described the CIA as “America’s myth”, an agency that “takes on shapes and appearences embodying whatever we need to know ourselves or unburden ourselves.” This book is the story of the emergence of that myth, of the CIA as an American cultural icon in the most iconic of mediums: Hollywood cinema. It is also the story of how, at times, the CIA have worked with Hollywood to try to shape that myth. The story begins with a band of intrepid Hollywood filmmakers led by the legendary director John Ford who were willing to die to make films for the CIA’s wartime predecessor, the OSS. It ends with a deeply suspicious film industry, and society, that was left profoundly altered by decades of government deceit. Based on years of archival research from libraries across the United States and beyond, this acclaimed study demonstrates how the massive expansion of US government secrecy and the national security state in the aftermath of the Second World War profoundly altered American culture in the post-war years.