Ordinary lives behind extraordinary occupations: on the uses of Rubicon for a social history of American intelligence

Abstract

This article will evaluate the possible uses of fiction—specifically TV series—for a social history of American intelligence. Drawing on methodological debates within intelligence studies, as well as contemporary philosophy, it argues that certain TV series allow viewers to hypothetically experience the everyday life of ordinary intelligence professionals by permitting in-depth descriptions of specific routines and practices. Such a claim will be illustrated using the example of Rubicon (AMC, 2010), an American TV series that was praised for its realism by professionals and scholars alike. By making visible the ordinary life of professionals (coffee and lunch breaks, daily briefs, interminable waits etc.), Rubicon successfully demystifies the everyday life of intelligence analysts, without normalizing the extraordinary nature of the secret world (secrecy, mistrust, and extreme violence). In addition to challenging the clear-cut and often overly simplistic distinction between the factual and the fictional when it comes to secret intelligence, this contribution will also broaden our understanding of the hidden side of government by shedding light on cultural perceptions (including self-perceptions) of intelligence professionals.

Notes on contributor

Pauline Blistène is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the DEMOSERIES project, hosted at the Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne and funded by the European Research Council. Email: [email protected]

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1 See the Introduction to this Special Issue. The present contribution is part of the ongoing attempt to develop new avenues for research in intelligence studies around the notion of the ‘everyday’ or the ‘ordinary life’ of intelligence professionals and to broaden the concept of ‘evidence’ beyond solely state archives. The TV series Rubicon is not interpreted as a documentary of real intelligence analysts’ lives or practices, but as a valuable site of meaning production that allows non-professionals to hypothetically experience the ordinary life of intelligence analysts, and which enables professionals and non-professionals to refer to and connect with each other, through shared representations and emotions.

2 In this article, the emphasis is put on American intelligence scholarship. But one should not forget the work of various scholars on British intelligence services. See for instance Aldrich (2011) or Cormac (2018).

3 In addition to the series I focus on in this article, some examples include Homeland (Showtime, 2011–2020), The Americans (FX, 2013–2018), Jack Ryan (AmazonPrime, 2018-in production), Fauda (Yes Oh, 2015-in production) and the French TV series The Bureau (Canal+, 2015–2020).

4 CIA memoirs repeatedly stress the fact that intelligence officers often feel overworked. According to former CIA’s Director George Tenet (2007), amongst the reasons given for missing 9/11 was the huge volume of work the Counter-Terrorism Center staff was faced with.