I've been looking at strategic communication/propagandizing where the content deployed relates to violence for the 2-3 years. The body of knowledge is somewhat frustrating to deal with. The scholars come from many different disciplines, & they use distinct scientific language & approaches to research. And they pursue varied questions. I find synthesizing the state of knowledge on any particular point extremely difficult. In any event, I'm delighted to see you examining the same phenomena. Your piece reminded me of an excellent article on how two opposing sides propagandized Ukrainians - to portray a May 2014 event where 46 people were killed. The identity of the perpetrators was the highly politically salient point. One set of propagandists (narrative managers, if you prefer) sought to persuade the public that the victims were killed by people on their own side (which was not true); and, the other side sought to persuade the public that the victims were killed by the rival group. People's ethnic identity strongly influenced their response to the propaganda. Just thought I'd share the reference, in case you find it interesting. Hale, H. E., Shevel, O., & Onuch, O. (2018). Believing Facts in the Fog of War: Identity, Media and Hot Cognition in Ukraine’s 2014 Odesa Tragedy. Geopolitics, 23(4), 851-881.
>The identity of the perpetrators was the highly politically salient point.
This is very interesting, and makes a lot of sense. If you aim to animate a group of people in a particular direction, they need to have an enemy, some kind of external target. When you look at the political narratives of today (like the Kenosha shooting, for example), people often emphasize outgroup signs (like Rittenhouse's support for police orgs, and his out-of-state status).
It's very natural for us to try and identify an enemy. And this is very useful for propagandists of every stripe.
I've been looking at strategic communication/propagandizing where the content deployed relates to violence for the 2-3 years. The body of knowledge is somewhat frustrating to deal with. The scholars come from many different disciplines, & they use distinct scientific language & approaches to research. And they pursue varied questions. I find synthesizing the state of knowledge on any particular point extremely difficult. In any event, I'm delighted to see you examining the same phenomena. Your piece reminded me of an excellent article on how two opposing sides propagandized Ukrainians - to portray a May 2014 event where 46 people were killed. The identity of the perpetrators was the highly politically salient point. One set of propagandists (narrative managers, if you prefer) sought to persuade the public that the victims were killed by people on their own side (which was not true); and, the other side sought to persuade the public that the victims were killed by the rival group. People's ethnic identity strongly influenced their response to the propaganda. Just thought I'd share the reference, in case you find it interesting. Hale, H. E., Shevel, O., & Onuch, O. (2018). Believing Facts in the Fog of War: Identity, Media and Hot Cognition in Ukraine’s 2014 Odesa Tragedy. Geopolitics, 23(4), 851-881.
>The identity of the perpetrators was the highly politically salient point.
This is very interesting, and makes a lot of sense. If you aim to animate a group of people in a particular direction, they need to have an enemy, some kind of external target. When you look at the political narratives of today (like the Kenosha shooting, for example), people often emphasize outgroup signs (like Rittenhouse's support for police orgs, and his out-of-state status).
It's very natural for us to try and identify an enemy. And this is very useful for propagandists of every stripe.
Thank you
My pleasure!