Actions speak louder than.. ahem, narratives
[ by Charles Cameron — pondering the use of narratives to “counter violent extremism” ]
.
I’m pondering the use of narratives to “counter violent extremism”, and have been thinking about letting this post consist of its title and the government-sponsored words:
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
I’m hoping this post will find its place in the comments section, in other words. If the opposing party — whether that means, effectively, IS, salafist-jihadis, the Ikhwan, or Islamists in general — pushes a narrative about US actions towards the Islamic world, can a narrative alone succeed at pushing back? What actions can we show that refute the simple form of that narrative? What actions might we take in future that would appear to affirm it? To refute it?
Are we so busy thinking about counter-narratives that we allow our actions to undercut our words?
**
Come to that, is the appeal of IS really its apocalyptic theology (which is what I mostly address), its success as a military force (which may be down to the presence of ex-Baathist military in high positions of command), its critique of US policy in respect of the Islamic world (dictatorships included), the prospect of adventure (and perhaps concubines?) in foreign lands, or, as Prof Andrew Silke would have it, altruism?
The key message is that you have got to see the terrorists as they see themselves if you genuinely want to understand why people are getting involved. If you talk to terrorist themselves, they portray themselves as altruists – they see themselves as fighting on behalf of others, whether it’s the IRA fighting on behalf of the Catholic community in Northern Ireland, or if it’s Islamic State fighting on behalf of the Muslim ummah.
**
I suspect there’s a lot to be said here, and the floor is open. I’m eager to hear your voices..
Cheryl Rofer:
July 21st, 2015 at 12:39 am
I think a lot about US response to Russian propaganda, not so much about salafi-jihadis’ propaganda, but I think there is overlap among them, although some differences.
.
One thing I would point out is that there is hardly a massive rush to join the salafi-jihadis. Yes, there are some teenagers looking for – adventure? altruism? whatever teenagers look for, which seems to comprise most of the theories I’ve seen. But not all that many, considering how many teenagers there are in the world. Given that disproportion, I think we can conclude that the general attractiveness of salafi-jihadism is minimal and probably not worth putting a lot of thought and effort into. Certainly not the kind of thing that Wesley Clark is reported to have said. I say “reported to have said” because I can hardly believe that a former presidential candidate would say such a thing.
.
The Russian propaganda is more of a problem because more of it seems (at least in my reading) to get mixed in with mainstream news coverage. Far too much of the Russian line on the Baltic States pervades common wisdom, like that of course all the people of Russian extraction are a potential fifth column.
.
But I think how to counter them has similar elements. One way of countering nonsense is to laugh at it. Another, as you suggest, is to offer something better by actions. I do think that words are the least effective way for free countries to counter propaganda from authoritarian organizations, although you have to keep the truth current and out there, as is happening with the MH17 investigation. Otherwise, the lies have free rein.
.
But what kind of actions? This is getting pretty long, so I’ll let that hang for a while.
Charles Cameron:
July 21st, 2015 at 9:10 pm
Here’s the clip:
.