Justifying Conflict – The Use of Stereotypes in, and a Tentative Typology of Narratives of Geopolitical Legitimation

Abstract

Narratives are fundamental to overt warfare, whether kinetic, economic or through other means. Scholarly literature on geopolitical codes has established that narratives of legitimation rely on a standard use of stereotypes depicting the enemy as evil, whose actions are irrational. They often offer a vision of modernization as a reward for the sacrifices undertaken in conflict. The coherence of narratives is also seen as a prerequisite for legitimation to be effective. It is, however, questionable if narratives used to justify conflict do indeed standardly follow these patterns. Upon analyzing the narratives used by the regional powers and by the global power, the United States in the first six months of the Syrian conflict, we have found that the use of stereotypes varies, and can be typified. The vision of modernization is interpreted in the context of national identity, hence its impact may vary. And, several narratives have shortfalls in coherence, diminishing their legitimatory power. A deeper understanding of the nature of narratives may contribute to improving prognoses of escalation and likely outcomes.