Formation of the image of the enemy in the media. The image of the enemy in the history of mass media. Real and imaginary enemies

"Enemy" as a concept and as the subject’s perception of the “other” has deep roots that go back to tribal social relations. This is connected, firstly, with the need for self-identification of a social group and its differentiation according to the principle of “friend or foe”, and secondly, with the need to determine what poses a danger to the very existence of the group.

For an archaic society, the surrounding world was quite hostile. Danger lurked at every step. Therefore, the “image of the enemy” in the public consciousness was formed as a complex concept, as a collective image that included various negative phenomena. The “enemy” could be personified with both a real threat and a fictional (mythological) image that “threatens” the very existence of a social community. “The mortal danger emanating from the enemy,” according to L. Gudkov, “is the most important feature of these semantic or rhetorical constructions. This is what distinguishes the enemy from other, albeit similar, characters in the symbolic theater...”

So, the most important identification feature “ enemy“is the mortal threat emanating from it to a person, group, society.

The next distinguishing feature of the “enemy” is its dehumanization - endowing the enemy with various negative properties and qualities. Thus, the famous researcher of the psychology of aggression L. Berkovets emphasizes the difference between instrumental aggression, in which the attack is mainly due to the desire to achieve a certain goal, and hostile aggression, in which the main goal is to harm or destroy the victim. Consequently, the “enemy” is associated with evil, hatred, aggression, deceit, violence, death and other negativity. That's why dehumanization of the object real or imaginary danger is the next main condition for the formation of the “enemy image”. So, the “enemy” is an actor (phenomenon) that represents a real or imaginary threat to the very existence of an individual, group, society, a bearer of inhumane properties and qualities. “Enemy” can be associated with a specific person (“personal enemy of the Fuhrer”), with a tribe, ethnic group, nation, class, party, state (“evil empire”), with ideology (fascism, nationalism, racism), with a social system (capitalism , socialism) and so on.

Image of the enemy

"Image of the Enemy" - this is a qualitative (evaluative) characteristic (image) of the “enemy” formed in the public consciousness. This is the perception of the enemy and the idea of the enemy. At the same time, the enemy and his image can differ significantly from each other, because perception reflects not only objective reality, but also evaluative interpretations and emotional components of perception. In addition, the formation of the image of the enemy is influenced by stereotypes and attitudes inherent in the mass consciousness. It is also necessary to take into account that the perception of the enemy is mediated by certain sources of information, for example the media, which can purposefully form a certain image of the “enemy”.

Various images of “enemies” give an idea of what (who) is a threat to a particular social community at a certain point in time, in a certain situation, what are the parameters of this threat (strength, activity, inhumanity), what needs to be done to protect against “ enemy." These “images,” like other negative stereotypes, can be passed on from generation to generation, change from era to era, “level out” (disappear) and be reborn again.

There are various concept of human “hostility” in relation to others. Many of these concepts base hostility on a person's underlying predisposition to act aggressively—to attack others with the goal of causing physical or psychological harm or destruction to another person or group of people. Others determine a person’s “hostility” by acquired qualities. The third is due to developing conditions and circumstances. Let's look at some of these concepts.

The biogenetic explanation of human aggressiveness comes from the fact that man partially inherited (preserved) the character of a wild animal from his ancient ancestors. Thus, the Austrian scientist Konrad Lorenz believes that aggressiveness is an innate, instinctively determined property of all higher animals.

Aggressiveness

Psychological concepts explain human aggressiveness by the initial hostility of people towards each other, the desire to solve their internal psychological problems at the expense of others, “the need to destroy another person in order to preserve oneself” (3. Freud).

Frustration theories proceed from the fact that situational factors as a reaction to frustration are dominant in aggressive behavior. The essence of the concept is that most people commit violent acts not because they pursue some goals, but because these people are in an unsatisfactory (frustrated) state. The reasons for people's frustration and aggression can be a variety of factors that infringe on their needs, interests and values. Moreover, “the stronger the frustration, the greater the amount of aggression directed at the source of frustration.”

The theory of relative deprivation is a development of the theory of frustration. Its essence lies in the fact that the hostility and aggressiveness of people increases when they realize the injustice of their “frustrated” situation when compared with the situation of other more prosperous (reference) groups.

Adherents of the theory of social learning believe that a high or low level of hostility is the result of socialization (social evolution) of an individual, group, or society. There is such a thing as a “circle of violence” - when violence from childhood spreads into adulthood, including to newly born children. This is how the experience of violence and suppression is passed on from generation to generation.

Authoritarian relationships at all levels of socialization form a personality ready to submit to force and authority. But in relationships with weaker people, or people in lower status-role positions, such a person is very aggressive and ruthless.

Nationalist and racial theories are based on the initial hostility of one ethnic group (race) to another. Class theories see the origins of hostility in the social stratification of people. Social theories generally explain hostility by the social relations existing in society, and, first of all, by the struggle of people for existence, for resources and power.

The concept of “enemy” (like society itself) goes through various stages of its development. In primitive primitive groups, hostility towards “strangers,” according to G. Simmel, is a natural state, and war is perhaps the only form of relationship with an alien group.

With the development of trade and international relations a more complex conditionality (selectivity) appears in the definition of “enemy”. In Christianity, the concept of “enemy” becomes a universal symbol of evil - “the enemy of the human race.” During the period of formation of national and “class” ideology (Modern times), the concept of “enemy of the people” appears as one of the ways of national identification and mass mobilization. In the 19th and 20th centuries, the concept of “enemy” was widely used in domestic and foreign policy.

In closed social systems the concept of “enemy” is associated with “absolute evil”, against which all forces and means are mobilized, and which does not imply any compromises. Such polarization is most characteristic of totalitarian ideology and politics. Thus, V.I. Lenin, developing the theory of Marxism, put forward the idea that there can be no neutral people in the class struggle. Stalin's policy brought this idea to the absolute: “whoever is not with us is against us,” “if the enemy does not surrender, then he is destroyed.” The consequences of such a dichotomy in ideology and politics can be quite tragic.

Real and imaginary enemies

In social and political relations, there are various reasons for “searching” for real and imaginary enemies. Let's name some, in our opinion, the most significant:

Traditional grounds. It was already said above that for group self-identification, as a necessary condition for the survival of a social group in the natural and social environment, people from ancient times distinguished themselves and others according to the principle of “friend - foe”, “friend - enemy”, etc. Such grounds definitions, first of all, of an external “enemy”, are characteristic of any social community (group, class, nation, society), as a way of forming its identity. External “enemy” helps to strengthen intra-group connections and relationships, uniting all group members to combat the external threat. For example, before the start of the Chechen War in the Republic of Ichkeria, there was quite a powerful opposition to the ruling regime led by General Dudayev. The entry of federal troops into Chechnya (December 1994) rallied the entire Chechen people to fight “external aggression”, and the opposition lost its social base and, in fact, ceased to exist. According to analysts, one of the reasons for the collapse of the USSR was the feeling of the absence of a real external enemy.
Socio-psychological foundations. In the development of any society, periods of social crises and states of uncertainty (anomie according to Durkheim), experienced by many people, are possible. Anomie contributes to the growth of social tension, the concentration of conflict (aggressive) energy that “searches” for possible ways for your exit. Under these conditions, searching for the “enemy” is one of the simplest and most effective ways channeling the energy of conflict into real and imaginary enemies. For example, in modern Russian society, various social and political actors who are dissatisfied with the current state of affairs in the country name as enemies: oligarchs who “plundered the country,” corrupt officials, illegal immigrants, etc. But the most obvious example, in my opinion, is a systemic crisis , anomie and “finding” internal and external enemies, is Germany in the late 20s, early 30s. last century. Hitler and his associates managed to convince a significant part of the German nation that their enemies were Jews and communists (later the circle of enemies was expanded). And the dissatisfaction and conflict energy that had accumulated over the years was directed at these “enemies.” The period of anomie is over. The German nation rallied to fight the “enemies.”
Purposeful rational grounds. Such grounds arise in a conflict situation, the causes of which are the incompatible interests and goals of two or more subjects (parties) of political relations. These grounds presuppose the conscious actions of the subject aimed at achieving their interests and goals, contrary to the wishes and behavior of other subjects. For example, if two states (peoples) lay claim to a disputed territory and at the same time they do not make any mutual concessions and are ready to defend their interests, then they may be perceived by each other as enemies. In domestic politics, opposing actors can also label each other the term “enemy.”
Value-rational foundations. Max Weber defines value-rational motives of behavior as an action based on the belief that the action being performed has a certain value. Consequently, these grounds for defining the “enemy” have, first of all, value motivation (ethical, religious, ideological, cultural, etc. bases). For example, the “class enemy” in a political conflict is determined mainly by ideological criteria. For Islamic fundamentalists, the main basis for defining the “enemy” is religious dogma. The “war” of cultures and civilizations (according to S. Huntington and E. Toffler) also has value foundations.
Situational reasons. A political subject who is not completely independent may find himself in a situation where he is forced to perceive another subject as an enemy, without having sufficient grounds for this. For example, during the Second World War, some countries of Eastern Europe (Romania, Hungary, etc.), under pressure from Germany, were forced to fight against the Soviet Union, i.e., identify it as an “enemy.”
Opportunistic grounds. Sometimes a political subject positions another subject as an “enemy” for opportunistic reasons. For example, countries such as Georgia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Poland in recent years have periodically “revealed” Moscow’s hostile machinations towards them. This policy of discrediting Russia is encouraged by Western patrons (especially the USA) and brings political dividends to these countries (the ruling elite), both in foreign and domestic policy. Some Western countries also do not miss the opportunity to accuse Russia of “hostile” thoughts or actions. The essence of these, often unfounded, accusations is to force Russia to justify itself for what it did not do and to sacrifice its interests in favor of the “accusers.”
Manipulative grounds. Manipulation involves certain actions (a system of measures) that contribute to the fact that the object of manipulation commits actions that do not meet his interests. For example, in recent years, objective grounds have emerged for closer economic and political cooperation between Russia and the European Union. But such cooperation is objectively not beneficial to the United States. By manipulating public consciousness, the United States is trying to convince the European Union that Russia represents a potential danger, a potential enemy who is harboring some insidious plans. Manipulation of the “enemy image” also allows some countries to increase their military budget. Thus, speaking at hearings in Congress (February 2007), US Secretary of Defense R. Gates, in order to increase the military budget, “scared” congressmen with the “unpredictable behavior” of countries such as Russia, China, North Korea, Iran..., and accused Russia of “trying to regain its great power status and is heavily arming itself.” And this despite the fact that the US military budget is 25 times larger than Russia’s and twice as large as it was at the peak of the Cold War.
Desire to lower status (to strike in rights), called the enemy of the subject. The very concept of “enemy” carries negative associations. Consequently, the enemy, as a rule, cannot claim not only a positive, but even an impartial attitude towards himself. That is, the “enemy”, by its very definition, is placed in a position that is obviously disadvantageous for itself. In addition, to enhance the negative perception of the “enemy”, he can be endowed with such “characteristics” as “enemy of the people”, “enemy of the nation”, “enemy of the human race”, “enemy of democracy”, etc. Additional characteristics of the “enemy” as would show that a given actor (enemy) is not only an enemy for a specific subject (opponent, adversary), but also poses a direct threat to many others (people, nation, humanity, democracy, etc.). For example, the Bolsheviks used the concept “enemy of the people” in relation to their political opponents and innocently accused people. Thus, they affected the rights of not only the accused himself, but also his relatives and friends. The search for and punishment of “enemies of the people” dates back to the times of the Jacobin dictatorship and the French Revolution. For the first time in the history of Soviet Russia, this concept was used by Leon Trotsky in 1918, accusing the savior of the Russian fleet, Colonel Shatsky, of failing to comply with the order to scuttle the fleet. The leaders of Nazi Germany gave their opponents the term “enemy of the nation,” or “personal enemy of the Fuhrer.” Writer Salman Rushdie was classified as an “enemy of Islam” for his work “The Satanic Verses” (1988) and was sentenced to death by Ayatollah Khomeini. Certain Western politicians often use the term “enemy of democracy” in relation to political regimes and leaders disloyal to them, and thereby also seek to defeat them in their rights.
Indirect friendship or enmity. Sometimes “enemy” and “friend” are defined according to the principle: the enemy of my friend and my enemy; the enemy of my enemy is my friend. This principle is most typical for political and military alliances, when two or more political actors enter into an agreement on joint protection of interests and/or joint defense. For example, on such grounds the European Union was created (joint protection of the political and economic interests of its member countries) and the military-political alliance NATO (joint protection of political and military interests). In an effort to reaffirm their friendship with the United States, some European governments sent troops to Iraq.
Search for the "enemy" as a way to shift one’s guilt onto another, as a desire to assign one’s vices, thoughts, desires, and actions to another. This basis operates according to the “stop the thief” principle, when the thief himself, in order to remove suspicions about the theft he committed, initiates a search for the imaginary “thief”. Thus, the Stalinist regime, in order to justify its failures in governing the country, along with other methods, widely used the method of “searching for enemies of the people,” or “substitute sacrifice.” To justify their collaboration with fascist Germany and their crimes during the Second World War, pro-fascist forces in some countries (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine, Poland) seek to present the Red Army not as a “liberator”, but as a “conqueror”, i.e. as an "enemy".
Currently, the United States accuses Russia of imperial ambitions, although these ambitions are inherent, first of all, in the United States itself. The war in Iraq, launched in 2003 by the United States and England, was also based on the “search for an imaginary enemy” who allegedly threatens the world with weapons of mass destruction. But this scam essentially failed.
Historical background. They are associated with past grievances that took place in the relations of subjects (countries, peoples, ethnic groups, religions). Historical grievances are usually stored in the memory of a particular historical subject on a subconscious level. In themselves, as a rule, they are not the immediate causes of confrontation and hostility. But if a conflict is brewing or is already taking place, then historical grievances are “extracted” into reality and become additional factors in its development. For example, they can be used to justify one's actions and blame the actions of the enemy. So, for many years after the Second World War, the majority of Soviet people associated such concepts as “Germany” and “German” with the concept of “enemy”. It took years and two or three generations to change the learned stereotypes. The Baltic countries still justify their hostile actions towards Russia by past grievances. Poland perceived the agreement concluded between Russia and Germany on laying a pipeline along the bottom of the Baltic Sea (bypassing Poland) as an anti-Polish conspiracy, and compared it with the Molotov-Ribintrop Pact (1939).

Stereotypes of consciousness

The decades of the Cold War and global confrontation between the two world systems have not passed without a trace for many people and entire nations. Therefore, any contradiction in political relations can find fertile ground for its development in the minds of people - bearers of stereotypes of the past.

Thus, President V.V. Putin, speaking at the Munich Conference (February 2007), noted that the Cold War left us with “unexploded shells” in the form of ideological stereotypes, double standards and other patterns of bloc thinking that interfere with the solution of pressing economic and social issues. It is necessary to take into account that stereotypes are based not only on cognitive, but also on affective and behavioral components. According to A.V. Shipilov, “it is the affective side of the stereotype (the positive emotions associated with it) that makes it impossible to refute it using logical arguments...”.

Theoretical and methodological foundations

When defining “political,” many Russian researchers refer to the works of the German scientist K. Schmit, written by him in the very “hostile” 20s - 30s. XX century, who believes that in the definition of the concept of “political” one of the key roles is played by such categories as “friend” and “enemy”: “A specifically political distinction, to which political actions and motives can be reduced, is the distinction between friend and enemy. The meaning of the distinction between friend and enemy is to indicate the highest degree of intensity of connection or separation, association or dissociation.”

Obviously, categories such as “friend” and “enemy” are quite suitable for denoting “the highest degree of intensity of connection or separation,” but not quite for the concept of the political, which is based on conflict-consensus relations. No less (and maybe more) important for defining the political are such “intermediate” (between “friend” and “enemy”) categories as “supporter”, “ally”, “opponent”, “adversary”, etc. Yes and K. Schmit himself clearly lacks these categories in justifying his point of view. Therefore, the enemy in his interpretation is not a completely defined category. So he believes that the “enemy” is not an obligatory, but a probabilistic reality, the possibility of manifestation of a struggling set of people. The enemy is only a public enemy, who “should not be immediately destroyed: on the contrary, he deserves courteous treatment.”

The above statements also indicate a lack of logical consistency in the friend-enemy dyad. On the one hand, the enemy should not be destroyed immediately - this means that it is not a “real” enemy. Consequently, it needs to be given some other definition, for example, “enemy” (as in V. Vysotsky: “neither friend nor enemy, but so”). On the other hand, the enemy “should not be destroyed immediately,” that is, right away, but after a certain “courtesy treatment,” he, obviously, will still have to be destroyed. This, by the way, is confirmed by the further conclusions of K. Schmit, who writes that war, as the extreme realization of enmity, follows from this very enmity, i.e. the presence of an enemy can lead to war and to the destruction of no longer a probabilistic, but a real enemy.

One of the variants of a not very successful example of the use of the friend-enemy dichotomy in the course of analyzing the current international situation of Russia, in our opinion, is the article by A. Dugin “Axes of Friendship and Axis of Enmity.” At the beginning of the article, the author “calls on” Russia to clearly define its friends and enemies, because “Politics begins where the friend-enemy pair is clearly defined. And if we don’t develop our own policy as soon as possible, someone else’s will simply be harshly imposed on us.” But in the course of further reasoning, the author comes to the conclusion that for Russia a clear choice of friends and enemies is unacceptable. “Russia, as Eurasia, is capable of offering the CIS countries a positive integration scenario and conducting a soft dialogue with a variety of forces in the West and East.”

An analysis of some of K. Schmit’s provisions on the concept of politics, and the given example of the application of this concept, allows us to conclude that in modern politics (as well as in other areas) extreme polarization of mutual perception is highly undesirable. Such polarization, as already mentioned, is most characteristic of totalitarian ideology and politics. Schmit's teaching on politics can be conditionally attributed to the traditional paradigm for the study of socio-political processes and relations, which, of course, has not lost its relevance, but requires significant additions.

The multipolar world presents a complex dynamic of partnership and competition, cooperation and confrontation. In such conditions, as K. Wallender puts it, relationships such as “hostile friends” or “friendly opponents” arise. When “today’s opponent on some specific issue can become tomorrow’s partner. And the opposite is also true - yesterday’s partner can become an adversary the next day on some issue, while maintaining the potential for cooperation.” According to A. Wolfres, “the line separating friendly and hostile relations is not always clearly defined. There is an intermediate area in which it is difficult for governments to track the transition from weakly expressed friendly relations to hostile ones, and vice versa. Even in the relations of the most friendly states there is usually a hidden conflict that can suddenly flare up.” A clear example of such conflicts are the “gas” and “oil” conflicts between Russia and Ukraine (late 2005) and between Russia and Belarus (late 2006 - early 2007).

Relations between political subjects can vary from irreconcilable hostility to boundless friendship. But various intermediate states are also possible.

K. Boulding proposed to classify the mutual relations of countries on a scale of friendliness - hostility, in which the extreme positions are considered to be “stable friendship” and stable enmity.”

In political relations, it is also necessary to distinguish between “diplomatic hostility,” which can be caused by opportunistic private considerations or emotional statements of individual politicians, and the deliberate formation of an image of an enemy, which is designed to arouse hostile feelings among the entire nation.

Each of the grounds for determining the “enemy” that we have analyzed can be used as a single and sufficient basis, or in combination with other grounds.

Mechanisms and methods of forming the “enemy image”

The initial stage in the formation of the image of the enemy is the concept of “hostility”, as a negative reaction (attitude) to a real or imaginary danger or as a reaction to the appearance of a real or imaginary “victim” (a constructed image of a “victim”). At the same time, hostility in its development can go through several stages: from a unilateral unfriendly act to bilateral full-scale hostility; from a momentary negative perception to centuries-old hatred. Traditionally, the image of the enemy is formed on the basis of unfriendly, hostile (hostile) relationships and/or actions.

The very process of forming the image of the enemy is determined by previously formed stereotypes. The historical memory of any established society allows people to preserve and pass on from generation to generation previously formed images of enemies and mechanisms for their identification. Therefore, when this or that danger arises before a social community, folk memory “resurrects” the stereotype of the “image of the enemy” corresponding to the situation, and on its basis a new (updated) image of the enemy is formed in the public consciousness.

Negative stereotypes themselves are not the direct cause of hostile relationships.

But they help accelerate the formation of the enemy’s image and determine its main evaluative characteristics. Thus, the treacherous attack of Nazi Germany on the Soviet Union (June 22, 1941) overnight turned the former economic and political partner (in accordance with the Munich Treaty of 1939) into a sworn enemy of the entire Soviet people, because The Russian (Russian) people have been subjected to similar attacks many times in the past. And no tricks of Goebelian propaganda, which tried to present the occupiers as liberators from the communist regime, could mislead the common people.

Previously acquired stereotypes are easily reproduced in the public consciousness and can “switch” from one object to another. Thus, if in May 2001, according to VTsIOM, only 7% of Russians considered Georgia a hostile state, 8% considered it an ally, then in the summer of 2006 (after a number of provocations by the regime that were inherently hostile towards Russia Saakashvili) according to the Levada Center, already 44% of respondents considered Georgia an enemy and only 3% a friend. In terms of “hostility” indicators at that time, Georgia was even ahead of the United States (28%), which previously occupied first place among “enemies.” The process of purposefully forming (constructing) the image of an enemy is in many ways similar to the process of constructing a “victim”, but at the same time has the opposite negative assessment of the image. The image of the enemy should arouse hatred. Therefore, he can combine such negative qualities as: deceit, aggressiveness, immorality, cruelty, unscrupulousness, etc.

In the course of purposefully constructing an image of an enemy, you can even “construct” a very negative image of people who have done you good. For example, it is impossible to refute the fact of the heroic death of millions of Soviet (including Russian) citizens (soldiers, partisans, people driven into slavery) during the liberation of Europe from fascism. But in some of the liberated countries, anti-Russian political forces came to power, hampered by the images of Russian liberators. To discredit these positive images and form an image of the “enemy” on their basis, the following methods are used.

Transformation of liberators into occupiers. The historical fact of the liberation of the country (people) is hushed up or its significance is diminished. The problem of the “seizure” of the country’s territory by Soviet troops comes to the fore. Liberation is interpreted as occupation. The “horrors” of the Soviet occupation are being updated. Thus, the liberators are attributed responsibility and guilt for events in which they did not participate. By replacing facts and concepts, “moving” events in time, the creators of the image of the “enemy” are trying to rewrite history in their own interests. In this way, they construct a new social and political reality.
Discrediting the feat of the victim-hero. The feat accomplished by the hero (heroes) is questioned or discredited. For example, it is said that in reality there was no feat, or that there is nothing heroic in the hero’s behavior, etc.
Devaluation of the fact of sacrifice. An attempt to impose the opinion that the sacrifice made was either in vain or not commensurate with the results achieved. For example, it is said that the liberating soldiers died due to a misunderstanding, due to the incompetence of their commanders, or defending the wrong ideals.
Disputing the number of heroes killed. Deliberate underestimation of the number of deaths, or suppression (forgetting) of the very fact of death, the place where the heroic deed was performed, or the burial place of the dead. The media are widely used to form the image of the enemy, as well as to construct the image of the victim. For example, the United States, in order to “transfer” a particular country (political regime) from the category of a full-fledged subject of international relations to the category of “enemy,” creates (shapes) a certain political discourse through the media (and not only). In this case, they are used various ways discrediting the intended “victim”: its positive qualities are questioned, negative qualities are emphasized in every possible way. The leaders of the country chosen as victims are likened to bloodthirsty monsters. The intended “enemy,” but in fact the “victim,” is systematically demonized and constantly mentioned only in a negative context. Thus, during the war in Bosnia (1993 - 1995), the United States and its comrades in the Western media carried out a program called the “Satanization of the Serbs.” At the same time, the Serbs themselves were not given access to the media.

Having formed the necessary stereotypes, the discourse imposed on the public moves into a new phase. A discussion is unfolding about how (by what forces, methods) it is better to neutralize or destroy the “enemy”. Thus, before subjecting Yugoslavia to a barbaric bombing (1999), the United States launched a debate in the mass media about whether it was worth resorting to a ground operation or limiting itself to targeted bombing. At the same time, the question of the need to use military force against a sovereign state was no longer in doubt.

The grounds for creating the image of the enemy are selected taking into account the social significance of the “misconduct” and are formed depending on the pursued goals and interests of the subjects constructing the image. Thus, Serbia (Yugoslavia) was accused of numerous casualties among the civilian Albanian population and other “sins”, Iraq – of creating weapons of mass destruction and threatening other countries, Afghanistan – of hiding the leaders of terrorist organizations, Iran and North Korea – of creating nuclear weapons. Russia is in aggression against Georgia. In reality, these images of “enemies” were created so that the United States could impose its will on other countries and peoples.

The emerging image of the enemy must meet certain requirements (needs) of the party forming the image of the enemy:

Meet the goals and objectives of the opposing side, which forms a certain image of the enemy.
Perform evaluative functions from the point of view of traditions, stereotypes, value systems and worldviews existing in society.
Satisfy instrumental needs, for example, provide information about a real or imaginary threat, about the quantitative and qualitative characteristics of the enemy, about possible sanctions that can be applied against the enemy, about the amount of damage caused by the enemy and possible compensation.
“Expose” the inhumane essence of the enemy and his criminal plans.
Promote internal consolidation of the parties to the conflict to combat the identified enemy.
Help attract new allies to your side.

In addition, the formed and periodically updated image of the enemy can be used by the subject of politics for his aggressive actions. Thus, the image of terrorist No. 1 Bin Laden, created by the US administration, was periodically updated and used by the United States in its domestic and foreign policy.

It was already said above that the construction of a “victim” also presupposes the formation of an image of an “enemy”, who is either directly guilty of an attack on the “victim”, or is indirectly related to this attack, or is considered as a potential threat. The immediate or potential attacker on the “victim” is identified as an “enemy” that must be confronted or destroyed.

“Enemy” as a concept and as a subject’s perception of the “other” has deep roots that go back to tribal social relations. This is due, firstly, to the need for self-identification of a social group and its differentiation according to the principle “ friend - stranger", secondly, with the need to determine what poses a danger to the very existence of the group.

For an archaic society, the surrounding world was quite hostile. Danger lurked at every step. Therefore, the “image of the enemy” in the public consciousness was formed as a complex concept, as a collective image that included various negative phenomena. The “enemy” could be personified with both a real threat and a fictional (mythological) image that “threatens” the very existence of a social community. “The mortal danger emanating from the enemy,” according to L. Gudkov, “is the most important feature of these semantic or rhetorical constructions. This distinguishes the enemy from other, albeit similar, characters in the symbolic theater...”

So, the most important sign of identifying an enemy is the mortal threat posed by him to a person, group, or society.

The next distinguishing feature of the enemy is his dehumanization - endowing the enemy with various negative properties and qualities. Thus, the famous researcher of the psychology of aggression L. Berkovets emphasizes the difference between instrumental aggression, in which the attack is driven primarily by the desire to achieve a specific goal, and hostile aggression, in which the main goal is to harm or destroy the victim. Consequently, the enemy is associated with evil, hatred, aggression, deceit, violence, death and other negativity. That's why dehumanization object of real or imaginary danger is the next main condition for the formation of the image of the enemy.

So, an enemy is an actor (phenomenon) that represents a real or imaginary threat to the very existence of an individual, group, society, a bearer of inhumane properties and qualities. The enemy can be associated with a specific person (“personal enemy of the Fuhrer”), with a tribe, ethnic group, nation, class, party, state (“evil empire”), with an ideology (fascism, nationalism, racism), with a social system (capitalism, socialism ) etc.

The image of the enemy is a qualitative (evaluative) characteristic (image) of the enemy, formed in the public consciousness. This is the perception of the enemy and the idea of the enemy. Moreover, the enemy and his image can differ significantly from each other, since perception reflects not only objective reality, but also evaluative interpretations and emotional components of perception. In addition, the formation of the image of the enemy is influenced by stereotypes and attitudes inherent in the mass consciousness. It is also necessary to take into account that the perception of the enemy is mediated by certain sources of information, for example the media, which can purposefully form a certain image of the enemy.

In social and political relations, there are various reasons for “searching” for real and imaginary enemies. Let us name some that, in our opinion, are the most significant.

1. Traditional grounds- as a necessary condition for group self-identification. An external enemy helps strengthen intra-group ties and relationships, uniting all group members to combat an external threat.
2. Socio-psychological foundations arise during the period of anomie (according to Durkheim). Anomie contributes to the growth of social tension, the concentration of conflicting (aggressive) energy, which is “searching” for possible ways to exit. Under these conditions, the search for the “enemy” is one of the simplest and most effective ways to channel the energy of conflict into real and imaginary enemies.
3. Purposeful rational grounds arise in a conflict situation, the causes of which are the incompatible interests and goals of two or more subjects (parties) of political relations. For example, if two states (peoples) lay claim to a disputed territory and at the same time they do not make any mutual concessions, then they may be perceived by each other as enemies.
3. Value-rational foundations- defining an enemy based on incompatible values, for example, differences in ideology, religion, culture, civilization, etc. In recent years, attitudes towards sexual minorities have become the basis for a value conflict.
4. Situational reasons. A political subject who is not completely independent may find himself in a situation where he is forced to perceive another subject as an enemy, without having sufficient grounds for this. For example, during the Second World War, some countries of Eastern Europe (Romania, Hungary, etc.), under pressure from Germany, were forced to fight against the Soviet Union, that is, to identify it as an enemy.
5. Opportunistic grounds. Sometimes a political subject positions another subject as an “enemy” for opportunistic reasons. For example, countries such as Georgia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Poland have periodically “revealed” Moscow’s hostile intrigues towards them in recent years. This policy of discrediting Russia is encouraged by Western patrons (especially the USA) and brings political dividends to these countries (the ruling elite) in both foreign and domestic policy. Some Western countries also do not miss the opportunity to accuse Russia of “hostile” thoughts or actions. The essence of these, often unfounded, accusations is to force Russia to justify itself for what it did not do and to sacrifice its interests in favor of the “accusers.”
6. Manipulative grounds. Manipulation involves certain actions (a system of measures) that contribute to the fact that the object of manipulation commits actions that do not meet his interests. For example, in recent years, objective grounds have emerged for closer economic and political cooperation between Russia and the European Union. But such cooperation is not beneficial to the United States. By manipulating public consciousness, the United States is trying to convince the European Union that Russia represents a potential danger, a potential enemy who is harboring some insidious plans. Manipulating the image of the enemy also allows some countries to increase their military budget.
7. The desire to lower the status (strike in rights) of a subject called an enemy. The very concept of “enemy” carries negative associations. Consequently, the enemy, as a rule, cannot claim not only a positive, but even an impartial attitude towards himself. That is, the “enemy”, by its very definition, is placed in a position that is obviously disadvantageous for itself. For example, the United States and its allies often use the term “enemy of democracy” in relation to political regimes and leaders disloyal to them and thereby also seek to defeat them in their rights.
8. Indirect friendship or enmity. Sometimes "enemy" and "friend" are defined according to the principle: the enemy of my friend and my enemy; the enemy of my enemy is my friend. This principle is most typical for political and military alliances, when two or more political actors enter into an agreement on joint protection of interests and/or joint defense. For example, on such grounds the European Union was created (joint protection of the political and economic interests of its member countries) and the military-political alliance NATO (joint protection of political and military interests). In an effort to reaffirm their friendship with the United States, some European governments sent troops to Iraq and Afghanistan.
9. Searching for an “enemy” as a way to shift the blame onto another, as the desire to assign one’s vices, thoughts, desires, and actions to another. This basis operates according to the “stop the thief” principle, when the thief himself, in order to remove suspicions about the theft he committed, initiates a search for the imaginary “thief”. For example, in order to justify their collaboration with Nazi Germany and their crimes during the Second World War, pro-fascist forces in some countries (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine, Poland) seek to present the Red Army not as a “liberator”, but as a “conqueror”, that is, enemy.
10. Historical background are associated with past grievances that took place in the relations of subjects (countries, peoples, ethnic groups, religions). They are usually stored in the memory of a particular historical subject on a subconscious level. In themselves, as a rule, they are not the immediate causes of confrontation and hostility. But if a conflict is brewing or is already taking place, then historical grievances are “drawn out” into reality and become additional factors in its development.
11. Stereotypes of consciousness. The decades of the Cold War and global confrontation between the two world systems have not passed without a trace for many people and entire nations. Therefore, any contradiction in political relations can find fertile ground for its development in the minds of people - bearers of stereotypes of the past.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Recommended list of dissertations in the specialty "Political institutions, ethno-political conflictology, national and political processes and technologies", 23.00.02 code VAK

Formation and evolution of the image of the enemy during the Cold War period in Soviet cinema: mid-1950s - mid-1980s. 2009, Candidate of Historical Sciences Kolesnikova, Alexandra Gennadievna
The image of the “enemy of the people” in the system of Soviet social mobilization: ideological and propaganda aspect: December 1934 - November 1938. 2010, Candidate of Historical Sciences Arnautov, Nikita Borisovich
Formation of a mythologized image of the United States of America in Soviet society in the early years of the Cold War, 1945-1953. 2001, Candidate of Historical Sciences Nikolaeva, Natalia Ilyinichna
The image of Japan in the Soviet public consciousness: 1931-1939 2009, Candidate of Historical Sciences Lozhkina, Anastasia Sergeevna
The image of the Soviet Union as a factor in US foreign policy: 1945 - 1952. 2007, candidate of historical sciences Sitnikova, Elena Leonidovna

Introduction of the dissertation (part of the abstract) on the topic “Constructing the image of an external enemy: a study of Soviet media and official documents of the beginning of the Cold War: 1946-1953.”

The relevance of the study is determined by an attempt to identify the role of constructing the image of an external enemy in the functioning of the general social mechanism of transformation of Russian society in the context, on the one hand, of the historical Soviet experience, and on the other hand, the current process of changing the social nature of Russian society, which is inevitably accompanied by deep anomie, an increase in spontaneous development factors. We are talking about how the construction of the image of an external enemy affects societal transformation, i.e. to change the social nature of large groups of people. Naturally, these changes may be fraught with the weakening and disintegration of social communities and the disintegration of old social institutions. At the same time, society as the highest level of the social system, in order to maintain its viability, requires, according to the theory of T. Parsons1, the preservation of integrity, the internal integration of social elements.

The historical experience of our country shows that one of the significant mechanisms for forming and maintaining the integration and societal identity of society (as well as its many social groups) is the construction of the image of an external enemy. In relation to the image of an external enemy, usually acting as a “They-group”, society is able to unite and strengthen its identity in the form of an integral “We-group”. A similar mechanism for the formation of social integration, which led to the cohesion of heterogeneous social groups, classes, social movements and solidarity, has proven to be effective throughout the history of mankind, the history of the USSR, and remains relevant today. It is important to immediately note that the image of an external enemy is often a simulacrum: it does not always coincide with the real enemy and,

1 Parsons T. On social systems. - M.: Academic Project, 2002. As a rule, it is constructed by significant others (authoritative, charismatic leaders, ideological and religious value systems, etc.) and supported by a “chorus”. Thus, the political elite and the media of Western countries, pursuing the goal of uniting civil society in the face of the threat of international terrorism, purposefully form images of “enemies of democracy”, “international terrorism”, “axis of evil”, “sanctuary of terrorists”, etc. The national “Super-ego,” if narcissism dominates in it, is also capable of causing hostility, fears, and cultivating images of the enemy. These trends also affect modern Russian society. Faced with instability, destructiveness, uncertainty of their future, and non-adaptation to risks, individual social groups today consciously and unconsciously construct images of an external enemy, “strangers”, in relation to whom they strengthen their identity and form risk-solidarities3. All this makes the appeal to the mechanisms and methods of constructing the image of an external enemy, which various political forces in Russia resort to, especially relevant.

In addition, today one can observe the borrowing of enemy images from the Cold War era and in a wider global context, which also affects the nature of Russian public life. For political purposes, simulacra of an external enemy are created and implanted (this includes, for example, the efforts of the United States to create the image of an enemy before the start of the NATO war against Serbia, as well as before the invasion of Iraq, the actions of some Russian politicians to create the image of “hostile” groups). In this regard, the study of generally significant ways of forming the image of an external enemy, which have so far been insufficiently studied by sociologists, becomes relevant.

2 See: Berger P., Lukman T. Social construction of reality. Treatise on the sociology of knowledge. - M.: Publishing house "Medum", 1995.

3 See: Yanitskii O.N. Risk-solidarity: Russian version // Inter, 2004, No. 2-3.

For these purposes, we used the case study method - we analyzed the formation of the image of the enemy in the QMS and official documents of the beginning of the Cold War (1946-1953). This made it possible, on the one hand, to consider the generally significant conditions for the emergence and mechanisms of creating such an image using a specific historical example, and on the other hand, to determine the initial characteristics of precisely that image that continues to influence modern public consciousness and, thereby, socio-political processes . The choice of this period was determined by the fact that after the victory in the Great Patriotic War, society found itself, on the one hand, faced with a radical change in the foreign policy situation, including relations with former allies; on the other hand, the political elite felt the need to strengthen the unity and controllability of society . To achieve these goals, a number of political and ideological measures were taken, including efforts to construct a new image of the external enemy.

At the same time, it is important to reveal the ambivalence of the image of the external enemy: functional for strengthening the internal integration and societal identity of a traditional society, it turns out to be dysfunctional for a modern open society that sets humanistic goals for the realization of individual rights and freedoms, a tolerant attitude towards cultural diversity.

The main hypothesis of the study is that the construction of the image of an external enemy is carried out through the formation of hostile ideas about Oni groups and the threats emanating from them.

Additional hypotheses:

1. Hostile ideas about They-groups are necessary for the formation of intra-group identification of the We-group, therefore they are an integral part of the national Super-ego, manifested in cultural narcissism, but in principle their formation can be controlled.

2. In order for any They group to be perceived as an enemy, its image is supplemented by ideas about the threat emanating from it, aimed at the We group. Such ideas make it possible to maintain the societal stability of society.

Degree of scientific development of the topic

The research used in the course of working on the dissertation can be divided into two large groups. On the one hand, these are theoretical works that specifically examine the problems of forming the image of an enemy. On the other hand, these are studies related to the case studied in the work and examining various aspects of Soviet ideology and public consciousness of the initial period of the Cold War.

Theoretical studies of methods for forming the image of the enemy originate in works on the study of propaganda carried out by both Western (W. Lippman, P. Linebarger, G.S. Jowett, V. O'Donnell, J. Ellul4) and domestic authors (V. Artemov, L. Wojtasik, V. Terin, O. Feofanov5).

Studies of the role of mass media in the formation and circulation of images, including the image of the enemy (works by M. McLuhan, P. Hesse, J. Mack, J. Gerbner, J. Dauer6 and others) show how ideas about outside world, inaccessible to direct experience

4 See: Lippmann W. Stereotypes // Language in Uniform. A reader on Propaganda / Ed. N.A. Ford. New York, 1967; Linebarger P. Psychological warfare. - M., 1962; Jowett G.S., O'Donnell V. Propaganda and indoctrination. - M., 1988; Ellul J. Propagandes. - P., 1962.

5 See: Artemov V.L. Behind the lines of psychological warfare. - M., 1973; Wojtasik L. Psychology of political propaganda. - M., 1981; Terin V.P. Mass communication: socio-cultural aspects of political influence: Study of the experience of the West - M., 1999; Feofanov O.A. Aggression of lies. - M., 1987.

6 See: McLuhan M. Myth and Mass Media // Daedalus, 1959, Vol. 88, No. 2; Hesse P., Mack J. The World is a Dangerous Place: Images of the Enemy on Children's Television // The Psychology of War and Peace. - New York, 1991; Gerbner G. The Image of Russians in American Media and the "New Epoch"// Beyond the Cold War. Soviet and American Media Images. Newbury Park, 1991; Dower J.W. War Without Mercy: Race and Power in the Pacific War.-New York, 1986. audience, entering its consciousness through the mass media , make the process of constructing representations largely manageable.

Works on the problems of making foreign policy decisions (K. Boulding, R. Cottam, M. Cottam, R. Herrmann,7) examine the substantive characteristics of the image of the enemy, which is rightly ranked among the most important determinants of foreign and domestic policy. The study of the image of the enemy as a socio-political phenomenon is generally more typical for Western researchers (S. Keene, S. Wunsch, B. McNair, o

R. Rieber, R. Kelly). Of particular interest are studies of the image of the enemy based on materials of anti-Soviet propaganda in the United States during the period under study (R. Robin, D. Kot9, etc.).

In Russian literature, several approaches to understanding the image of the enemy can be identified. A tradition has developed of considering ideas about the enemy as an element of the archaic picture of the world within the framework of the “us-them” dichotomy10. A number of researchers are characterized by a functional approach, within which forms of using the image of the enemy are considered as ways of exercising political power (S. Chugrov, I. Morozov11), and also study its role in the formation of social identity

7 See: Boulding, K. The Image - Ann Arbor, 1956; Cottam R. Foreign Policy Motivation: A General Theory and a Case Study. - Pittsburgh, 1977; Herrmann R., Fischerkeller M. P. Beyond the Enemy Image and Spiral Model: Cognitive-Strategic Research After the Cold War // International Organization. No. 49, 1995; Cottam M. Foreign Policy Decision Making. - Boulder, 1986.

8Cm.: Keen S. Faces of the Enemy // Culture, Communication, and Conflict. - Massachusetts, 1998; Wunsch S. Image Research and the Enemy Image: The Soviet Union in Finnish Newspapers during the Winter War (November 30, 1939 - March 13, 1940) // Looking at the Other - Historical Study of Images in Theory and Practice / Ed. by K. Alenius, O.K.Falt and S.Jalagin. Oulu, 2002; McNair B. Images of the Enemy. - New York, 1988; Rieber R.W., Kelly R.J. Substance and Shadow: Images of the Enemy if The Psychology of War and Peace. - New York, 1991.

9 See: Robin R. The Making of the Cold War Enemy. - Princeton, 2001; Caute D. The Great Fear. The Anti-Communist Purge under Truman and Eisenhower. - New York, 1978;

10 Porshnev B.F. Social psychology and history. M, 1979; Evgenieva T.B. Archaic mythology in modern political culture // Polity. 1998. No. 1 (11). P.33-47; Ionov I.N. Myths in the political history of Russia and Polity. 1998. No. 1 (11). P. 5-32.

11 See: Chugrov S. Ideologemes and foreign policy consciousness // MEiMO. 1993. No. 2; Morozov I.L. Formation of the “image of the enemy” in the popular consciousness as a way of political mobilization in Russia // “Ours” and “aliens” in the Russian historical consciousness: Materials of the International Scientific Conference. - St. Petersburg, 2001. l

JI. Gudkov) and the intentional nature of its creation (V. Avchenko, G. Grachev, I. Melnik13).

The need to attract interdisciplinary research tools to solve the assigned problems led to the author of the dissertation turning to the works of domestic researchers in social and political psychology (G.M. Andreeva, G.G. Diligentsky, L.P. Nazaretyan, E.B. Shestopal, V.A. Yadov, Yu.A. Sherkovin, V.S. Ageev14, etc.), which are characterized by the tradition of considering ideas about the enemy from the point of view of his role in the process of social identification of the individual. This approach echoes the work of conflictologists who study the image of the enemy within the framework of the problems of group consciousness (A. Melville, A. Zdravomyslov15). Its formation is associated with the emergence of the idea of an “other” group, causing genetically programmed fear and mistrust.

Research on the image of the “other”, presented in Russian sociological literature more widely than the problem of the image of the enemy, allowed the author to focus on the formation of the structural characteristics of the image of the enemy in connection with the use of certain methods of cultivating a hostile attitude towards the “foreign” group. The dissertation author also attracts works on ethnosociology and ethnopsychology, where a negative attitude towards an “alien” group is studied within the framework of the problematic of ethnocentrism (L.M. Drobizheva, A.G. Zdravomyslov, V.A. Tishkov, T.G. Stefanenko, M. O Mnatsakanyan, V.F. Petrenko, O.V. Mitina, S. Mints,

12 See: Gudkov L. Negative identity. Articles 1997-2002. - M., 2004.

13 See: Avchenko V. Theory and practice of political manipulation in modern Russia // http://www.psvfactor.bv.ru/lvbr5.htm: Grachev G., Melnik I. Manipulation of personality: Organization, methods and technologies of information psychological impact / RAS. Institute of Philosophy. - M., 1999.

14 See: Nazaretyan L.P. Psychology of spontaneous mass behavior. Lectures. - M., 2001; Andreeva G.M. Psychology of social cognition. - M., 1997; Diligentskoy G.G. Socio-political psychology. -M., 1994; Ageev B.S. Intergroup interaction: socio-psychological problems. - M., 1990; Psychology of perception of power / Ed. E.B. Shestopal. - M., 2002; Yadov V.A. Social and socio-psychological mechanisms of formation of a person’s social identity. // World of Russia, 1995, No. 3-4; Sherkovin Yu.A. Psychological problems of mass information processes. - M., 1973.

15 See: Melville ALO. “The image of the enemy” and the humanization of international relations / 20th Century and the world. 1987, N 9; Zdravomyslov A.G. Interethnic conflicts in the post-Soviet space. - M., 1997.

G.U. Ktsoev16), and the image of the enemy is described through the concept of an ethnic stereotype17, with the help of which there is a contrast between one’s own and another group, which is necessary for understanding oneself as an ethnic whole. Thus, A. Zdravomyslov believes that the mechanism for developing ethnic identity was carried out as follows: “in national self-awareness, “we” is correlated with “they,” and only through this relationship

1 “I national self-identification acquires a certain meaning.”

These studies, in turn, echo a number of historical studies that show the importance of the opposition “friend versus foe” at various stages of the development of Russian social consciousness (A.S. Akhiezer, A.I. Utkin, V. Achkasov, S. Lurie, A.B. Kvakin, A.M. Markevich, J.I.E. Morozova, S.B. Obolenskaya19). Cultural studies that consider the negativistic characteristics of the “alien” as part of

16 See: Drobizheva L.M. Ethnic self-awareness of Russians in modern conditions: ideology and practice // Soviet ethnography. 1991. No. 1; Stefanenko T.G. Social stereotypes and interethnic relations // Communication and optimization of joint activities. - M., 1987; Mnatsakanyan M.O. Integralism and national community: New ethnosociological theory. - M.: Publishing House "Ankil", 2001. - 302 e.; Zdravomyslov A.G. Ethnopolitical processes and dynamics of national self-awareness of Russians // Sociological studies. 1996. No. 12; Tishkov V.A. About the nation and nationalism // Ethnicity and politics. -M.: 2000; Ktsoeva G.U. Experience in empirical research of ethnic stereotypes // Psychological Journal, 1986. No. 2; Mints S. Ethnic markers of sociocultural contradictions as a means of primitivization of the opposition “us” and “strangers” // “Ours” and “strangers” in the Russian historical consciousness: Materials of scientific research. Conf., May 24-25, 2001 - St. Petersburg, 2001; Petrenko V.F., Mitina O.V., Berdnikov K.V., Kravtsova A.R., Osipova V.S. Psychosemantic analysis of ethnic stereotypes: faces of tolerance and intolerance. - M., 2000.

17 Petrenko V.F., Mitina O.V., Berdnikov K.V., Kravtsova A.R., Osipova V.S. Psychosemantic analysis of ethnic stereotypes: faces of tolerance and intolerance. M., 2000; Stefanenko T.G. Social stereotypes and interethnic relations // Communication and optimization of joint activities. M., 1987. P.242-250.

18Zdravomyslov A.G. Interethnic conflicts in the post-Soviet space. M., 1997. P.117.

19 See: Achkasov V. The West as a “significant other” of Russia // http://www.peter-club.spb.ru/point/achkasov.htrnl: Akhiezer A.S. Criticism of the historical experience of Russia. - M., 1997; Lotman Yu.M. History and typology of Russian culture. - St. Petersburg, 2002; Lurie S. Metamorphoses of traditional consciousness. - St. Petersburg, 1997; Russia and the West: Interaction of Cultures: Materials of the Round Table II Questions of Philosophy. - M., 1992. N 6; Russia and the West: Formation of foreign policy stereotypes in the consciousness of Russian society in the first half of the 20th century / Rep. ed. A.B. Golubev. M., 1998; Utkin A.I. Russia and the West: problems of mutual perception and prospects for building relations - M., 1995; Kvakin A.B. Archetype, mentality and opposition “us” - “stranger” in the context of history // “Ours” and “strangers” in the Russian historical consciousness: Materials of scientific research. Conf., May 24-25, 2001 / Ed. S.P. Poltarak. St. Petersburg, 2001; Markevich A.M. “We” and “them” in the minds of soldiers in 1917 (based on soldiers’ letters to the central Soviets) // “Ours” and “them” in the Russian historical consciousness: Materials of scientific research. Conf., May 24-25, 2001 - St. Petersburg, 2001; Morozova L. E. The image of the “stranger” in the minds of the people of the Time of Troubles at the beginning of the 17th century. // Russia and the outside world: Dialogue of cultures. Sat. articles. - M., 1997; Obolenskaya S.B. Germany and the Germans through the eyes of Russians: (XIX century) / RAS. Institute of General History. - M., 2000. ideas about the world shared by the community (Yu. Lotman, E. Levinas and DR-).

Research devoted to the period considered within the framework of the case study uses extensive archival materials that have recently become available and reveals the peculiarities of the formation of the image of the Cold War-style enemy. In general terms, this issue of post-war Soviet-American relations was analyzed in the works of A. Chubaryan, V. Batyuk, D. Evstafiev, V. Zubok, K. Pleshakov,

M. Narinsky and others). The initial doctrinal provisions for the formation of the image of an external enemy and its pre-war characteristics are discussed in detail in the studies of L.N. Nezhinsky and H.A. Chelysheva,

A. Golubeva, V.A. Nevezhina. Works by A. Fateev, ELO. Zubkova,

B. Lelchuk and E. Pivovar, D. Najafov, A. Danilov, A. Pyzhikov reveal the role of political leadership in the formation of an ideological picture of the world based on the use of the image of the enemy. The image of the enemy is presented in these works as the result of the purposeful activities of the political elite, which is confirmed by numerous archival materials attracted by the authors.

20 See: Levinas E. Time and the Other. The humanism of another person. - St. Petersburg, 1999; Lotman Yu. M. Culture and explosion. - M., 1992; Luchitskaya S.I. The image of the other: research issues // East - West: problems of interaction and translation of cultures: Collection of scientific papers. Saratov, 2001; Lishaev S.A. Aesthetics of the Other. Samara, 2000; Rumyantsev O.K. The Secret of the Other // Culturology: from the vulgar to the future. M., 2002. P.138-143.

21 See: Chubaryan A.O. New history of the Cold War // NiNI, 1996. No. 1; Batyuk V.I. The origins of the Cold War: Soviet-American relations in 1945-1950. - M., 1992; Batyuk V., Evstafiev D. First frosts. Soviet-American relations in 1945-1950. - M., 1995; Narinsky M.M. Growing confrontation: the Marshall Plan, the Berlin crisis // Soviet society: Emergence, development, historical finale. - M., 1997; Zubok V., Pleshakov S. Inside the Kremlin's Cold War: From Stalin to Khrushchev. Cambridge, - London. 1996.

22 Nezhinsky L.N., Chelyshev N.A. On the doctrinal foundations of Soviet foreign policy during the Cold War // Domestic History. 1995. No. 1; Golubev A.B. The West through the eyes of Soviet society (Main trends in the formation of foreign policy stereotypes in the 30s) // Domestic history. 1996. No. 1. pp. 104-120; Nevezhin V.A. Offensive war syndrome. Soviet propaganda on the eve of the “sacred battles”, 1939-1941 - M., 1997.

23 Fateev A. The image of the enemy in Soviet propaganda. 1945-1954 - M., 2000; Lelchuk V., Pivovar E. The mentality of Soviet society and the Cold War (towards the formulation of the problem) // Domestic History. 1996. No. 6; Najafov D. Anti-American propaganda biases of the Stalinist leadership Stalin's ten-year Cold War. - M., 1999; Zubkova E. Post-war Soviet society: politics and everyday life. 1945-1953. - M., 2000; Danilov A.A., Pyzhikov A.B. The birth of a superpower: the USSR in the first post-war years. - M., 2001. and

The purpose of the dissertation research is to study the formation of the image of the enemy and its constituent elements, as well as the mechanisms of its implementation using materials from post-war Soviet propaganda.

To achieve this goal, a number of interrelated tasks were identified:

Study of the significance of the image of the enemy for the construction of social communities and the formation of their identities;

Identification of social and socio-psychological features of the formation of the image of the enemy in individual, group and public consciousness;

Development of a methodology for analyzing ideological texts aimed at creating an image of the enemy;

Identifying the characteristics of the image of an external enemy as an element of the group’s shared picture of the world;

Highlighting the features of constructing the image of an external enemy in ideologically oriented texts (case study of the period 1946-1953);

Analysis of the influence of the image of an external enemy on the consciousness of modern Russian society.

The object of the study in this regard is the methods of constructing the image of the external enemy in the Soviet press and official documents of 1946-1953.

The subject of the analysis is the social and socio-psychological mechanisms of creation, dissemination and entrenchment of the image of an external enemy through the discourse initiated by the political-ideological elite.

The research method is the analysis of political and ideological discourse - a case study, for which the image of an external enemy in the media and official documents of the beginning of the Cold War (1946-1953) was chosen, carried out using the theoretical and methodological tools of modern sociology.

The method for analyzing empirical research sources was a qualitative approach developed within the Chicago School (F. Znaniecki, W. Thomas24) and actively used to identify the qualitative characteristics of the object under study. The choice of this method was due to the influence of the works of V.A. Yadov, V. Yakubovich, V.V. Semenova and other sociologists.

The methodological basis of the dissertation research is a number of theoretical and methodological principles formulated in various sociological paradigms:

The principle of value neutrality of sociological science and sociological research, dating back to the works of E. Durkheim26, M. Weber and other classics of sociology, determines a value-neutral approach to the analysis of political discourse.

Classical methodologies, primarily the structural-functional analysis of social systems, the foundations of which are laid in the works of T. Parsons, G. Almond, D. Easton, make it possible to analyze the image of the enemy as a systemically ordered response to challenges from a dynamically changing environment. Developed by R. Merton

24 Znaniecki F. The Method of Sociology. New York, 1934.

25 Poisons B.A. Strategy of sociological research. Description, explanation, understanding of social reality. - M.: Dobrosvet, 1998; It's him. Strategy and methods of qualitative data analysis // Sociology 4M. - T.1. - No. 1. - P. 14-31; Semenova V.V. Qualitative methods: an introduction to humanistic sociology. - M.: Dobrosvet, 1998; Yakubovich V. Qualitative methods or quality of results? // Sociology 4M. 1995. No. 5-6. P.16-27; Klyushkina O. Building a theory based on qualitative data // Sotsis. - 2000. No. 10. P.92-101.

26 Durkheim E. Sociology. Its subject, method, purpose. - M.: Kanon, 1995.

27 Weber M. Basic sociological concepts // Selected works. - M.: Education, 1990. P. 602-643.

2S Parsons T. About social systems. - M.: Academic project, 2002; Almond G. The Civic Culture. -Princeton (N.Y.): Princeton University Press, 1963; Easton D. System Analysis of Political Life. - N.Y.: Wiley, 1965.

29 Merton P. Explicit and latent functions // American sociological thought. Texts. - M.: Moscow State University, 1994. The concept of explicit and latent functions made it possible to explore the ambivalence of the image of the enemy, the manifestations of its functionality and dysfunctionality. The structural-functional theory of social conflict by L. Coser makes it possible to study the influence of intergroup confrontations, including the construction of the image of an external enemy.

The non-classical methodology of interpretive sociological paradigms, primarily the phenomenology of A. Schütz and the sociology of knowledge of P. Berger and T. Luckman32, made it possible to study the mechanisms of constructing reality at the level of the intersubjective world of a social group, the influence of the characteristics of knowledge on the opposition They-group - We-group. Theories adjacent to symbolic interactionism provide theoretical and methodological grounds for the analysis of language as a symbolic system (E. Sapir, B. Whorf, etc.) and allow us to study the nature of the discourse around the image of the enemy. The sociology of communications (J. Habermas, M. McLuhan34 and others) provides a methodological basis for analyzing the characteristics of the influence of the media on the dissemination of images and meanings in modern societies.

Post-non-classical methodologies, developing in sociological theories of postmodernity, make it possible to explore the special role of signs and symbols in modern society, their role in determining social

Ch S identity and group affiliation (J. Baudrillard), the specificity of the relationship between signs and the signified, the formation of simulacra

30 Koser L. Functions of social conflict. M., 1993.

31 Schutz A. The semantic structure of the everyday world: essays on phenomenological sociology. - M.: Institute of the Public Opinion Foundation, 2003; Schutz A. The structure of everyday thinking // Socis. No. 2, 1988. pp. 129-137.

32 Berger P., Lukman T. Social construction of reality. Treatise on the sociology of knowledge. - M.: Medium, 1995.

33 Whorf B. The relationship of norms of behavior and thinking to language // Foreign linguistics. Issue 1. M., 1999. P. 58-92.

34 Habermas J. Moral Consciousness and Communication Action. - Cambridge, 1990; McLuhan M. Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. - London., 1964.

35 Baudrillard J. In the shadow of the silent majority, or the End of the social. - Yekaterinburg: Ural University Publishing House, 2000. and processes of social construction and deconstruction (F. de Saussure, J. Derrida, R. Barthes36 and others).

In addition, the methodology for studying group consciousness, developed within the framework of the theory of social identity (G. Tashfel, J. Turner), was used. For this study, the provisions of this theory seem important, according to which, firstly, group membership is a product of corresponding ideas, and secondly, in the process of forming ideas about the world around us, an individual inevitably contrasts his community with some other. This is how the terms “We-group” (^goir) and “They-group” (og^goir) appear, denoting, respectively, the group with which the subject identifies himself, and the group, on the basis of the opposition of which the idea of his own group is formed.

To solve certain research problems, the theory of social representations of S. Moscovici was involved, which allows us to combine ideas about constructed social reality as a form of existence of social groups and the analysis of the formation of images in the human psyche, as well as the concept of the “authoritarian word” by M. Bakhtin39, semiotic methodologies

T. Van Dyck40), theory of metaphor

36 Saussure F. de. Notes on general linguistics. - M., 1990; Derrida J. Passions // Socio-Logos "96. - M., 1996; Barthes R. Selected works: Semiotics: Poetics. M., 1989.

37 Tajfel H. Social Identity and Intergroup Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1982; Tajfel H., Turner J. The social identity theory of intergroup behavior//The psychology of intergroup relations. Chicago, 1986. P. 7-24; Hogg M., Terry D., White K. A Tale of Two Theories: A Critical Comparison of Identity Theory with Social Identity Theory // Social Psychology Quarterly. 1995. Vol. 58. Issue 4. P. 255-269.

38 Moscovici S. From collective representations to social ones // Questions of Sociology. M., 1992. S. 83-96; It's him. Social representation: a historical view // Psychological Journal. M., 1995. T. 16. No. 1. P. 3-18; Moscovici S. Notes towards a description of social representations // European Journal of Social Psychology. Chichester, 1988. Vol. 18, no. 3.

39 Bakhtin M.M. Questions of literature and aesthetics. - M., 1975; Voloshinov V.N. Marxism and philosophy of language: The main problems of the sociological method in the science of language. - M., 1993.

40 DijkT. van. Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. - L., 1998; DijkT. van. Ideology and Discourse. A Multidisciplinary Introduction. Internet Course for the Oberta de Catalunya (UOC). - http://www.discourse-in-socicty.orp: Dake T.A. van. Language. Understanding. Communication. - Blagoveshchensk, 2000; Dake T.A. van. Racism and language. -M., 1989.

J. Lakoff, M. Johnson41), ideas about the formation of the picture of the world and images (including the image of the enemy) as its elements (L.S. Vygotsky, A.N. Leontiev42, etc.), as well as socio-psychological research methodologies mechanisms of social categorization and stereotyping (U. Lippman, K. Cohen, S. Fiske, S. Neuberg43, etc.).

The empirical basis of the dissertation research was:

1) publications in the central newspapers “Pravda”, “Izvestia” and “Trud” for 1946-1953, reflecting the official political and ideological discourse;

2) official documents (speeches of the country’s leaders, official statements, interviews with I.V. Stalin), published in the annual collection “Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union”;

3) Historical information “Falsifiers of history”;

4) memoirs of Russian and American statesmen. In addition, to analyze modern forms of using the image of an external enemy, speeches of political figures published in the press, articles, interviews, as well as the results of sociological surveys were used as sources.

When choosing the press as the main source, we proceeded from the idea that within large non-contact groups, discourse

41 Lakoff G. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor // Metaphor and thought. - Cambridge, 1993; Lakoff G., Johnson M. Metaphors We Live By. - Chicago, 1980. See also: Chilton P. Security Metaphors: Cold War Discourse from Containment to Common House. - N.Y., 1996; Baranov A.N., Karaulov Yu.N. Russian political metaphor (materials for the dictionary). - M., 1991.

42 Leontiev A.N. Image of the world// Selected psychological works, M, 1983. P. 251-261; Vygotsky L.S. Thinking and speech // Problems of general psychology. - M., 1982; Smirnov S.D. The world of images and the image of the world // Bulletin of Moscow University. Ser. 14. Psychology. 1981. No. 3. P.15-29; Petukhov V.V. The image of the world and the psychological study of thinking // Bulletin of Moscow University. Series 14. Psychology, 1984, No. 4. pp. 13-20.

43 Lippmann W. Stereotypes // Language in Uniform. A reader on Propaganda / Ed. N.A. Ford. New York, 1967; Cohen C.E. Person categories and social perception: Testing some boundaries of the processing effects of prior knowledge // Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1981, No. 40, P. 441-452; Fiske S.T., Neuberg S.L. A continuum of impression formation, from category-based to individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation // Advances in experimental social psychology / Ed. by M. P. Zanna. N.Y., 1990, Vol. 23, pp. 1-74. reproduced primarily through the media44. Using the press as the main source, we proceed from the fact that during the period under study it was the press that was a kind of “window to the world” for most people45. Consequently, it was on the basis of printed information that ideas about the external world, inaccessible to personal experience, were formed.

The choice of these newspapers is due to their official nature. Each of the publications was the central printed organ of the most important institutions of Soviet power, responsible for ideology: the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks - the CPSU, the Soviets of Working People's Deputies and the All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions. Thanks to this status, these newspapers received mass distribution, that is, they had the greatest influence on the formation of the public image of the world: they had the largest circulation, they were then referred to by other print media, these newspapers were available in all libraries of the country.

To identify the image of an external enemy, we studied the editorials of these printed publications for the entire period under review, as well as materials devoted to foreign policy problems. A total of 4,500 newspaper issues were viewed. The study of these sources made it possible to identify specific ways of constructing images within the framework of ideological discourse, as well as to identify the characteristic features of the image of the external enemy of the Cold War period.

The fact that these publications were designed to convey the image of an external enemy to the masses is confirmed by the following fact. Guided by party instructions, the Deputy General Secretary of the Union of Writers of the USSR K. Simonov drew up and on April 1, 1949 submitted to the department of propaganda and agitation of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks (Bolsheviks) “A plan of measures to strengthen anti-American

44 McLuhan M. Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. London., 1964; Van Dijk T. Ideology and Discourse.

45 Lippmann W. Stereotypes // Language in Uniform. A reader on Propaganda / Ed. N.A. Ford. New York, 1967; Wunsch S. Image Research and the Enemy Image: The Soviet Union in Finnish Newspapers during the Winter War (November 30, 1939 - March 13, 1940) // Looking at the Other. P. 75. propaganda for the near future”46. The plan envisaged the coordinated activities of newspapers, radio, a number of publishing houses, ministries and departments to “expose the aggressive plans of world domination of American imperialism, debunk the culture, life and morals of modern America”47. Leading newspapers (Pravda, Izvestia, Trud, Literaturnaya Gazeta, Bolshevik magazine) were instructed to “debunk the fables of American propaganda about the “prosperity” of America, show the deep contradictions of the US economy, the deceit of bourgeois democracy, the insanity of bourgeois culture and the morals of modern America." The plan proposed by K. Simonov was reviewed and approved by the Secretariat of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks49. On its basis, draft resolutions of the Central Committee were prepared “On measures of the Union of Soviet Writers to strengthen anti-American propaganda” and “On measures to strengthen anti-American propaganda through art”50.

Another group of sources included official documents of the period under review, published in the annual collection “Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union.” This collection, which includes a collection of all state documents and materials on the foreign policy of the USSR from 1945 to 1950, was published in 1952-1953. in 8 volumes. The study of this group of sources made it possible to gain an understanding of the official picture of the world as interpreted by the country's political leadership.

The next group of sources were speeches of state leaders, official statements, interviews51. These sources also received

46 Russian State Archive of Socio-Political History. F. 17. Op. 132. D.224. P.48-52 / Quoted. by: Nikolaeva N.I. Soviet literature and art in anti-American propaganda // New and recent history: Interuniversity collection of scientific works. Vol. 19. Saratov, 2000. pp. 162-163.

47 Ibid. P. 48.

49 Ibid. P. 53.

50 Ibid. D. 234. P. 50.

51 Zhdanov A. On the international situation: Report made at the Information meeting of representatives of some communist parties in Poland at the end of September 1947. M., 1947; Molotov V.M. Foreign Policy Issues: Speeches and Statements. April 1945 - June 1948 M., 1948; Meeting of the information bureau of the communist parties in Hungary in the second half of November 1949. M., 1949; Stalin I.V. Speeches for mass distribution (placed in the central press, published in the form of separate brochures, etc.), and therefore their use was dictated by the same considerations as in the case of print media.

Finally, a separate type of source includes the historical reference “Falsifiers of History,” published in 1948 and claiming to be a scientific and historical analysis of the causes of the last war. The history of the creation of this document is as follows: in 1948, the US State Department published a collection of captured documents about Soviet-German relations on the eve of war, including the texts of the secret protocols of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. In response to this “ideological sabotage” by the United States, at the direction of the USSR Foreign Minister Molotov, a historical reference “Falsifiers of History” was created, in which the Soviet version of the causes of the war was given and the main culprits were named. This document also contains an officially approved picture of the world, including the image of the enemy. His choice was determined by the fact that for many years the version set out in “Falsifiers of History” became one of the sources of ideas constantly reproduced in ideological discourse.

The use of memoirs52 of contemporaries of the period studied in the work as one of the groups of sources allowed us to get an idea of the purposeful nature of the formation of the image of an external enemy.

When choosing the chronological framework of the study, we proceeded from the fact that it was in 1946-1953, at the initial stage of the Cold War, that a system of ideas was formed that for several decades determined the worldview of an entire society, predetermined both the pre-election meeting of voters of the Stalin district Moscow February 9, 1946. M., 1946; Foreign policy of the Soviet Union: Documents and materials. In 8 vols. M., 1952-1953.

52 Kornienko G.M. Cold War: Testimony of a participant. M., 1995; Zhukov G.K. Memories and reflections. In 2 vols. M., 1971; Kissinger G. Diplomacy. M., 1997; Koval K.I. The last witness. The "German Card" in the Cold War. M., 1997; Achcson D. Present at the Creation: My Years in the State Department. New York, 1969; Off the Record: Private Papers of Harry S. Truman // Ed. by R.H. Ferrell. New York, 1980; Truman G. Memoirs of Harry S. Truman. Vol. 1-2. Bungay, 1955-1956. foreign and domestic policies of the USSR, and consequently the general situation at the global level. As the starting point for the time period under study, we chose Stalin’s speech delivered at the Bolshoi Theater on February 9, 1946, in which the idea was expressed that as long as imperialism exists, the forces that led to the Second World War could lead to a new war. Stalin’s speech brought back the concept of “imperialism” into circulation, that is, what is especially important for us, it set the direction for the formation of a new, post-war discourse. The leader recalled that, in accordance with Lenin’s theory, it is the contradictions within the imperialist world that lead to war. At the same time, he emphasized that post-war imperialism would be even more unstable and prone to violence. This thesis subsequently became one of the central ones in Soviet propaganda. With the end of Stalin's rule and the cessation of the Korean War, the stage of formation of the Cold War-style worldview ended.

The scientific novelty of the dissertation research is due to the fact that it: reveals the importance of constructing the image of an external enemy to strengthen the identity of a social group in conditions of transformation of the external environment and changes in the nature of intergroup interactions; the social and socio-psychological mechanisms underlying the construction of politically significant images, including the image of an external enemy, have been identified and systematized, methods have been identified and a general scheme for constructing the image of an external enemy has been shown; shows the influence of the openness/closedness of society on the ways of constructing social reality within it, including the image of the enemy; in particular, the features of the mechanisms

53 Stalin I.V. Speech at the pre-election meeting of voters of the Stalin district of Moscow on February 9, 1946. M., 1946. constructing the image of the enemy in a closed society (using the example of Soviet society 1946-1953); the overt and latent functions of the image of the external enemy were analyzed, its ambivalence, functionality and dysfunctionality were revealed; it is shown that the dysfunctionality of the image of the external enemy manifests itself when it ceases to correspond to the changing external environment and the identity of the group; It is shown that when external conditions change, the mechanism for changing attitudes towards a social group is the construction of a new “imaginary community”, restoring the consistency and integrity of the world picture (using the example of the formation of an enemy image from a former ally - the United States - after the end of World War II); the specificity of the formation of the image of the enemy as a simulacrum in the conditions of the formation of modern open societies is shown; An analysis of ideological texts from the beginning of the Cold War was carried out using modern methods of studying discourse.

The following provisions are submitted for defense:

1. The construction of the image of an external enemy is based on the mechanisms of social categorization and stereotyping, which make it possible to determine the parameters of dividing the world into “us” and “strangers” and consolidate in the public consciousness a hostile attitude towards certain Oni groups. At the same time, the functionality of the image of an external enemy as a factor in consolidating the solidarity and identity of the We-group is largely predetermined by the level of closedness/openness of society.

2. Constructing the image of an external enemy involves creating an image of the “other” based on a socially significant category and simultaneously managing the following processes: a) emphasizing the dangers that threaten a given society from the outside; b) the formation of ideas about a specific danger or harm that is caused or may be caused; c) stereotyping ideas about the “other” as the initiator and source of this danger. In a generalized form, this can be presented in the form of the following formula: “constructing the image of an external enemy presupposes the unity of the hostile “other” and danger.”

3. The presence of an adequate image of the external enemy as a certain social fact (E. Durkheim) increases not only internal solidarity, but also the controllability of society, as a result of which in closed and totalitarian societies the construction and maintenance of the image of the enemy in people’s minds is a common element of the policy of the ruling elites who believe that in this way it is possible to strengthen power and preserve the societal qualities of society.

4. The characteristic features of the image of an external enemy during the Cold War period are the following fundamental points. Firstly, to highlight the “other”, the idea of the hostile class essence of world, and especially American, imperialism is used. Secondly, the main method of constructing the idea of an external threat is the use of associations with the Nazi regime, and the enemy that replaced it is portrayed as more dangerous and insidious: threats of nuclear war emanate from it, it is attributed to it the blame for inciting all conflicts between peoples, including the past war. Thirdly, ideas about the enemy using any means and disguising his hostile intentions help protect the formed picture of the world from factual inconsistencies. Fourthly, the idea is formed that the enemy is the source of “our” troubles in the past (Great Patriotic War), the present (social difficulties) and the future (World War III). Fifthly, it is argued that there are no problems that “we” cannot cope with, “we”, by definition, are better and stronger than “them”. This approach also allows for increased narcissism and thereby strengthens in-group identity.

5. The removal of the concept of “allies” from the discourse led to the departure of this “significant other” from subjective reality, which happened during the period under review with the rethinking of the image of the United States. It follows that the task of radically changing attitudes towards a particular society can be solved by creating a simulacrum with new qualities.

6. Once constructed, the image of an external enemy becomes a stable element of the world picture of a given society, has inertia, and the ability to persist in the public consciousness for a long time. However, in modern sociocultural dynamics, which are acquiring the character of nonlinear, open development, such an inert image quickly becomes outdated, becomes dysfunctional, introduces contradictions into the picture of the world, undermines identity, and ultimately plays a disorganizing and maladaptive role.

7. In open societies, differences between societies take on symbolic rather than real character. Sign identities, based on constructed images of the enemy, are increasingly “taken from signs, from a generalized code of signs” (J. Baudrillard). If in the initial period of the Cold War the image of an external enemy had a very specific geopolitical content and was reinforced by the division between We and They groups that actually existed in the public consciousness in a closed society, then in open societies the situation changes. There is no “arched” (T. Lukman), all-encompassing “We” identity; the process of identity formation is implicit and pluralistic. The image of the enemy also acquires a symbolic character that is not correlated with real groups. Its content fluctuates, thereby the image of the enemy turns out to be more “imaginary, simulated” than real.

Scientific and practical significance of the work

The development of the problem studied in the dissertation and the results obtained contribute to deepening knowledge about the nature and methods of forming both socio-political ideas in general and the image of an external enemy in particular.

The methodological provisions of the study can be useful in studying the characteristics of modern public consciousness, the work of mass media, as well as in developing and conducting campaigns to form politically significant images. The material of this work can also be used in the process of teaching the sociology of politics.

Approbation of the main conclusions of the dissertation research

The main content and conclusions of the dissertation research were presented at meetings of the Department of Sociology of MGIMO (University) of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia, the Department of General Political Science and Special Political Disciplines of the Russian State University for the Humanities, as well as at interuniversity scientific conferences. They are also presented in articles and abstracts of several conferences.

The structure of the dissertation research is determined by the assigned tasks. The dissertation consists of an introduction, two chapters (divided into paragraphs), a conclusion and a list of used sources and literature.

Conclusion of the dissertation on the topic “Political institutions, ethnopolitical conflictology, national and political processes and technologies”, Belokoneva, Anna Sergeevna

The presence of an adequate image of an external enemy as a certain social fact contributed to increasing not only internal solidarity, but also the controllability of Soviet society, and that is why the construction and maintenance of the image of the enemy in people’s minds was important element state policy aimed at maintaining the homogeneity of Soviet society and strengthening the power of the existing regime. Within the framework of Soviet ideology, in the initial period of the Cold War, the image of the enemy was officially assigned to the United States: as a community with a different class essence, the United States was defined as “other,” and due to the irreconcilability of class contradictions, as the enemy.

In the post-war period, Soviet propaganda begins to form a new reality, and the methods of this formation are similar to the general principles for constructing the image of the world. Based on the mechanisms of group categorization, identification and stereotyping, an idea is created of the Oni group as a community that is worse in all respects,

337 See, for example: Russia is threatened by an oligarchic coup. Report of the National Strategy Council. -http://www.utro.ru/articles/2003/05/26/201631 .shtml than “ours”. Categorization is made on the basis of an ideologically significant factor - class contradictions, as well as a sociocultural factor, which in this case consists in the use of ideas about war, and behind the image of an abstract war, as a rule, stands the image of the Great Patriotic War, with all the corresponding connotations. Stereotyping allows you to create and use generalized images of groups formed through categorization, endowing them with certain characteristics.

The content of these characteristics in relation to the Oni group is determined by the task of forming an external enemy in the person of the United States. The image of the enemy of the Cold War model is formed by building ideas about the continuity of modern American imperialism with German fascism and by developing the theme of imperialism as a source of wars. A feature of Soviet propaganda is the peculiar interpretation of such a feature of the image of the enemy as his fault for all “our” troubles - these troubles exist only in the past and in the future, in the present, other groups suffer from the enemy, but not “our” community. The Soviet interpretation of the demonic essence of the enemy is also peculiar - it is built through the idea of the enemy as the center of world evil.

The constructed image of the enemy performed both obvious and latent functions. Its use contributed to the mobilization of Soviet society in certain historical conditions, but later the latent functions of this image, which turned out to be dysfunctional in a dynamically changing world, began to have a great influence.

Conclusion

The purpose of this study was to study the formation of the image of an external enemy and its constituent elements, as well as the mechanisms of its implementation using materials from post-war Soviet propaganda. Starting position work became the idea of the image of the enemy as an element of an integral system of ideas about the world - an image, or picture of the world. In this regard, we considered the formation of the image of the enemy as a process occurring within and under the influence of a more general process - the formation of a picture of the world, including the socio-political world. During the initial period of the Cold War, in Soviet political discourse this process was expressed in the official division of the world into two opposing camps of socialism and aggressive imperialism. All phenomena of constructed reality were conceptualized by designating their relationships to these two basic categories, which, in turn, were derived from the postulates about the existence of social classes and political formations.

The process of constructing an image of an external enemy is part of the general process of forming an image of the world. The content of the image of the world, which is a structural element of individual consciousness, can be imposed from the outside, which is used in the political struggle for power over mass consciousness.

In the process of solving the first of the tasks posed in the study, the significance of the image of an external enemy for the construction of social communities and the formation of their identities was analyzed, including the basis for the existence of the image of the enemy in the structure of individual and group consciousness. As part of determining the starting points of the study, we came to the conclusion that this or that phenomenon social world, including the external enemy, is created on the basis of a certain vision of the world, the struggle to define which at the mass level is the essence of political power. The expression of this struggle becomes ideology, which is essentially a model of the image of the world.

The presence of an adequate image of an external enemy as a certain social fact (E. Durkheim) increases not only internal solidarity, but also the controllability of society, as a result of which in closed and totalitarian societies the construction and maintenance of the image of the enemy in people’s minds is an element of the policy of the ruling elites seeking to strengthen power and preserve the societal qualities of society.

The process of constructing reality must be considered in two planes. As was shown in Chapter I, the structure of the image of the world that exists in the mind of an individual is largely determined by the characteristics of individual consciousness, but its content can be purposefully formed, and such formation, i.e. Propaganda is one of the main forms of political activity. This is primarily due to the fact that any non-contact group, including a politically significant one, also exists only if its members share a certain picture of the world.

In the framework of solving the second task of identifying the social and socio-psychological features of the formation of the image of the enemy in individual, group and public consciousness, the theoretical part of the study examined in detail the characteristics of consciousness related to the process of perception of reality (categorization, identification, in-group favoritism, group narcissism, intergroup discrimination, stereotyping). It was revealed that these properties do not depend on the environment in which the individual is located and do not disappear with changes in the social structure of society. For the problems of this study, it is important that a person’s need to belong to a community, as well as the associated desire to perceive his group in a more favorable light in relation to the “They-group,” create the prerequisites for highlighting the image of the “other” that would satisfy this need. Based on the mechanisms of group categorization, identification with the We-group and stereotyping, the idea of the “They-group” is created as a community in all respects worse than “ours”. Categorization is made on the basis of an ideologically significant factor - class contradictions, as well as a sociocultural factor, which in the case under study consists in the use of ideas about war, and behind the image of an abstract war, as a rule, there arises the image of the Great Patriotic War, with all the corresponding connotations. Stereotyping allows you to create and use generalized images of groups formed through categorization, endowing them with certain characteristics.

It was concluded that the construction of the image of an external enemy is based on the mechanisms of social categorization and stereotyping, which make it possible in the process of communication to determine the parameters of dividing the world into “us” and “strangers” and to consolidate in the public consciousness a hostile attitude towards certain Oni groups. At the same time, the functionality of the image of an external enemy as a factor in consolidating the solidarity and identity of the We-group is largely predetermined by the level of closedness/openness of society.

At the level of socio-political identification, these processes take on forms that are not characteristic of other levels of intergroup interaction. Indeed, the state, which has a monopoly on violence, including symbolic violence, is capable of creating and broadcasting formalized, coded categorization systems that claim to be universal and scientific.

The form of constructing an adequate and shared picture of the world is discourse: for the construction and reproduction of a community, conventional meanings are needed - agreed upon interpretations of certain social objects and events. The main source of images that an individual could be guided by in the process of constructing socio-political reality becomes state ideology, which offers its own concept of the image of the world, an integral part of which is the image of the enemy. A comprehensive methodological approach, within which we used the developments of various scientific schools, allowed us to most fully reveal the figurative content of ideological texts.

As part of solving the problem of developing a methodology for analyzing ideological texts aimed at forming an image of the enemy, our own scheme for studying sources was developed. When analyzing the sources, we used the theoretical and methodological tools of the theory of social representations, the theory of discourse and the theory of metaphor. The formula for forming the image of the enemy “significant difference + perceived threat” put forward as a hypothesis was confirmed both on the theoretical material presented in Chapter I and on the empirical material of Chapter I. It was concluded that the methods for constructing the image of an external enemy can be divided into two main ones: groups. On the one hand, this is the formation of an image of the “other” on the basis of a socially significant category. On the other hand, at the same time, the formation of ideas about a systemic threat that poses a danger to the entire community must be carried out, which involves managing the following processes: a) emphasizing the dangers that threaten a given society from the outside; b) the formation of ideas about a specific danger that is or can be caused; c) stereotyping ideas about the “other” as the initiator and source of this danger.

The study of sources using the developed method made it possible to solve the following research problem - identifying the features of constructing the image of an external enemy in Soviet printed propaganda within the framework of a case study of the period 1946-1953. Specific features of this image were identified, as well as General characteristics a picture of the world that served as the basis for the formation of politically significant images.

To highlight the “other,” the idea of the hostile class essence of world, and especially American, imperialism is used. The formation of ideas about the capitalist world, led by Western powers, as an “other”, is carried out in ideological texts both through direct opposition based on various socially significant criteria (the welfare of citizens, the level of culture, the desire for peace or war), and through the creation of within the framework of one informational occasion, the opposite images of the We-group and They-group. Moreover, the opposition applies to absolutely all spheres of life. Any topic provides food for building another comparison not in favor of the “other,” that is, for intergroup discrimination. At the same time, the construction of images is based on the method of objectifying abstract and unfamiliar socio-political phenomena through images that are close to personal experience (for example, aggressive militaristic policies are objectified through ideas about the horrors of war). The emotional filling of the image of the “other” is achieved through certain ways of presenting ideological information - contrast, juxtaposition, exaggeration, and the use of metaphors. The negative image of the “other” becomes the basis for the further formation of the image of an external enemy.

In order for not just the image of the “other” to be formed, but the image of the enemy, it is necessary to create an idea of the threat emanating from him, aimed at the We-group. At the interstate level, the image of war is perfectly suited for these purposes, since war is the highest degree of threat to the state. In Soviet propaganda during the period we are considering, this method is actively used also because war at that time is not an abstract concept, but a concrete one, from the sphere of everyday consciousness.

During the war, the image of the enemy is updated through the image of Nazi Germany and Hitler personally. Since with the end of the war the enemy is defeated and there is no other military aggressor, a new category appears, called “warmongers”. The new image is associated with both war and capitalism - and it can be called a real find in terms of bringing ideology and recent social experience into one consistent picture of the world. Naturally, it is the “warmongers” (later, in connection with the escalation of the threat of a new war, the emphasis is transferred to it - the formulation “warmongers of a new war” appears) who are the main contenders for the image of a new foreign policy enemy. In 1949, this category evolves into “American warmongers,” “the main warmongers - the American imperialists.”

Associations with the Hitler regime are built in two main directions: firstly, by accusing them of supporting the Hitler regime and its aggressive aspirations, and secondly, the current policies of states are compared with the policies of Hitler, the ruling circles are called his successors, striving for the revival of Nazi Germany, spreading fascism and committing no less horrific atrocities. Accordingly, the expansionist policies of the Western imperialists (later focusing on the United States) also provide an example of striking similarities with the policies of Hitler. Moreover, Nazi Germany also, according to the official version, becomes a product of these forces. By placing all the blame for the outbreak of war on the leading Western powers, official propaganda thereby presents these countries as an even more dangerous enemy than Hitler's Germany was.

The enemy turns out to be the source of all troubles and the bearer of values opposite to “ours.” Therefore, he is the embodiment of evil. Within the framework of Soviet ideology, images of the devil and universal Evil are not used, but demonization of the enemy still takes place and is carried out in other ways. We were able to identify the following ideas formed for this purpose:

The idea of the enemy as the center of all criminal conspiracies;

The idea of the purposeful commission of monstrous, brutal crimes;

The idea of the enemy as the center of world fascism;

The desire to destroy humanity;

The idea of the enemy's weakness.

At the same time, despite the idea that imperialism is doomed, a certain tension always remains in the ideological discourse, designed to evoke not only confidence in victory over the enemy, but also fear of him.

The typical idea of the enemy as the source of all “our” troubles acquires a unique interpretation in Soviet propaganda, related to the peculiarities of the picture of the world. Within the framework of the sources studied, an idea is formed that “we”, the Soviet state, currently has no serious problems (they are not reflected in the ideological discourse), that is, the enemy is not the source of “our” troubles in the present. “They” are the source of our troubles in the past (Great Patriotic War) and in the future (World War III). In the present, “we” do not and cannot have serious external problems that “we” could not cope with (due to the fact that “we” are by definition better and stronger than “them”). “They” cannot cause “us” any real harm, although they constantly try to do so. The victims of the imperialists are three groups, which are also components of the ideological picture of the world: these are - as they move away from the center of the enemy camp - the working people of the capitalist camp, the third world countries that have fallen into its orbit, as well as the countries of people's democracy.

By dividing the camp into two parts (which is already evident in the name - “USSR and the countries of people's democracy”), a double effect is achieved: the principle of superiority over the enemy and invulnerability is applied to the We-group, which is narrowed to the Soviet state. This approach also makes it possible to increase group narcissism and thereby strengthen in-group identity. At the same time, the rest of “our” camp becomes a victim of the enemy’s machinations, which allows us to maintain the feeling of a threat surrounding “us”.

The problem of the rapid transformation of the United States from allies into an enemy within the framework of the Soviet ideological picture of the world was interpreted using the theoretical position, according to which in social ideas only the reality that is named exists. If in the absence personal experience While categorization and naming serve to form ideas, the removal of the concept of “allies” from the discourse leads to the departure of this “imagined community” from ideological reality. Within the framework of group ideas, there is a certain group of “allies”, and they cannot be an enemy by definition, and there is the concept of “imperialists”, and due to the fact that these are different words, there are different images behind them, they ultimately designate different groups , differently related to “our” community. It turns out that “our American allies” and “American imperialists” are two independent images, and one refers to friends, and the other to enemies. That is, the task of radically changing attitudes towards a particular society can be solved precisely by creating a new “imaginary community”, a simulacrum with new qualities.

Analysis of printed propaganda materials from the initial period of the Cold War made it possible to detail the general scheme for constructing the image of the enemy by highlighting the features inherent in the image of an external enemy as an element of the picture of the world.

If for the image of the “other” the criteria of group membership and position are more important (at this stage it is important to determine, first of all, how “they” differ from “us”), then for the image of the enemy, as a study of sources shows, the criteria of goals and activities are central . Indeed, the idea of a threat, which, as we argue, is one of the conditions for the formation of the image of the enemy, presupposes some purposeful activity on the part of the enemy, which poses a danger to “our” community: its values, its life activity, its existence.

The goals of enemy forces are characterized, firstly, by their direct opposition to “our” good goals, and secondly, by their aggressive orientation against “us”. The activities of an external enemy have two main characteristics. Firstly, according to the theoretical characteristics of the image of the enemy discussed in Chapter I, everything that the enemy does, he does to spite us. Secondly, judging by the materials of Soviet propaganda, the enemy is indiscriminate in the means of achieving his “vile goals”, that is, he does not hesitate to harm “our” community in any way.

This attitude keeps perception within the framework of the formed picture of the world: it allows one to interpret accordingly any actions of representatives of a hostile Oni group - both foreign policy and domestic. That is, the intergroup discrimination and perceived threat necessary to maintain the image of the “other” and the image of the enemy are guaranteed. The ideas of “using all means” and “disguising” one’s true intentions are another important finding: they serve to maintain and reproduce the formed picture of the world, protecting it from the threat of factual inconsistencies.

The results of the analysis of the image of an external enemy within the framework of a case study made it possible to outline opportunities for studying the influence of the image of an external enemy on the consciousness of modern Russian society.

Once constructed, the image of an external enemy becomes a stable element of the world picture of a given society, has inertia, and the ability to persist in the public consciousness for a long time. However, in modern sociocultural dynamics, which are acquiring the character of nonlinear, open development, such an inert image quickly becomes outdated, becomes dysfunctional, introduces contradictions into the picture of the world, undermines identity, and ultimately plays a disorganizing and maladaptive role.

In open societies, differences between societies take on symbolic rather than real character. Sign identities, based on constructed images of the enemy, are filled with any content depending on the need. If in the initial period of the Cold War the image of an external enemy had a very specific geopolitical content and was reinforced by the division between We and They groups that actually existed in the public consciousness in a closed society, then in open societies the situation changes. There is no all-encompassing “We” identity; the process of identity formation is implicit and pluralistic. The image of the enemy also acquires a symbolic character that is not correlated with real groups. Its content fluctuates, thereby the image of the enemy turns out to be more “imaginary, simulated” than real.

Please note that the scientific texts presented above are posted for informational purposes only and were obtained through original dissertation text recognition (OCR). Therefore, they may contain errors associated with imperfect recognition algorithms. IN PDF files There are no such errors in the dissertations and abstracts that we deliver.

It has already been said above that the formation of an image of a “victim” also presupposes the formation of an image of an “enemy”, who is either directly guilty of an attack on the victim, or is indirectly related to this attack, or is considered as a potential threat. The immediate or potential attacker on the “victim” is identified as an “enemy” that must be confronted or destroyed. Therefore, in our study, the concepts of “enemy” and “enemy image” are considered as the cause of the appearance of the “victim” and/or a potential attacker on the “victim”.

“Enemy” as a concept and as a subject’s perception of the “other” has deep roots that go back to tribal social relations. This is connected, firstly, with the need for self-identification of a social group and its differentiation according to the principle of “friend or foe”, and secondly, with the need to determine what poses a danger to the very existence of the group.

The next distinguishing feature of the “enemy image” is its dehumanization – endowing the “enemy” with various negative properties and qualities. Thus, the famous researcher of the psychology of aggression L. Berkovets emphasizes the difference between instrumental aggression, in which the attack is driven primarily by the desire to achieve a specific goal, and hostile aggression, in which the main goal is to harm or destroy the victim. Consequently, the “enemy” is associated with evil, hatred, aggression, deceit, violence, death and other negativity. That's why dehumanization object of real or imaginary danger is the next main condition for the formation of the “enemy image”.

So, "enemy" - is an actor (phenomenon) that represents a real or imaginary threat to the very existence of an individual, group, society, a bearer of inhumane properties and qualities.“Enemy” can be associated with a specific person (“personal enemy of the Fuhrer”), with a tribe, ethnic group, nation, class, party, state (“evil empire”), with ideology (fascism, nationalism, racism), with a social system (capitalism , socialism) and so on.

"Image of the Enemy"- this is a qualitative (evaluative) characteristic (image) of the “enemy”, formed in the public consciousness. This is the perception of the "enemy" and the idea of the "enemy". Moreover, the “enemy” and his “image” may differ significantly from each other, because perception reflects not only objective reality, but also evaluative interpretations and emotional components of perception. In addition, the formation of the “enemy image” is influenced by stereotypes and attitudes inherent in mass consciousness. It is also necessary to take into account that the perception of the “enemy” is mediated by certain sources of information, for example the media, which can purposefully form a certain image of the “enemy”.

Various images“enemies” give an idea of what (who) is a threat to a particular social community at a certain point in time, in a certain situation, what are the parameters of this threat (strength, activity, inhumanity), what needs to be done to protect against the “enemy” . These “images,” like other negative stereotypes, can be passed on from generation to generation, change from era to era, “level out” (disappear) and be reborn again.

There are various concepts of a person's "hostility" towards others. Many of these concepts base hostility on a person's underlying predisposition to act aggressively—to attack others with the goal of causing physical or psychological harm or destruction to another person or group of people. Others determine a person’s “hostility” by acquired qualities. The third is due to developing conditions and circumstances. Let's look at some of these concepts.

Biogenetic the explanation of human aggressiveness comes from the fact that man partially inherited (preserved) the character of a wild animal from his ancient ancestors. Thus, the Austrian scientist Konrad Lorenz believes that aggressiveness is an innate, instinctively determined property of all higher animals.

Psychological concepts explain human aggressiveness by the initial hostility of people towards each other, the desire to solve their internal psychological problems at the expense of others, “the need to destroy another person in order to preserve oneself” (3. Freud).

Frustration theories proceed from the fact that situational factors are dominant in aggressive behavior as a reaction to frustration. The essence of the concept is that most people commit violent acts not because they pursue some goals, but because these people are in an unsatisfactory (frustrated) state. The reasons for people's frustration and aggression can be a variety of factors that infringe on their needs, interests and values. Moreover, “the stronger the frustration, the greater the amount of aggression directed at the source of frustration.”

Theory relative derivation is a development of the theory of frustration. Its essence lies in the fact that the hostility and aggressiveness of people increases when they realize the injustice of their “frustrated” situation when compared with the situation of other more prosperous (reference) groups.

Proponents of the theory social learning They believe that a high or low level of hostility is the result of socialization (social evolution) of an individual, group, or society. There is such a thing as a “circle of violence” - when violence from childhood spreads into adulthood, including to newly born children. This is how the experience of violence and suppression is passed on from generation to generation.

Ethnic, including racial theories are based on the initial hostility of one ethnic group (race) to another. Class theories see the origins of hostility in the social stratification of people. Social theories generally explain hostility by social relations existing in society, and, first of all, by the struggle of people for existence, for resources and power.

With the development of trade and international relations, more complex conditionality (selectivity) appears in the definition of “enemy”. In Christianity, the concept of “enemy” becomes a universal symbol of evil – “the enemy of the human race.” During the period of formation of national and “class” ideology (Modern times), the concept of “enemy of the people” appears as one of the ways of national identification and mass mobilization. In the 19th – 20th centuries, the concept of “enemy” was widely used in domestic and foreign policy.

In closed social systems, the concept of “enemy” is associated with “absolute evil”, against which all forces and means are mobilized, and which does not imply any compromises. Such polarization is most characteristic of totalitarian ideology and politics. Thus, V.I. Lenin, developing the theory of Marxism, put forward the idea that there can be no neutral people in the class struggle. Stalin's policy brought this idea to the absolute: “whoever is not with us is against us,” “if the enemy does not surrender, then he is destroyed.” The consequences of such a dichotomy in ideology and politics can be quite tragic.

In social and political relations, there are various reasons for “searching” for real and imaginary enemies. Let's name some, in our opinion, the most significant:

1. Traditional foundations. It was already said above that for group self-identification, as a necessary condition for the survival of a social group in the natural and social environment, people of ancient times distinguished themselves and others according to the principle of “friend - foe”, “friend - enemy”, etc. Such bases for the definition , primarily an external “enemy”, are characteristic of any social community (group, class, nation, society), as a way of forming its identity. External “enemy” helps to strengthen intra-group connections and relationships, uniting all group members to combat the external threat. For example, before the start of the Chechen War in the Republic of Ichkeria, there was quite a powerful opposition to the ruling regime led by General Dudayev. The entry of federal troops into Chechnya (December 1994) rallied the entire Chechen people to fight “external aggression”, and the opposition lost its social base and, in fact, ceased to exist. According to analysts, one of the reasons for the collapse of the USSR was feeling of absence real external enemy.

2. Social and psychological foundations. In the development of any society, periods of social crises and states of uncertainty (anomie according to Durkheim), experienced by many people, are possible. Anomie contributes to the growth of social tension, the concentration of conflicting (aggressive) energy, which is “searching” for possible ways to exit. Under these conditions, the search for the “enemy” is one of the simplest and most effective ways to channel the energy of conflict into real and imaginary enemies. For example, in modern Russian society, various social and political actors who are dissatisfied with the current state of affairs in the country call the following as enemies: oligarchs,"who plundered the country" corrupt officials illegal immigrants etc. But the most obvious example, in my opinion, of a systemic crisis, anomie and the “finding” of internal and external enemies is Germany in the late 20s and early 30s. last century. Hitler and his associates managed to convince a significant part of the German nation that their enemies were Jews and communists (later the circle of enemies was expanded). And the dissatisfaction and conflict energy that had accumulated over the years was directed at these “enemies.” The period of anomie is over. The German nation rallied to fight the “enemies.”

Purposeful rational grounds. Such grounds arise in a conflict situation, the causes of which are the incompatible interests and goals of two or more subjects (parties) of political relations. These grounds presuppose the conscious actions of the subject aimed at achieving their interests and goals, contrary to the wishes and behavior of other subjects. For example, if two states (peoples) lay claim to a disputed territory and at the same time they do not make any mutual concessions and are ready to defend their interests, then they may be perceived by each other as enemies. In domestic politics, opposing actors can also label each other the term “enemy.”

Value-rational foundations. Max Weber defines value-rational motives of behavior as an action based on the belief that the action being performed has a certain value. Consequently, these grounds for defining the “enemy” have, first of all, value motivation (ethical, religious, ideological, cultural, etc. bases). For example, the “class enemy” in a political conflict is determined mainly by ideological criteria. For Islamic fundamentalists, the main basis for defining the “enemy” is religious dogma. The “war” of cultures and civilizations (according to S. Huntington and E. Toffler) also has value foundations.

Situational reasons. A political subject who is not completely independent may find himself in a situation where he is forced to perceive another subject as an enemy, without having sufficient grounds for this. For example, during the Second World War, some countries of Eastern Europe (Romania, Hungary, etc.), under pressure from Germany, were forced to fight against the Soviet Union, i.e., identify it as an “enemy.”

Opportunistic grounds. Sometimes a political subject positions another subject as an “enemy” for opportunistic reasons. For example, countries such as Georgia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Poland in recent years have periodically “revealed” Moscow’s hostile machinations towards them. This policy of discrediting Russia is encouraged by Western patrons (especially the USA) and brings political dividends to these countries (the ruling elite), both in foreign and domestic policy. Some Western countries also do not miss the opportunity to accuse Russia of “hostile” thoughts or actions. The essence of these often unfounded accusations is to force Russia to make excuses for what it did not do and to sacrifice its interests in favor of the “accusers.”

Manipulative grounds. Manipulation involves certain actions (a system of measures) that contribute to the fact that the object of manipulation commits actions that do not meet his interests. For example, in recent years, objective grounds have emerged for closer economic and political cooperation between Russia and the European Union. But such cooperation is objectively not beneficial to the United States. By manipulating public consciousness, the United States is trying to convince the European Union that Russia represents a potential danger, a potential enemy who is harboring some insidious plans. Manipulation of the “enemy image” also allows some countries to increase their military budget. Thus, speaking at hearings in Congress (February 2007), US Secretary of Defense R. Gates, in order to increase the military budget, “scared” congressmen with the “unpredictable behavior” of countries such as Russia, China, North Korea, Iran..., and accused Russia of “trying to regain its great power status and is heavily arming itself.” And this despite the fact that the US military budget is 25 times larger than Russia’s and twice as large as it was at the peak of the Cold War.

The desire to lower the status (defeat the rights) of a subject named as an enemy. The very concept of “enemy” carries negative associations. Consequently, the enemy, as a rule, cannot claim not only a positive, but even an impartial attitude towards himself. That is, the “enemy”, by its very definition, is placed in a position that is obviously disadvantageous for itself. In addition, to enhance the negative perception of the “enemy”, it can be endowed with such “characteristics” as “enemy people", "enemy nation", "enemy human race", "enemy democracy", etc. An additional characteristic of the “enemy” seems to show that this actor (enemy) is not only an enemy for a specific subject (opponent, adversary), but also poses a direct threat to many others (people, nation, humanity, democracy etc.). For example, the Bolsheviks used the concept “enemy of the people” in relation to their political opponents and innocently accused people. Thus, they affected the rights of not only the accused himself, but also his relatives and friends.

The search for and punishment of “enemies of the people” dates back to the times of the Jacobin dictatorship and the French Revolution. For the first time in the history of Soviet Russia, this concept was used by Leon Trotsky in 1918, accusing the savior of the Russian fleet, Colonel Shatsky, of failing to comply with the order to scuttle the fleet.

The leaders of Nazi Germany gave their opponents the term “enemy of the nation,” or “personal enemy of the Fuhrer.” Writer Salman Rushdie was classified as an “enemy of Islam” for his work “The Satanic Verses” (1988) and was sentenced to death by Ayatollah Khomeini. Certain Western politicians often use the term “enemy of democracy” in relation to political regimes and leaders disloyal to them, and thereby also seek to defeat them in their rights.

Indirect friendship or enmity. Sometimes "enemy" and "friend" are defined according to the principle: the enemy of my friend and my enemy; enemy of my enemy- myFriend. This principle is most typical for political and military alliances, when two or more political actors enter into an agreement on joint protection of interests and/or joint defense. For example, on such grounds the European Union was created (joint protection of the political and economic interests of its member countries) and the military-political alliance NATO (joint protection of political and military interests). In an effort to reaffirm their friendship with the United States, some European governments sent troops to Iraq.

Search for the "enemy" as a way to shift the blame onto someone else, as the desire to assign one’s vices, thoughts, desires, and actions to another. This basis operates according to the “stop the thief” principle, when the thief himself, in order to remove suspicions about the theft he committed, initiates a search for the imaginary “thief”. Thus, the Stalinist regime, in order to justify its failures in governing the country, along with other methods, widely used the method of “searching for enemies of the people,” or “substitute sacrifice.” To justify their collaboration with fascist Germany and their crimes during the Second World War, pro-fascist forces in some countries (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine, Poland) seek to present the Red Army not as a “liberator”, but as a “conqueror”, i.e. as an "enemy". Currently, the United States accuses Russia of imperial ambitions, although these ambitions are inherent, first of all, in the United States itself. The war in Iraq, launched in 2003 by the United States and England, was also based on the “search for an imaginary enemy” who allegedly threatens the world with weapons of mass destruction. But this scam essentially failed.

Historical background. They are associated with past grievances that took place in the relations of subjects (countries, peoples, ethnic groups, religions). Historical grievances are usually stored in the memory of a particular historical subject on a subconscious level. In themselves, as a rule, they are not the immediate causes of confrontation and hostility. But if a conflict is brewing or is already taking place, then historical grievances are “extracted” into reality and become additional factors in its development. For example, they can be used to justify one's actions and blame the actions of the enemy. So, for many years after the Second World War, the majority of Soviet people associated such concepts as “Germany” and “German” with the concept of “enemy”. It took years and two or three generations to change the learned stereotypes. The Baltic countries still justify their hostile actions towards Russia by past grievances. Poland perceived the agreement concluded between Russia and Germany on laying a pipeline along the bottom of the Baltic Sea (bypassing Poland) as an anti-Polish conspiracy, and compared it with the Molotov-Ribintrop Pact (1939).

Stereotypes of consciousness. The decades of the Cold War and global confrontation between the two world systems have not passed without a trace for many people and entire nations. Therefore, any contradiction in political relations can find fertile ground for its development in the minds of people - bearers of stereotypes of the past. Thus, President V.V. Putin, speaking at the Munich Conference (February 2007), noted that the Cold War left us with “unexploded shells” in the form of ideological stereotypes, double standards and other patterns of bloc thinking that interfere with the solution of pressing economic and social issues.

Theoretical and methodological foundations. When defining “political,” many Russian researchers refer to the works of the German scientist K. Schmit, written by him in the very “hostile” 20s and 30s. XX century, who believes that in the definition of the concept of “political” one of the key roles is played by such categories as “friend” and “enemy”: “A specifically political distinction, to which political actions and motives can be reduced, is the distinction between friend and enemy. The meaning of the distinction between friend and enemy is to indicate the highest degree of intensity of connection or separation, association or dissociation.”

Obviously, categories such as “friend” and “enemy” are quite suitable for denoting “the highest degree of intensity of connection or separation,” but not quite for the concept of the political, which is based on conflict-consensus relations. No less (and maybe more) important for defining the political are such “intermediate” (between “friend” and “enemy”) categories as “supporter”, “ally”, “opponent”, “adversary”, etc. Yes and K. Schmit himself clearly lacks these categories in justifying his point of view. Therefore, the enemy in his interpretation is not a completely defined category. So he believes that the “enemy” is not an obligatory, but a probabilistic reality, the possibility of manifestation of a struggling set of people. There is only an enemy public enemy which “should not be immediately destroyed: on the contrary, it deserves courteous treatment.”

The above statements also indicate a lack of logical consistency in the friend-enemy dyad. On the one hand, the enemy should not immediately to destroy means that it is not a “real” enemy. Consequently, it needs to be given some other definition, for example, “enemy” (as in V. Vysotsky: “neither friend nor enemy, but so”). On the other hand, the enemy "should not be destroyed immediately", that is, immediately, but after a certain “courtesy treatment”, it obviously still needs to be destroyed. This, by the way, is confirmed by the further conclusions of K. Schmit, who writes that war, as an extreme realization of enmity, follows from this very enmity (ibid.), i.e. the presence of an enemy can lead to war and to the destruction of the no longer probabilistic, but a real enemy.

One of the variants of a not very successful example of the use of dichotomy friend-enemy in the course of analyzing the current international situation of Russia, in our opinion, is the article by A. Dugin “Axis of friendship and axis of enmity”. At the beginning of the article, the author “calls on” Russia to clearly define its friends and enemies, because “Politics begins where the friend-enemy pair is clearly defined. And if we don’t develop our own policy as soon as possible, someone else’s will simply be harshly imposed on us.” But in the course of further reasoning, the author comes to the conclusion that for Russia a clear choice of friends and enemies is unacceptable. “Russia, as Eurasia, is capable of offering the CIS countries a positive integration scenario and conducting a soft dialogue with a variety of forces in the West and East.”

An analysis of some of K. Schmit’s provisions on the concept of politics, and the given example of the application of this concept, allows us to conclude that in modern politics (as well as in other areas) extreme polarization of mutual perception is highly undesirable. Such polarization, as already mentioned, is most characteristic of totalitarian ideology and politics. Shmit's teaching on politics can be conditionally attributed to traditional paradigm for the study of socio-political processes and relationships, which, of course, has not lost its relevance, but requires significant additions.

A unipolar world (as well as an authoritarian regime) presupposes the division of actors into friends And enemies. The multipolar world presents a complex dynamic of partnership and competition, cooperation and confrontation. In such conditions, as K. Wallender puts it, relationships such as “hostile friends” or “friendly opponents” arise. When “today’s opponent on some specific issue can become tomorrow’s partner. And the opposite is also true - yesterday’s partner can become an adversary the next day on some issue, while maintaining the potential for cooperation.”

According to A. Wolfres, “the line separating friendly and hostile relations is not always clearly defined. There is an intermediate area in which it is difficult for governments to track the transition from weakly expressed friendly relations to hostile ones, and vice versa. Even in the relations of the most friendly states there is usually a hidden conflict that can suddenly flare up.” A clear example of such conflicts are the “gas” and “oil” conflicts between Russia and Ukraine (late 2005) and between Russia and Belarus (late 2006 - early 2007).

Relations between political subjects can vary from irreconcilable hostility to boundless friendship. But various intermediate states are also possible. K. Boulding proposed classifying mutual relations between countries on a scale friendliness - hostility, in which the extreme positions are considered to be “stable friendship” and stable enmity.”

Each of the ones we analyzed reasons The definition of “enemy” can be used as the only and sufficient definition, or in combination with other grounds.

Mechanisms and methods of forming the “enemy image”. The initial stage in the formation of the image of the enemy is the concept of “hostility”, as a negative reaction (attitude) to a real or imaginary danger and as one of the forms of social relations. At the same time, hostility in its development can go through several stages: from a unilateral unfriendly act to bilateral full-scale hostility; from a momentary negative perception to centuries-old hatred. Traditionally, the “enemy image” is formed on the basis of unfriendly, hostile (hostile) relationships and/or actions.

The very process of forming the “enemy image” is determined by previously formed stereotypes. The historical memory of any established society allows people to preserve and pass on from generation to generation previously formed “images of enemies” and mechanisms for their identification. Therefore, when this or that danger arises before a social community, folk memory “resurrects” the stereotype of the “enemy image” corresponding to the situation, and on its basis a new (updated) “enemy image” is formed in the public consciousness.

Negative stereotypes themselves are not the direct cause of hostile relationships. But they help accelerate the formation of the “enemy image” and determine its main evaluative characteristics. Thus, the treacherous attack of Nazi Germany on the Soviet Union (June 22, 1941) overnight turned the former economic and political partner (in accordance with the Munich Treaty of 1939) into a sworn enemy of the entire Soviet people, because The Russian (Russian) people have been subjected to similar attacks many times in the past. And none of the tricks of Goebelian propaganda, which tried to present the occupiers as liberators from the communist regime, could mislead the common people.

The process of purposeful formation (construction) of the “enemy image” is in many ways similar to the process of formation of the “victim image”, but at the same time it has the opposite negative assessment of the image. The image of the enemy should arouse hatred. Therefore, he can combine such negative qualities as: deceit, aggressiveness, immorality, cruelty, unscrupulousness, etc. For this, as well as for forming the image of the victim, the media are widely used. For example, the United States, in order to “transfer” a particular country (political regime) from the category of a full-fledged subject of international relations to the category of “enemy,” creates (shapes) a certain political discourse through the media (and not only). In this case, various methods are used to discredit the intended “victim”: positive qualities are questioned, negative ones are emphasized in every possible way, the leaders of the victim country are likened to bloodthirsty monsters. The intended “enemy,” but in fact the “victim,” is systematically demonized and deprived of his rights. The discourse imposed on the public is entering a new phase. A discussion is unfolding about how (by what forces, methods) it is better to neutralize or destroy the “enemy”. Thus, before subjecting Yugoslavia to a barbaric bombing (1999), the United States launched a debate in the mass media about whether it was worth resorting to a ground operation or limiting itself to targeted bombing. At the same time, the question of the need to use military force against a sovereign state was no longer in doubt.

The grounds for creating an “enemy image” are selected taking into account the social significance of the “offence” and are formed depending on the pursued goals and interests of the subjects constructing the image. Thus, Serbia (Yugoslavia) was accused of numerous casualties among the civilian Albanian population and other “sins”, Iraq – of creating weapons of mass destruction and threatening other countries, Afghanistan – of hiding the leaders of terrorist organizations, Iran and North Korea – of creating nuclear weapons. In reality, these images of “enemies” were created so that the United States could impose its will on other countries and peoples.

The emerging “enemy image” must meet certain requirements (needs) of the perceivers:

1. Satisfy instrumental needs, for example, provide information about a real or imaginary threat, about the possible course of events.

2. Perform evaluative functions from the point of view of traditions, stereotypes, value systems and worldviews existing in society.

4. Consolidate people to fight the identified enemy.

In addition, the formed and periodically updated “enemy image” can be used by the subject of politics for his aggressive actions. Thus, the image of terrorist No. 1 bin Laden, created by the US administration, is periodically updated and used by the United States in its domestic and foreign policy.

Computer tips for novice users

Formation of the image of the enemy in the media. The image of the enemy in the history of mass media. Real and imaginary enemies

Image of the enemy

Aggressiveness

Real and imaginary enemies

Stereotypes of consciousness

Theoretical and methodological foundations

Mechanisms and methods of forming the “enemy image”

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Similar documents

Recommended list of dissertations in the specialty "Political institutions, ethno-political conflictology, national and political processes and technologies", 23.00.02 code VAK

Formation and evolution of the image of the enemy during the Cold War period in Soviet cinema: mid-1950s - mid-1980s. 2009, Candidate of Historical Sciences Kolesnikova, Alexandra Gennadievna

The image of the “enemy of the people” in the system of Soviet social mobilization: ideological and propaganda aspect: December 1934 - November 1938. 2010, Candidate of Historical Sciences Arnautov, Nikita Borisovich

Formation of a mythologized image of the United States of America in Soviet society in the early years of the Cold War, 1945-1953. 2001, Candidate of Historical Sciences Nikolaeva, Natalia Ilyinichna

The image of Japan in the Soviet public consciousness: 1931-1939 2009, Candidate of Historical Sciences Lozhkina, Anastasia Sergeevna

The image of the Soviet Union as a factor in US foreign policy: 1945 - 1952. 2007, candidate of historical sciences Sitnikova, Elena Leonidovna

Introduction of the dissertation (part of the abstract) on the topic “Constructing the image of an external enemy: a study of Soviet media and official documents of the beginning of the Cold War: 1946-1953.”

Conclusion of the dissertation on the topic “Political institutions, ethnopolitical conflictology, national and political processes and technologies”, Belokoneva, Anna Sergeevna

Computer tips for novice users

Image of the enemy

Aggressiveness

Real and imaginary enemies

Stereotypes of consciousness

Theoretical and methodological foundations

Mechanisms and methods of forming the “enemy image”

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Similar documents

Recommended list of dissertations in the specialty "Political institutions, ethno-political conflictology, national and political processes and technologies", 23.00.02 code VAK

Formation and evolution of the image of the enemy during the Cold War period in Soviet cinema: mid-1950s - mid-1980s. 2009, Candidate of Historical Sciences Kolesnikova, Alexandra Gennadievna

The image of the “enemy of the people” in the system of Soviet social mobilization: ideological and propaganda aspect: December 1934 - November 1938. 2010, Candidate of Historical Sciences Arnautov, Nikita Borisovich

Formation of a mythologized image of the United States of America in Soviet society in the early years of the Cold War, 1945-1953. 2001, Candidate of Historical Sciences Nikolaeva, Natalia Ilyinichna

The image of Japan in the Soviet public consciousness: 1931-1939 2009, Candidate of Historical Sciences Lozhkina, Anastasia Sergeevna

The image of the Soviet Union as a factor in US foreign policy: 1945 - 1952. 2007, candidate of historical sciences Sitnikova, Elena Leonidovna

Introduction of the dissertation (part of the abstract) on the topic “Constructing the image of an external enemy: a study of Soviet media and official documents of the beginning of the Cold War: 1946-1953.”

Conclusion of the dissertation on the topic “Political institutions, ethnopolitical conflictology, national and political processes and technologies”, Belokoneva, Anna Sergeevna

RELATED ARTICLES