A call to arms: Hero–villain narratives in US security discourse

Abstract

The rhetoric leaders use to speak to domestic audiences about security is not simply bluster. Political agents rely upon stories of enmity and threat to represent what is happening in the international arena, to whom and why, in order to push national and international security policy agendas. They do so for the simple reason that a good story is a powerful political device. This article examines historical ‘calls to arms’ in the United States, based on insights from archival research at US presidential libraries and the United States National Archives. Drawing on narrative theory and political psychology, the article develops a new analytic framework to explain the political currency and staying power of hero–villain security narratives, which divide the world into opposing spheres of ‘good’ and ‘evil’. Shifting the conceptual focus away from speakers and settings towards audience and affect, it argues that the resonance of hero–villain security narratives lies in the way their plot structure keeps the audience in suspense. Because they are consequential rhetorical tools that shape security policy practices, the stories political agents tell about security demand greater attention in the broader field of international security studies.

From Realpolitik to Gefühlspolitik : strategically narrating the European Union at the national level

“…In principle, any narrative can be(come) efficacious if its form, that is the content, and its force, that is its affective appeal, are convincing in a specific context (Homolar, 2021). The question, thus, is not whether some narratives are affective and others 'only' cognitive or rational, but rather which narratives are most affective in a particular context.…”

The hero fallacy paradox: Cognitive dissonance and the rationalization of political violence

“…A good story does more than simply entertain or inform, it can draw others to support your cause and direct them to act in a manner prescribed by the narrator. People already use narratives to make sense of themselves and the world (Homolar, 2021, p. 4; Jones & McBeth, 2020, p. 92). Using narratives as part of the strategic political process utilizes preexisting avenues of human behavior as a mechanism to build support, explain political phenomena, or even motivate others to take action.…”

A corpus-based study on the cognitive construction of security in discourse

“…In her later studies, she also argues how US security discourse provides the rationale for an expansionist security strategy that focuses on shaping global society in ways that accord with US values and interests (Dunmire, 2015). Recent studies also argue that the resonance of US security narratives lies in the way conceptualizing emotive appeal that creates perceptions of enmity and threat through their dualistic structure (Van Rythoven, 2015;Amin, 2019;Berrocal, 2019;MacDonald and Hunter, 2019;Homolar, 2021). Moreover, there have been many scholarships addressing the US security issues from an ideational perspective.…”

“…Moreover, there have been many scholarships addressing the US security issues from an ideational perspective. These studies examine the ideological, rhetorical, and linguistic features of US political and media security discourses, highlighting that the discourse system is mainly construed through presenting a series of assertions by creating the Self-Other dichotomy for their preferred interpretations of the presented representations (Miller and Rose, 2008;Amin, 2019;Berrocal, 2019;Homolar, 2021). A focus on the split of the international arena into two opposing spheres to convey understandings of security is not new in itself (Campbell, 1998;Neumann, 1999;Said, 2003), while the nexus between agents' discursive practices and the affective process has recently gained traction across the disciplinary field of International Relations (IR) (Solomon, 2014;Åhäll and Gregory, 2015;Koschut et al, 2017;Brassett, 2018;Hall and Ross, 2019).…”