Reps shape reality, especially in foreign relations – Russia and Cuba prove

The study of narratives has grown in recent years and especially around narratives focusing on national security.1 The research focus on threat inflation has increased with respect to the decisions around military action. Much of the discussion around narrative creation and narrative dominance pertains to knowledge, the sharing of knowledge, and the perception of shared knowledge. President James Madison famously stated, the management of foreign relations appears to be the most susceptible of abuse, of all the trusts committed to a Government, because they can be concealed or disclosed, or disclosed in such parts and at such times as will best suit particular views; and because the body of the people are less capable of judging and are more under the influence of prejudices, on that branch of their affairs, than of any other.2 Thus, how a government or set of actors controls the dispensing of such knowledge in the form of threat narratives is critically important. Mona Baker has described narratives as “stories we tell ourselves and others about the world(s) in which we live...[which] provide our main interface with the world.”3 A narrative is a collective statement made up of a series of overt statements and intimations around a topic. These moments align to form a collective discourse that paints a story. Barry Buzan and Lene Hansen noted that the orientation around a topic based on the narrative could affect the various types of policy solutions. For example, if security narratives on Cuba were orientated around disarmament as opposed to the benefits of a market economy, the resulting policy solutions for Cuba would live in the weapon reduction space based on the directional narrative instead of economic and political space.4

Christina Rowley and Jutta Weldes also expounded upon the concept of security narratives by highlighting the selective nature of narratives as well as their likeness to metaphors. They noted that a metaphor “invokes a biological framework to account for and make sense of changes in international security studies scholarship…produc[ing] and naturaliz[ing] a narrative that, by privileging some facts while marginalizing others.”5 The intentionality by which narratives can be furthered adds a concerning level of subjectivity.

Understanding how particular parties produce rhetoric and how the resulting narratives achieve dominance is key to the reality of the threat. Ronald Krebs’ book Narrative and the Making of US National Security explores the importance of understanding narrative creation as part of the larger threat discourse. He explains that while those in the national security field acknowledge the presence of national security narratives, they often underestimate their importance to threat reality. Krebs’ notes “dominant narratives of national security establish the common-sense givens of debate, set the boundaries of the legitimate…[and] thereby shape the national security policies that states pursue.”6 It is precisely through the process of party influence on narrative evolution that dictates the dominance of particular threats.

These theoretical underpinnings help us to address questions about threat narratives pertaining to why people believe front-page threat headlines in reputable papers such as The Wall Street Journal. Say, for example, the headline reads, “Russian threat to the United States highest since the Cold War!” Do people run for cover? Probably not, but the impact is significant. Many Americans read newspaper headlines or tune in to radio or TV coverage of national security affairs and then go about their day. For many Americans, the 10 minutes of world news roundup in the morning and at night forms the totality of their worldview. Rodger Payne believes this deference has to do with how Americans en masse believe the experts because of their greater access to information.7 Chaim Kaufman noted, “Government agencies usually have a large authority advantage in debate with anyone else. This is particularly true in realms where they have an information advantage and do not face competing authorities of comparable stature.”8 This is the case for government elites in the national security arena as well as highly informed newscasters, journalists, and academics who speak on topics with a certain level of inherent authority. News headlines stay top of mind precisely because they fall into the narrative containers that people use to order the many pieces of information that we receive during a day. Truing back to the Russian threat example, visual images in the past of Vladimir Putin and Barack Obama on CNN or in The New York Times staring each other down supports this narrative. Russia’s attempts several years ago to exert control in Syria with its air campaign and sustained military support as well as its increased influence in Crimea with its backing of Russian-sympathizing rebels in the Ukraine adds credence to this narrative. Alleged Russian hacking of American email accounts and 2016 Presidential Election interference are key stories that help to support a narrative. This supporting cast of stories creates a holistic threat narrative around Russia. While Russia could be taking several actions that run contrary to American interests around the world, the great leap to judgement that Russia is now the most significant threat to the United States becomes part of an overarching narrative.