{"title":"分裂国家:俄罗斯影响美国行动中的 \"恐怖主义 \"武器化","authors":"Ori Swed, Daniel Jaster, Mary Adami","doi":"10.1007/s12115-024-00989-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The term terrorist represents the ultimate enemy: someone that is evil, illegitimate, and outside of the social order. Branding political rivals as terrorists delegitimizes them, transforming them from political adversaries into enemies or irrational actors. One does not negotiate with enemies, but rather eradicates or neutralizes them. Terrorism’s ill-defined qualities and multitude of definitions have transformed it into a potent stigmatizing floating signifier, one that retains the negative valence without clear boundaries. Such a term can be weaponized by entrepreneurial actors intent on dividing society along internal cleavage points. We illustrate this through the Russian trolls’ usage of the term “terrorist” on Twitter during the 2016 influence operation in the US Presidential Election. We code hundreds of tweets associated with the Russian disinformation operation, identifying the way the term was used and its target audience. Russian operatives weaponized the term to polarize the American public, marking entities and individuals as “terrorist” with the intent of increasing distrust across communities. Our results introduce important implications on the influence of leaders on the dynamics of floating negative signifiers like terrorists, especially regarding their weaponization for political reasons.</p>","PeriodicalId":47267,"journal":{"name":"Society","volume":"159 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dividing the Nation: The Weaponization of “Terrorism” in Russian Influence Operations in the USA\",\"authors\":\"Ori Swed, Daniel Jaster, Mary Adami\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s12115-024-00989-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The term terrorist represents the ultimate enemy: someone that is evil, illegitimate, and outside of the social order. Branding political rivals as terrorists delegitimizes them, transforming them from political adversaries into enemies or irrational actors. One does not negotiate with enemies, but rather eradicates or neutralizes them. Terrorism’s ill-defined qualities and multitude of definitions have transformed it into a potent stigmatizing floating signifier, one that retains the negative valence without clear boundaries. Such a term can be weaponized by entrepreneurial actors intent on dividing society along internal cleavage points. We illustrate this through the Russian trolls’ usage of the term “terrorist” on Twitter during the 2016 influence operation in the US Presidential Election. We code hundreds of tweets associated with the Russian disinformation operation, identifying the way the term was used and its target audience. Russian operatives weaponized the term to polarize the American public, marking entities and individuals as “terrorist” with the intent of increasing distrust across communities. Our results introduce important implications on the influence of leaders on the dynamics of floating negative signifiers like terrorists, especially regarding their weaponization for political reasons.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47267,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Society\",\"volume\":\"159 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-024-00989-3\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Society","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-024-00989-3","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Dividing the Nation: The Weaponization of “Terrorism” in Russian Influence Operations in the USA
The term terrorist represents the ultimate enemy: someone that is evil, illegitimate, and outside of the social order. Branding political rivals as terrorists delegitimizes them, transforming them from political adversaries into enemies or irrational actors. One does not negotiate with enemies, but rather eradicates or neutralizes them. Terrorism’s ill-defined qualities and multitude of definitions have transformed it into a potent stigmatizing floating signifier, one that retains the negative valence without clear boundaries. Such a term can be weaponized by entrepreneurial actors intent on dividing society along internal cleavage points. We illustrate this through the Russian trolls’ usage of the term “terrorist” on Twitter during the 2016 influence operation in the US Presidential Election. We code hundreds of tweets associated with the Russian disinformation operation, identifying the way the term was used and its target audience. Russian operatives weaponized the term to polarize the American public, marking entities and individuals as “terrorist” with the intent of increasing distrust across communities. Our results introduce important implications on the influence of leaders on the dynamics of floating negative signifiers like terrorists, especially regarding their weaponization for political reasons.
期刊介绍:
Founded in 1962, Society enjoys a wide reputation as a journal that publishes the latest scholarship on the central questions of contemporary society. It produces six issues a year offering new ideas and quality research in the social sciences and humanities in a clear, accessible style.
Society sees itself as occupying the vital center in intellectual and political debate. Put negatively, this means the journal is opposed to all forms of dogmatism, absolutism, ideological uniformity, and facile relativism. More positively, it seeks to champion genuine diversity of opinion and a recognition of the complexity of the world''s issues.
Society includes full-length research articles, commentaries, discussion pieces, and book reviews which critically examine work conducted in the social sciences as well as the humanities. The journal is of interest to scholars and researchers who work in these broadly-based fields of enquiry and those who conduct research in neighboring intellectual domains. Society is also of interest to non-specialists who are keen to understand the latest developments in such subjects as sociology, history, political science, social anthropology, philosophy, economics, and psychology.
The journal’s interdisciplinary approach is reflected in the variety of esteemed thinkers who have contributed to Society since its inception. Contributors have included Simone de Beauvoir, Robert K Merton, James Q. Wilson, Margaret Mead, Abraham Maslow, Richard Hoggart, William Julius Wilson, Arlie Hochschild, Alvin Gouldner, Orlando Patterson, Katherine S. Newman, Patrick Moynihan, Claude Levi-Strauss, Hans Morgenthau, David Riesman, Amitai Etzioni and many other eminent thought leaders.
The success of the journal rests on attracting authors who combine originality of thought and lucidity of expression. In that spirit, Society is keen to publish both established and new authors who have something significant to say about the important issues of our time.