Арсен Аветисов – Political Narratology. How Stories Shape Power and Compliance (страница 3)

Politics cannot help but narrate, because power needs justification, submission needs an explanation, and sacrifices need meaning.

Narrative as a Competition of Interpretations

It is important to immediately abandon the naive notion that there exists one true political narrative. In reality, politics is always a competition of stories.

The same event can be described as a crisis or an opportunity, a defeat or a regrouping, betrayal or necessity, repression or protection, failure or the beginning of a journey.

The facts remain the same. The narrative they are a part of is what shifts. The winner is not the side with ‘more truth’, but the one whose story is more emotionally convincing, simpler, more repeatable, who aligns with the audience’s expectations and reduces anxiety or channels it.

Why Is Narrative Stronger Than Argument?

A rational argument requires effort. A story requires engagement.

An argument appeals to logic. A narrative appeals to identity.

An argument can be refuted. A narrative must first be destroyed. And that is always a very painful process.

When a person accepts a political narrative, they are not accepting a position but a role: citizen, victim, fighter, defender, heir, saviour.

To argue with an argument is normal. To argue with the story you live inside is to risk your very identity.

This is precisely why facts so often lose out to stories. Not because people are foolish, but because the price of abandoning the story of one’s identity is too high.

Narrative as Invisible Power

The strongest form of power is the one that is not felt as power. A political narrative works exactly like this. It dictates which questions are considered reasonable, determines what can be discussed and what seems ‘ridiculous’, forms the boundaries of permissible doubt, and preemptively labels criticism as dangerous or irresponsible.

When a narrative is stable, power can hardly intervene. People themselves explain what is happening, justify limitations, reproduce the language, and punish deviations.

At this moment, politics ceases to be external. It becomes internal.

Why Is Understanding Political Narrative Necessary?

To study political narratives is not to become a cynic. It is to reclaim the ability to see the form. A person who cannot distinguish a story from reality becomes its function.

A person who sees the narrative gets a chance not to dissolve into the collective ‘we’, to maintain distance, to preserve an inner voice, and to recognise moments of manipulation.

Political narratology does not begin with exposing others, but with observing the story you yourself are in.

We will now proceed from this point on by defining the political narrative.

Chapter 2. Narrative Is Neither Programme Nor Ideology

History has no plot; it is guided by no single logic.

The Mistake Almost Everyone Makes

When people talk about politics, they almost always confuse three distinct levels: narrative, ideology, and programme. This confusion may seem harmless, but it is precisely what makes a person vulnerable.

A programme answers the question ‘What do we do?’ An ideology answers the question ‘Why do we do it?’ A narrative answers the question ‘Who are we and what is happening to us?’ This is why political debates so often appear meaningless: people are arguing on different levels without realising it.

One person speaks the language of numbers. Another speaks the language of values. A third speaks the language of stories. And it is almost always the third who wins.

Programme: A Soulless List of Actions

A political programme is a set of promises and measures: lower taxes, increase benefits, reform the system, improve metrics, optimise processes.

It answers the question: ‘What are we going to do?’ It can be logical, well-considered, economically sound, even beneficial. But a programme, on its own, never mobilises people.

Because a programme does not answer the essential human questions: Who are we? Why is this happening to us? What does this mean for me personally? Which side am I on?

A programme is a technical document. A human being is not a technical entity.

Ideology: A System of Ideas Without a Body

Ideology is the next level. It is a set of values and principles, notions of right and wrong, and a model of a desirable society. Ideology answers the question: ‘What do we believe in?’ But here, too, there is a limit. Ideology is abstract. It requires translation into the language of life.

People are rarely prepared to die for a formula, to endure hardship for an abstraction, or to make sacrifices for a schematic. Ideology only begins to work when it is embedded within a story that has a past, a present, an enemy, a goal, and a path. Without a narrative, an ideology remains a book on a shelf. With a narrative, it becomes a destiny.

Narrative: The World We Live Inside

A narrative is neither a set of ideas nor a plan of action. A narrative is a picture of the world in which the programme seems necessary, the ideology appears natural, sacrifices are justified, and doubts are dangerous.

It answers not the question ‘what?’ or ‘why?’ but a deeper one: ‘What is actually happening, and what is my place in it?’

A narrative does not prove. It explains. It does not convince logically. It makes reality recognisable.

Why Is a Slogan Not a Narrative?

It often seems that a narrative is just a catchy slogan. This is a mistake. A slogan is a compressed fragment of a narrative, not the narrative itself. It only works because a story already exists, roles are already defined, and the context is already understood.

Without its narrative, a slogan appears hollow, irritating, and untrustworthy. The phrase ‘we will reclaim the country’ means nothing unless it has already been explained who took it, when, why, and who exactly it must be reclaimed for.

Why Do People Think They Believe in Ideas?

Most people sincerely believe they support a particular political position because of its ideas. In reality, more often than not, they are supporting a story in which they appear to be good people, their fears are explained, their anger is legitimised, and their hope is given form. The ideas come later, as justification.

A person first feels and then explains to themselves why it is rational. The narrative makes this explanation possible.

How Does a Narrative Make Ideology Seem ‘Natural’?

The most dangerous form of ideology is the one that is not called ideology. When values are presented not as a choice, but as common sense, as self-evident, as the only possible view.

This is exactly how a narrative works. It does not say: ‘Here is our ideology.’ It says: ‘This is simply how the world works.’ A narrative does not need to be fully articulated. More often, it exists as a background, as an implicit structure of meaning within which individual events become understandable and significant.

This is why a narrative is invisible, difficult to challenge, and emotionally protected.

Arguing with an ideology is a debate about values. Arguing with a narrative is a debate with the very reality a person lives in.

Why Do Programmes Change, but Narratives Do Not?

Political history is full of sharp reversals: broken promises, changes of course, contradictory and unexpected decisions. Yet a narrative can endure for decades.

This is because a programme is a tool, an ideology is a language, but a narrative is an identity.

A government can change its measures, but if it preserves the story, people continue to believe. When the narrative collapses, no programme can save it.

The Dangerous Illusion of Rational Choice

Modern people like to think of themselves as rational voters. They read figures, analyses, and comparisons. But at the decisive moment, they do not vote for a programme, or even for an ideology. They vote for a story in which it is clear to them who they are and what they stand for.

In a well-known case study set during a recessionary period, companies like those in the Fortune 500 tried to convince their employees and potential customers that they sincerely cared for their well-being, even in hard times. Contrary to traditional business practice, amid austerity elsewhere, these companies were presented as avoiding layoffs. This is considered a wise strategy; when the economy recovers, such companies are better positioned to accelerate growth and capture market share.

The only problem with this strategy was that most employees did not believe their claims. Too many people had been laid off too many times at other companies to think the same wasn’t inevitable at theirs.

Researchers Martin and Powers wanted to find out which strategy would best overcome this wave of scepticism. They compared four approaches. One group was told a simple story illustrating the company’s commitment. A second was given statistics supporting the claim. A third received both the statistics and the story. A fourth heard a formal policy statement from a senior executive.

You have likely guessed which method worked best? Most people, when presented with this research, tend to choose the third option, the story backed by data. But they would be wrong.