CREATING THE «ENEMY»: STRATEGIES OF POLARIZATION «US-THEM» IN MANIPULATIVE POLITICAL NARRATIVES
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32782/folium/2026.8.4Keywords:
manipulative political narratives, disinformation, «us-them» polarization, critical discourse analysis, metaphor analysis, multimodal discourse, political communication, identity construction.Abstract
This article explores the linguistic, narrative, metaphorical, and multimodal strategies employed in manipulative political narratives to construct and reinforce polarized «us-them» identities. These narratives strategically promote a favorable image of the in-group («us») while simultaneously portraying the out-group («them») in a negative, often threatening light. The study is based on a comparative analysis of fifteen news samples from 2023–2024 that have been verified as containing manipulative political narratives in contrast to eight legitimate news items covering similar political themes, allowing for a systematic examination of discursive differences. The findings reveal consistent patterns of manipulation: media pieces that contain manipulative political narratives exhibit a significantly higher frequency of inclusive and exclusive pronouns, which serve to delineate group boundaries and foster emotional allegiance. Additionally, these texts frequently employ evaluative language to glorify the in-group («us») and use dehumanizing or derogatory labels to «demonize» the out-group («them»). Metaphors invoking war, disease, and existential threats appear in over two-thirds of the manipulative samples, reinforcing a sense of urgency and moral conflict. In contrast, such metaphorical framing is rare in legitimate journalism, which tends to maintain a more neutral and analytical tone. The analysis within the research further demonstrates that manipulative narratives tend to reduce complex political realities into simplistic binary oppositions, presenting issues as moral battles between good and evil. This oversimplification is often accompanied by emotionally charged imagery and provocative language, which together amplify the persuasive impact. The study contributes to the field of critical discourse analysis by offering insights into the mechanics of political manipulation and proposes practical recommendations for enhancing media literacy and strengthening factchecking practices in democratic societies.
References
Allcott, H., & Gentzkow, M. (2017). Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(2), 211–236. https:// doi.org/10.1257/jep.31.2.211
Azzimonti, M., & Fernandes, M. (2023). Social media networks, fake news, and polarization. European Journal of Political
Economy, 76, 102256. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.ejpoleco.2022.102256
Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(3), 193–209.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0303_3
Charteris-Black, J. (2004). Corpus approaches to critical metaphor analysis. Palgrave Macmillan. 264 p. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230000612
Charteris-Black, J. (2014). Analysing political speeches: Rhetoric, discourse and metaphor. Palgrave Macmillan. 326 p. https://doi.org/ 10.1075/jlp.00005.wan
Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.),Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction (Vol. 2, pp. 258–284). Sage.
Hopp, T., Ferrucci, P., & Vargo, C. J. (2020). Why do people share ideologically extreme, false, and misleading content on social media? A self-report and trace data–based analysis of countermedia content dissemination on Facebook and Twitter. Human Communication Research, 46(4), 357–384. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqz022
Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M., Malhotra, N., & Westwood, S. J. (2019). The origins and consequences of affective polarization
in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science, 22, 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1146/ annurev-polisci-051117-073034
Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 76(3), 405–431. https://doi.org/ 10.1093/poq/nfs038
Iyengar, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2015). Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 690–707. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12152
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 499 p.
Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual design (2nd ed.). Routledge. 291 p.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press. 242 p. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 7 2 0 8 / c h i c a g o /9780226470993.001.0001
Osmundsen, M., Bor, A., Vahlstrup, P. B., Bechmann, A., & Petersen, M. B. (2021). Partisan polarization is the primary psychological
motivation behind political fake news sharing on Twitter. American Political Science Review, 115(3), 999–1015. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0003055421000290
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental
social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123–205). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0065-2601(08)60214-2
Qureshi, I., & Bhatt, B. (2024). Social mediainduced polarisation. Information Systems Journal, 34(3), 1425–1431 https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12525
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Brooks/Cole.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Ideology and discourse analysis. Journal of Political Ideologies, 11(2), 115-140. https://doi.org/10.1080/13569310600687908
Wardle, C., & Derakhshan, H. (2017). Information disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policy making. Council of Europe. 107 p.
