Conceptual analysis of the narrative strategy of the text of the propaganda speech from the position of the post-Romanov psychoanalytic approach

Ivanova Victoria Postgraduate Student at the Department of History of Journalism and Literature, A.S. Griboyedov Moscow University. A.S. Griboyedov Moscow University 124482, Russia, Moscow, Zelenograd str., -, of. - ivanovamglu@gmail.com

Analyzing the works devoted to narrative structures and strategies of propaganda texts ^[1-4], it can be noted that the prevailing methodological approach of researchers is to study the plot outline of narrative narrative and manipulative tactics of its replication; at the same time, the processes that ensure the internalization of communication by the addressee of the ideas and values transmitted to him, motivational and affective prerequisites for inclusion in the narrative remain outside the problematic fields.

          It seems to us that methodological practices that do not reflect the relationship between the structure of the narrative and the mechanism of formation of stable beliefs by the subject are clearly insufficient. With this methodological approach, the most important role of the narrative – the unconscious nature of its assimilation – remains unreflected by the researcher. In addition to studying the influence of the narrative structure on the expected result of influencing public opinion, our proposed version of narrative analysis includes an adapted model of discourse analysis in its post-Lacanian interpretation.

          One of the most famous, according to the New York Times ^[5], foreign correspondents  Great Britain  Robert Fisk in his work "The Great War for Civilization" quotes an excerpt of a dispute with a colleague from the Israeli publication "Haaretz" Amira Haas. Fisk agrees with A. Haas that the primary role of a journalist is to clearly understand where the centers of concentration of power and influence are and explain events based on this knowledge ^{[6, p.33]}. Moreover, the legendary military journalist with fifty years of experience, a critic of wars, the author of outstanding books about the work of correspondents in the war zone, the winner of many international awards, R. Fisk directly says that this is the best definition of journalism that he has ever met. It seems to us that the discourse analysis of the text, carried out in the Postlakanov paradigm, provides a methodological basis for an adequate understanding of the role of such centers in imposing the dominant narrative and managing public consciousness.

          In modern academic and near-academic studies devoted to the analysis of strategic communications, concepts borrowed from the theory of political psychoanalysis periodically pop up. At the same time, the use of such concepts as "collective unconscious", "fetish", "phantasm", "(Big) other", etc. is reduced to the usual use as tropes - political metaphors, in order to impart imagery or introduce a manipulative component into scientific discourse, and not as fundamental concepts with their own methodological function in the post-non-classical scientific paradigm. Based on the statement of J. Lacan says that psychoanalysis is not a theory, but a praxis that makes it possible to describe the Real through the Symbolic ^{[7, p.6]}, in this article we will consider the logical tools of modern political psychoanalysis, which allows us to describe and interpret processes and phenomena that are at the intersection of research interests of narratology and socio-political sciences, We will also analyze the narrative structure of the propaganda text using the example of the speech of US Secretary of State Colin Powell at the UN Security Council on February 5, 2003.

          The driving mechanism that triggers the process of transferring meanings in the narrative is the concept of the master signifier. The master signifier defines the other signifiers of the narrative structure, combining all its elements into a single semantic field, but at the same time does not have its own real signified. If at the level of interpretations of a literary text, the function of the master signifier can be expressed through easily recognizable "polemical" maxims ("what did the author want to say?", "the main problem of the work", etc.), then for the analysis of political discourses and criticism of ideology, this concept is a more complex, meaning-forming element, without a clear understanding of which the analysis of the narrative impossible in principle. The concept of the master signifier in propaganda texts was developed in the works of S. Zizek, Ya. Stavrakakis, E. Leclo and S. Muffa ^[7-10], etc. Based on their work, the concept of the master signifier in the media narrative can be represented as a macro-position of the frame, it symbolizes the basic "higher meanings" that cannot be directly analyzed by the recipient of the message and perceived by him a priori. From the point of view of the addressee of the communicative impact, the master signifier is a concept whose depth of meaning cannot be expressed by the lexical language means available to him, and logical elaboration or documentary accuracy seem inappropriate, unacceptable. The addressee, whose value system is given a final meaning by such concepts as "religion", "science", "my country", "humanity" ^[11], etc., cannot fully rationalize and articulate the chain of signifiers on which such absolute maxims are based due to their inherent abstractness. Such a "shortage" of signifiers makes it possible to control the narrative by controlling meanings and ideas through horizontal (metonymic) and vertical (metaphorical) chains of signifiers ^{[12, pp. 140-141]}. The double movement of connection and substitution of signifiers allows infinitely actualizing the structure of the narrative within its life cycle ^{[13, p. 51]}.

          The key element of the semiotic structure in the Lacanian approach is the point of attachment. Language for Lacan, unlike the linguistic concept of Ferdinand de Saussure, is not a system of signs, but a system of signifiers. The signifier is the basic structural unit, while in the Lacanian paradigm, the signified and the signifier are not connected by any conventional connections, they are two streams, in a sense existing parallel to each other. The points at which the meaning arises and is fixed are called the fastening point ^{[12, p. 124]}. In narrative analysis, the anchor point is a statement that actualizes the frame, it has a similar function to the master signifier, but at the same time it has specificity and a meaningful signified. So, we believe that the master signifier starts the process of transferring meanings, but the narrative begins to perform its function of "involving the reader intellectually and emotionally" ^{[14, p.39]} only after the appearance of the anchor points in it, which enable the addressee to understand the general coherence of the message, and the researcher to turn to its deep subtext, non-explicit meanings. The master signifier in the narrative is an "umbrella" signifier, which determines the presence of all other elements in the text, but it does not carry the function of explanation, and the narrative becomes available for analysis only through the analysis of the anchor points - the nodal components that form the structure of the narrative. To analyze the narrative is to determine the relative location of the attachment points and the functions they perform in the text.

          Gerard Genette, one of the founders of modern narratology, describing the problem of narrative focalization, distinguished between the point of view presented in the narrative and the image of the narrator himself (the discrepancy between "who sees" and "who tells")^{[14, p. 29]}. In Lacanian terminology , the answer to the question of J. Genette "whose is this look? who's watching?" it is represented by the concept of discourse - speech manifestations of social relationships of communication participants. Zizek notes that in the latest propaganda, the discourse of "mister" (Uncle Sam on the poster "I want YOU for U.S. Army" 1917) has been replaced by university discourse (for example, "experts" promoting the doctrine of "zero losses", zero-casualty warfare in the political space) ^{[15, pp.132-136]}. The modern "master of the situation" exercises his power not just through a symbolic order (electoral process, official powers), but through statements from the position of "neutral" knowledge. Accordingly, the addressee is positioned as a person who has full access to information that is closed to a wide audience, acting on the basis of this knowledge and obeying "objective" laws. The context of such an appeal: it is not I who control the situation, I am guided by historical necessity. Based on the change in the discursive matrix, the image of the narrator has also changed. The etymology of the word "narrator" implies "one who has knowledge" of knowledge (a denominative from the Proto-Italian verb gnarus - to know). One of the conditions for inclusion in university discourse is at least minimal trust of the listener in the narrator, presupposition to him as a subject who knows. Based on this, the answer to the second question is J.Genette ("who is telling?") will sound like this: "a figure of power as a figure of a person who has the fullness of knowledge, unlike an audience seeking this knowledge." According to the apt expression of the author of the classic work "Propaganda Technique in the World War" G. Lasswell, "the public cannot be persuaded by logic, but it is possible to seduce with stories" ^{[16, p. 73]}. When listeners have a request for meaning, for an explanation through knowledge, the prerogative to refer to authoritative (anonymous) sources opens up unlimited possibilities for constructing narratives as a tool for managing public opinion.

          We will demonstrate the mechanism of interaction of the structural elements of the narrative discussed above by the example of the speech of US Secretary of State Colin Powell at the UN Security Council on February 5, 2003.

          It can be argued that Colin Powell's speech did not cause the war in Iraq, since the main stages of planning and preparation of Operation Iraqi Freedom were completed before he appeared in the UN Security Council meeting room ^[17], nevertheless, it made a significant contribution to the legitimization of the war and the creation of a basis for consolidation civil society in the USA.

          The official publication of the American Institute for the Study of Public Opinion (Gallup Institute) dated 02/04/2003 (the day before the Security Council meeting) states that almost nine out of ten Americans interviewed on the weekend before the speech stated that the presentation of K. Powell would be important for determining their opinion on the attack on Iraq, including six of ten said it would be "very" important. The poll also showed that, although the majority supported the invasion, more than half said they could change their mind one way or the other. In its conclusions, the report states that public opinion regarding the justification of the invasion of Iraq remains changeable ^[18].

          Previous Gallup polls showed that the Secretary of State was popular with 88% of Americans, being the most favorably evaluated figure in the domestic political landscape of the United States of America ^[19]. At the time of the survey, the public was much more likely to trust Powell's words about Iraq than the words of President George W. Bush, which reinforced the importance of Powell's speech and the evidence he presented to Council members ^[18]. There is reason to believe that it was the indicators of a consistently high level of trust in K. Powell as a figure "less committed to the idea of war with Iraq than Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld" ^[20], that is, in the eyes of the target audience, more objective, free from cognitive distortions and based on knowledge, that led the White House to appoint him as a narrator, voicing the official narrative to both the world community and the domestic audience.

          The discourse analysis of the text of the speech confirms our original thesis about the prevalence of Lacanian "university discourse" in the modern propaganda narrative. The agent (the one who speaks) defines the entire discourse, sets the master signifier. The other (in the Lacanian conceptual apparatus, this term is always written with a lowercase letter) is the one to whom the discourse is directed, the audience from which the narrator expects a certain action. In this case, these positions are quite transparent: the figure of the Secretary of State who "knows what is best for everyone" and his target audience (the civil society of the country whose leadership is going to carry out a military invasion of the territory of a sovereign state). At the next structural level there is a neutral "knowledge" that encourages the narrator to speak and which is never expressed explicitly. Despite the fact that the purpose of the message is to convince the audience of the legitimacy of the de facto decision, opening the briefing, the narrator declares that the purpose of his speech is "to share additional information that the United States has," claims that "every statement today is supported by sources, reliable sources," "I can't tell everything, what do we know", and further throughout the speech widely uses the wording "numerous sources of information", "accumulated facts", "we have identified many confirmations", "we have forensic examination data", etc. The narrator's starting position is the possession and operation of information obtained from a variety of reliable sources.

          As mentioned above, in order to analyze the structure of the message, it is necessary to identify the anchor points and formulate the master signifier of the narrative through them. The first point of fastening in the analyzed speech was the famous test tube, designed to metaphorically personify the threat of the use of biological weapons by the regime of Saddam Hussein. The demonstration of the test tube was carried out by the narrator in the context of mentioning acts of bioterrorism in the United States using anthrax spores, the victims of which in the fall of 2001 were five people, 17 more were infected. At the time of the speech, the results of the investigation of this terrorist attack had not yet been made public, and public opinion linked their organization with the September 11 attacks. The metaphor with a test tube created a condensation of a sense of threat and triggered a substitution mechanism in which unconscious intentions and affects are externalized in the form of a metaphorical signifier ^{[13, p. 51]}. In this case, this metaphorical signifier, by similarity, was the threat of bioterrorism.

          The second point of fastening, implementing the binding movement, was the statement about the contacts of Saddam Hussein's regime with Al-Qaeda. Content analysis of the transcript of the speech ^[21] showed that in one of the sections of the speech K. Powell referred 21 times to the jihadist of Jordanian origin Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, trying to prove the connection between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. This moment can be identified as the movement of the signifier, realized through a metonymic connection. At the time of the speech, the image of Al-Qaeda as the main enemy of the nation, taking into account the mood after September 11, 2001, was absolutely formed and deeply transformed the mass consciousness, bringing together a variety of social groups. Metonymy fulfilled the functions of the association of the regime of S. Hussein with Al-Qaeda, combining these two images into a single image of the enemy, and launched a diachronic movement from one signifier to another along the chain of signified, when one signifier constantly refers to the other in an eternal postponement of meaning. From that moment on, the entire narrative, including what was said earlier, was already about terrorism, and the master signifier manifested itself as a well-known "war on terrorism", "war on terror" to the target audience.        

          And the last structure of the discourse in the Postlakanov interpretation is the result of communication. Greatly simplifying the original Lacanian concept of produci?n, for the sake of clarity, we will express the expected effect of communication in the results of a sociological survey of the target audience.

          The report of 17.03.2003 (after the fact of the speech) showed a steady 64% support despite the absence of a UN resolution (a deterrent to the growth of militaristic sentiments in society) ^[22]. On March 22-23, support was 72%, reaching 79% at the peak of the propaganda campaign ^[23]. 

          Summing up, it can be noted that the object of communication (the target audience) was initially characterized by lability of positions, uncertainty of attitude in relation to the expected effect of communication. As a result of the impact, a sufficiently high level of support and consolidation of society was formed, the performance managed to reach the widest possible audience. As it seems to us, the key to mass coverage was a carefully constructed narrative composition.   The narrative, as a structure of signifiers connected by a master signifier and subordinated to the dual movement of substitution (metaphor) and binding (metonymy), allows individuals to internalize ideas, giving them the meaning of personal opinion and idiosyncratic character, and not realizing the external (for example, propaganda) nature of their origin. The result of involvement in the university's discourse is the hidden, unconscious nature of the influence of the social structure of society on the subjectivity of its individual individuals.  In this situation, political psychoanalysis positions itself as an instrument of unbiased, non-evaluative research and classification of the structures of propaganda narratives.