The author of the analytical article is Nia Kuchava, a second-year student of the School of Governance and Social Sciences (undergraduate) of the Free University. This essay was written for the competition "The role of misinformation in the formation of historical memory".

The competition was organized by IDFI with the financial support of the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, SIDA. The views expressed in the analysis may not reflect the position of the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA) and the Institute for Development of Freedom of Information (IDFI).

Nia Kuchava is one of the winners of the competition - she took the 2nd place.

-

The distortion and fragmentation of the historical factuality and records with the aim of construing them in conformity with a biased narrative or a prejudiced standpoint is a very prevalent practice. Another key point that is crucial to observe is the exact criteria or a peculiarity that the disfigured and misinterpreted piece of information must be the possessor of in order to acquire the value of inheritability and be capable of converting into an acknowledged authenticity. In the following essay I will try to analyze the most significant aspects of the concoction of misinformation and bring very specific accounts of such practices being capable of achieving the consummated level of convincingness and persuasiveness.

Apparatus for group experiments (with screen removed; from Sherif, 1936, p.94).

For the purpose of getting a better understanding of the phenomena of construction of disinformation and the replication of a certain period of time, we should perceive the fabricated truth as a crystallized social norm. One of the most significant matters of social psychology is the exact mechanism behind the modification of a concrete “fact” and the process of converting it to a shared belief. It is very important to find the exact criteria that grants a reshaped certainty with such puissance that it can successfully break the barrier of manifold and diverse groups of people with different age or nationality. First and foremost, one of the most noteworthy experiments concerning the crystallization of a social norm that does not correspond to objective truth such as physical and natural laws and society’s tendency of conforming to the said social norms in completely unambiguous settings was conducted by Muzafer Sherif and it is called the autokinetic effect test.[1] The technical aspect of the examination was quite simple and straightforward for the participants. In the dark laboratory room, the point of reference of the light was not visible for the observers, therefore, they could not measure the distance and the motion of the light. Sherif was determined to elaborate the consequence of social pressure that was put on the spectators once the distinguished group of people would interpret the motion of the light in a certain way that was not in accordance to the primary records statements provided by the participants. The main focus was to find the exact moment when the statements would start to be undifferentiated and uniform because that would be the exact point of the creation of a solidified belief derived from the misinformation spread by the conductors of the experiment.

Sherif pointed out some of the key outcomes of the test in his evaluation which indicate the fact that the likelihood of the groups conforming to the fabricated descriptions was higher when the participants who had the instructions of their perceptions provided by the examiners were present physically. Furthermore, the materialization of the norm was conspicuous subsequent to the initial examinations and the replacement of the spectators or the time period between different sessions was not sufficient in reshaping the false narrative. Despite the fact that the said records given by the spectators were not influenced by the empirical facts and logic, the tendency of accepting the social norms was very prominent and such effect could have been achieved with the use of different instruments such as the insistence created by authoritative figures or the dominance of a great number of people. That being so, it is detectable that given the right attributes a certain misinformation can easily serve as a dominant belief that is a priori given a credence to by the majority of people and with the effect of domination and influence the objective truth will be put aside by the ones who perceive things differently and have no motivation or enthusiasm for opposing the acclaimed “truth”.

One’s conformity towards a certain misinformation has its origins in a social necessity that manifests in our social need to conduct ourselves in accordance with the common collective pattern. People tend to follow the comprehensible and apparent scripts or scenarios that are spelled out by the other members of society and can be attained through a vigilant scrutiny of the implementation of social messages that are acknowledged as the “right” action in a certain social setting. Therefore, most of the times we gravitate towards the dominant thoughts and there is no mechanism that can exclude a possibility of the dominant thought being a lie constructed to create a false narrative. Besides, the pre-existed behavioral script between the authority and the subordinate could have an impact on the processing and distinguishing the data and information collected. That being the case, we have already discussed the psychological and social perspective about a formula which can efficaciously illustrate the condition that a certain misinformation must accomplish in order to be perceived as a reality.

The capability of standing out and prevailing over the alternative realities is one of the most noteworthy and significant aspects of shaping an appealing disinformation. In order to survive and be acknowledged as an ultimate truth, the false narrative must possess some of the most crucial and essential qualities that lie exclusively within the formation of a successfully manufactured reality. In his work, “The Archeology of Knowledge” Michel Foucault discusses the practice of different authors criticizing each other’s work without getting the glimpse of the creation of their theories.[2] Here Foucault lists a set of very important aspects that are significant in the formation of thought and argues that during the process of scrutinizing a specific narrative provided by a different person, we neglect and fail to look after so many important parts that took part in shaping the ruminations, such as externalities, a very specific mental picture and logical bond that is incapable of being fully and perfectly attained by an outsider. That being said, it is highly plausible for the logical inaccuracies of the misinformation to stay obscure, inconspicuous or unattainable during the collection of such narrative. It can be perceived as a fragment or continuation of a specific historical reality and using the right variables can contribute to the connection and link up between the symbols that trigger a certain memory of a historical narrative and the misreported and misinterpreted piece of knowledge. The corresponding symbols must be consistent with the ideology or the chronicle that one wishes to create. As a consequence, the intention of a narrative creates a demand for certain ideas and beliefs that should be revived in order to ensure the longevity of a specific portrayal of the reality. For instance, one of the most representative cases of such demand and the reintroduction of a certain outlook or a viewpoint is the one that was suggested by Émile Durkheim.[3]Durkheim expostulates with the well-established notion that evinces the pattern of consistency between the Renaissance and the aftermath of the cultural movement that caused the diversification of a prominent lifestyle and vindicates that people were cognizant of classical principles or views beforehand, the foremost objective of reviving the classical literature, scholar works and ideas was the demand that was created by the metamorphosis of people’s lifestyle and the economic movements that led societies to justify the swap between an acknowledged Christian modest way of living to habits that give rise to opulence. It was the primary change of conduct of life and work that necessitated the promotion of affluence and prioritizing economic growth that resulted in the need of philosophy that encouraged the newly discovered moral codes. Hence, sometimes certain narratives or thoughts can serve the sole purpose of exculpating a change of a lifestyle, marginalization or any other action that demands the activation of a newly crafted viewpoint. In such cases, disinformation can be very productive and convenient.

Misinformation and the attempt of creating a false account of historical events has been a prominent practice in oriental studies. As stated in the famous work of Edward Said, Orientalism revolves around the description of non-western cultures provided by western authors, who have a tendency of portraying western and orient cultures as binary oppositions and demonstrate the idea of the privileged western people having a burden of supervising the “underdeveloped” out-groups, creating an exotic image of the “other” in the process.[4] With the aim of proving their superiority the orientalist authors used ethnocentric approach and put effort into the making of an inaccurate resemblance and representation of a civilization that falls behind the “more civilized” colonizers in terms of cultural evolution. The evaluation system of different cultures was simply based on the standards and values that was followed by western societies, therefore, with drawing a clear line between them and the “others”, orientalists managed to create an effigy of a foreign-looking and bizarre culture which resulted in the creation of stereotypes that resembled the people of colonized states in accordance to the western gaze. Said also points out the phenomenon of feminization of geography and painting the people of colonized country with feminine and submissive traits, while also alluding to the masculinity of the colonizer who serves as a savior. Creating a sense of inferiority with the help of misrepresentation and misinterpretation of other countries has to be one of most convenient forms of the usage of disinformation.[5] The more evidence that the descriptions and the chronicles create, the harder it will be for the colonized to free themselves from the false image that was laid upon them by force and the misuse of power. The imperial forces have shown propensity for creating the forced identities and false representations of such scale that the misinformation would affect the longevity of the existence of a certain notion and the memory of people who were susceptible to the propaganda throughout the history. The soviet government was also very determined to create disinformation that would have a long-lasting effect on the recollection of the historical reality. The control of press, censoring, the bombardment of people’s minds with endless propaganda and falsified information, degradation and humiliation of eminent public figures that had a lot of influence on the citizens of the republics were very common practices and tactics of crafting disinformation in The Soviet Union.[6] That being said, in some cases the disinformation lies within a passive oppression that is disguised as an ethnographic data and scientific documentation.

The contribution of disinformation in the making of a historical narrative applied by an authoritarian regime such as The Soviet Union is quite vivid. It was very important for the government to control and influence the national sentiments of the soviet republics. At first, the Soviet government applied the policy of “korenizatsiia”, which would strengthen the nationalistic approaches and attitudes whilst these sentiments would combat the Russian chauvinism.[7] Later, a new policy would be adopted in the form of “The Friendship of The Peoples” of which the Soviet government have mandated with the aim of demonstrating the historical superiority of the Russian nationality and creating a sense of supremacy within the smaller republics whilst simultaneously demeaning the ethnic minorities. The reinterpretation of the history of the republics must have been in harmony with the common soviet narrative and most of the times Stalin’s policy would use disinformation in order to legitimate the superiority of Russia within the equal state. During the said policy, the facts from Georgian history were misconstrued in order to paint The Russian Empire as the savior of Georgian people and the safest companion in the process of opposing the external threats. Moreover, the contribution of the Russian Empire in strengthening Georgia’s European affairs was misjudged as well. The disinformation implemented by the Soviet government was strong enough for it to survive for much longer period of time. As of today, the most common argument that is used in order to disregard the threat of the Russian expansion is the false narratives created by the Soviet policy, which portrays the Russian element as a superior state and nationality.

During the Cold War, hundreds of salacious and bogus headlines around the world appeared, part of a covert playbook of Russian disinformation used to undermine America. NBC News

It is incontrovertible that in the 21^st century the severity of the conflict is manifested in the war of information and military forces no longer play the decisive part. Our minds are bombarded with countless new data and it is quite challenging to differentiate the falsified information and the reality. The hierarchy and the constant competition within the realm of information is quite harsh. The news that attracts many people, are put up by myriad of internet forums and promoted strategically can really affect one’s perception of modern affairs and carry the ideology that was intended to reach its target audience. One of the most conspicuous accounts of the Hybrid War has to be the invasion of the Crimean Peninsula by the Russian Federation. The Russian strategy was to create the sources of information within the territory of the opposite side that would suppress and overpower the other news outlets and promote the Russian narratives and propaganda.[8] In order to create a sense of disorganization and chaos the Russian media would claim that the citizens were protesting against the central government of Kiev and were showing hostility and distrust. The Russian media labeled the protestors as the opposition whilst creating a false narrative about the political hostility in the region that was forced and crafted as a part of Russian war strategy and propaganda. The media was constantly trying to prove the legitimacy the separatist authorities and leaders of The Luhansk People’s Republic and The Donetsk People’s Republic and the validity of their aims.[9] Therefore, the said account can be set as an example of how the monopoly of disinformation in the realm of media can affect and ultimately change the course of conflicts of such scale and promote the unhealthy narrative designed with the aim of concerning the integrity of the state. It is crucial to scrutinize the collected data in order to avoid the influence of the misinformation that is purposely crafted to manipulate one’s thoughts and actions.

In conclusion, I have given a mention to some of the mechanisms and historical accounts of the distortion of reality through the usage of disinformation, the techniques of crafting a false narrative and the effect of the misconceptions on the collective memory and the recollection of a certain period of time. It is important to note that not every disinformation is created from a completely made-up narrative and a falsity, but it can also be spread with the use of misinterpretation and mistranslation of the identities and images that have been present beforehand.

Bibliography

[1]Muzafer Sherif, “An Experimental Approach to the Study of Attitudes,” Sociometry 1, no. 1/2 (1937): 90–98.

[2] Michel Foucault, The Archeology of Knowledge (Cornwall: Tavistock Publications Limited, 1972), 142-148.

[3] Émile Durkheim, Power and Ideology in Education (New York: Oxford University Press, 1977), 92-105.

[4] Edward W. Said, Orientalism (London: Penguin Books, 2003), 31-92.

[5] Edward W. Said, Orientalism (London: Penguin Books, 2003), 31-92.

[6] Nicholas J. Cull, Vasily Gatov, Peter Pomerantsev, Anne Applebaum and Alistair Shawcross, Soviet Subversion, Disinformation and Propaganda: How the West Fought Against it (London: London School of Economics and Political Science, 2017), 18-26.

[7] Megi Kartsivadze, Anton Vatcharadze,“History Politics in the Soviet Union and Prof. Ivane Javakhishvili's Fate”, the Institute for the Development of Freedom of Information (IDFI), accessed on January 7th, 2024.https://www.idfi.ge/archive/index.php?cat=read_topic&topic=153&lang=ka&authuser=0

[8] András Rácz, Russia’s Hybrid War in Ukraine: Breaking the Enemy’s Ability to Resist, Helsinki: The Finnish Institute of International Affairs, 2015, 57-70.

[9] András Rácz, Russia’s Hybrid War in Ukraine: Breaking the Enemy’s Ability to Resist, Helsinki: The Finnish Institute of International Affairs, 2015, 57-70.