Research framework and broader academic knowledge base
Serbia: documented application of the same framework
How do those in power divide society into the 'real people' and 'enemies' and use that division to justify greater power?
When the government presents itself as the only authentic voice of the “real people”, the political opponent is no longer just someone with a different program. He becomes a traitor, a foreign mercenary, a dangerous minority or an enemy of the community. Then the denial of his rights can seem like the defense of the majority, and institutions that limit the leader as obstacles to the popular will.
The division also binds supporters to power: the admitted mistake of its side begins to resemble the betrayal of its own identity. However, identities and fears are not only invented from above; they can have a real history and different meaning for different people. Abuse is seen when the government translates any criticism into hostility and uses that label to justify unequal rights, punishment and removal of control.
Identity is not a fabrication that government simply imposes. It can be profound and real, and the effect of government depends on the audience and other stories that exist in society.
Works supporting this answer, with their evidence type and an explanation of how they relate to the claim.
long-term direct monitoring of political life
Wedeen, L. (1999), Ambiguities of Domination: Politics, Rhetoric, and Symbols in Contemporary Syria, University of Chicago Press.
- Contribution to this answer
- Wedeen shows how regime symbols and rituals determine what can be said publicly and what kind of loyalty is expected. This can help the authorities to mark the boundaries of acceptable political behavior, but the book is not primarily a study of the division of society into a “real people” and a political enemy.
comparing several countries or cases
Dukalskis, A. i Gerschewski, J. (2017), „What Autocracies Say (and What Citizens Hear): Proposing Four Mechanisms of Autocratic Legitimation“, Contemporary Politics 23(3): 251–268.
Dukalskis, A. i Gerschewski, J. (2017), "What Autocracies Say (and What Citizens Hear): Proposing Four Mechanisms of Autocratic Legitimation", Contemporary Politics 23(3): 251–268.
- Contribution to this answer
- Dukalskis and Gerschewski show that autocracy builds stories about why they have the right to rule and how citizens should understand the political order. This is a good framework for the legitimation function of political narratives, but their four mechanisms are not specifically the theory of division into “people” and “enemies”.
review more research
Paglayan, A. S. (2026), „Education as a Political Institution“, Annual Review of Political Science 29: 525–546.
- Contribution to this answer
- Paglayan shows how education can shape political values, national identity and social order and why states invest in indoctrination. This explains how a certain image of the political community can be transmitted through the school, but does not prove specifically the strategy of creating an internal enemy.
research that checks more closely what the cause is
Cantoni, D. i dr. (2017), „Curriculum and Ideology“, Journal of Political Economy 125(2): 338–392.
- Contribution to this answer
- Cantons and co-authors give strong evidence that changing the curriculum can change the political attitudes of students: China’s reform has increased positive assessments of state governance and changed attitudes towards democracy and the market. This shows that the state can shape political attitudes through education, but does not study the division of society into “us” and “them”.
data from a large number of countries
Neundorf, A., Nazrullaeva, E., Northmore-Ball, K., Tertytchnaya, K. i Kim, W. (2024), „Varieties of Indoctrination: The Politicization of Education and the Media around the World“, Perspectives on Politics 22(3): 771–798.
- Contribution to this answer
- Neundorf and co-authors show that regimes use different combinations of education and media to politicize what citizens learn and hear. This explains the infrastructure of indoctrination well, but it is broader than the concrete strategy of labeling a part of society as an enemy.
Is a relevant source missing? Send it to us.
Suggest a source or report an error in this answer →