Pivoting the narrative

It seems pretty clear to me that pivoting the narrative is synonymous to subverting the dominant paradigm.

Also, I'm a bit frightened that I'm being perfectly honest about that.

I think you should change the title to The Narrative of Pivoting... and you just wrote the paper. Nothing more needs to be said on the subject.

this just in:

Pivoting the narrative :
Giving voice to the void

“Things,” it has been said, “have never been more like they are today.” That is nowhere more true than in the hegemony of modern hermeneutics, as the external comes to grips with the matter of the other. Some might even go so far as to indicate that the event represents the intentional attempt to empathically comprehend the experiential discourse of the other—imputing will where it is perhaps not —but nonetheless, it appears clear that the process of interest is the critical transformation as substance itself forms of the unknowable.

“Pivoting the narrative” is not a silly paper to write at all. On the contrary, it is what current counterterrorism strategy is all about. Check the new UK Strategy on Countering International Terrorism (http://security.homeoffice.gov.uk/news-publications/publication-search/general/HO_Contest_strategy.pdf?view=Binary, see p. 35 for example).

The narrative in this context is the one promoted by terrorist organizations: the “story” they tell global audiences about a Western aggression on Islam. This narrative is important because it provides a rationale for al-Qaida’s actions and motivates new recruits. It constitutes an interpretative framework through which local, national and global events are read. The challenge for Western democracies (or indeed anybody involved in counterterrorism) is “turning that story around” or, in other words, “pivoting the narrative”. So far I have seen references to “rewriting the narrative” (see this report for example: http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/pubPDFs/PTF2-Counterradicalization.pdf) or producing counternarratives. Perhaps “pivoting” sounds cooler. The “pivoted narrative” would consist in emphasizing that the West is not at war with Islam. And that we can work together for future peace and prosperity. Sounds familiar? In case you had not realized Obama’s speech in Cairo was precisely an effort at pivoting the narrative...

So “pivoting the narrative” does have sense. What I am sceptical about is its feasibility (perhaps the title of the paper should be “pivoting the narrative?”). I do research on political communication and the most stupid thing to do in the current communication environment (digital media, instantaneous communications, global networks, niche audiences...) is assuming that there are “messages” (or stories or narratives) that can be communicated from sender A to a specific audience B as if they were packages or “things”. Audiences are thought to be passive and gullible. The idea is that new recruits decide to join al-Qaida because they are exposed to the terrorists’ narrative and, if they heard a different story (the counternarrative), then they would change their mind. I am not saying that al-Qaida propaganda does not have any effect, but this view completely overlooks issues of 1) active interpretation by audiences: individuals might (and actually do) read the same messages differently. Besides I might get your message really clearly, I just disagree with it; 2) most importantly CREDIBILITY. The narrative can be “turned around”, but this has to happen through voices within Islam. “We” (Western democracies and non-Muslim communities) don’t have the credibility to do that.

The very idea that you can “pivot” the narrative adds to the notion that the narrative or the story is a “thing”. This is wrong. The narrative is a collective construction: it keeps on existing not only because Osama bin Laden tells the story, but because larger audiences embrace it and keep on re-telling it. And this has more to do with actual policies than rhetorical constructions. Solving the Palestinian question could do infinitely more than the most massive “pivoting”...

What about:
“Pivoting the idea of pivoting the narrative?”

Tom,

I refuse to support ANY attempt to pivot the narrative unless the pivoter is willing to offer enough granularity and fidelity to truly allow the end-user some insight on the effects-based targeting it will foster. Otherwise, we're chasing our tail down a rabbit hole filled with self-licking ice cream cones.

We're dealing with a large delta and a steep learning curve here, so we need to get comfortable being uncomfortable, recognizing that the only constant in this environment is...change.

I believe that Clausewitz once said that Sun-Tzu once said that victory in one thousand battles will be complete only when we have swallowed the dominant paradigm wholesale and then made sure that we've all boarded the bus to Abilene!

best,
gp

And how will you pivot the narrative next week when the CNAS conference brings together so many that might actually make something happen? Looking forward to attending.

. . . hit the reset button on all this overused-buzzword rhetoric? I mean, it's true: mistakes were made. But going forward, can't we put it behind us?