Callahan, Kathe, Melvin J. Dubnick, and Dorothy Olshfski, “War Narratives: Framing Our Understanding of the War on Terror,” PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW, 66:4 (July/August 2006): 554-568.
Abstract:
Unlike past American wars, the current war on terror has not been associated with a centrally proffered narrative providing some guidance and orientation for those administering government services under state-of-war conditions. War is as much a cultural endeavor as it is a military undertaking, and this study of public administrators from three agencies with varying proximity to the conflict found an absence of a clear sensemaking narrative. Q-methodology was used to explore the way individuals processed the war narratives put forth by the Bush administration and reported in the media immediately following the September 11 attacks. Though no distinct state-of-war narratives were found among the public administrators in this study, there are clear indications that latent narratives reflecting local political and organizational task environments have emerged.
AI-Generated Summary:
This document examines the absence of a central war narrative in the U.S. “war on terror” and explores how public administrators process war-related stories and their implications for public administration and national security.
Public Administration and War Narratives
- Public administrators process war narratives influenced by cultural and organizational contexts.
- The absence of a clear, unified war story post-9/11 affects coordination and support during wartime.
Role of Narratives in War and Culture
- War is a cultural phenomenon shaping societal values and institutional relationships.
- Historical war narratives in America have evolved from biblical and colonial stories to modern political myths.
Impact of War Narratives on Society
- War narratives reinforce national identity, define enemies, and justify policies.
- They influence public perception, media portrayal, and government actions during conflicts.
Methodology for Analyzing War Narratives
- Q-methodology helps explore individual perceptions by ranking statements about the war on terror.
- It groups similar thinking patterns, revealing how public officials interpret wartime environments.
Types of State-of-War Narratives
- Four main narratives identified: garrison state, temporary state, glass firewall, and enemy within.
- Each narrative reflects different operational demands and cultural commitments regarding wartime society.
Implications for Public Administrators
- Without a dominant narrative, administrators face challenges in making sense of their roles.
- They rely on “multiple drafts” of stories, continuously revising their understanding of the environment.
Significance of Narrative Theory
- Narratives shape human thought and action, serving as causal, dependent, or internalized factors.
- They are central to sensemaking, especially in altered environments like post-9/11 wartime America.
Use of Q-Methodology in War Narrative Analysis
- Q-methodology helps clarify subjective war narratives by combining quantitative grouping with qualitative insights.
- Respondents arrange statements from war narratives into a forced distribution, revealing their underlying perspectives.
Participant Sample and Context
- The study involved 30 mid- to upper-level public sector managers from Port Authority, INS, and Montclair, New Jersey.
- Participants were affected by 9/11, with roles related to security, immigration, and local governance, influencing their war narratives.
Narrative Statements and Thematic Groups
- Four main narratives emerged: Garrison State, Temporary State, Enemy Within, and Glass Firewall.
- Participants’ narratives reflected their professional roles and ideological leanings, with some clustering into two primary groups.
Findings on Narrative Clusters
- One group prioritized civil liberties, opposing racial profiling and emphasizing the war’s temporary disruptions.
- The other focused on vigilance, supporting security measures and proactive responses to threats.
- Both groups agreed that the war would take decades to resolve and opposed complete military withdrawal from security.
Influence of Ideology and Environment
- Personal and professional backgrounds shaped how individuals internalized war narratives.
- Public administrators relied on their existing values rather than a unified government narrative, leading to diverse perspectives.
- The study found that ideological leanings, such as liberal or conservative views, significantly influenced narrative orientation.
Challenges in Categorization and Interpretation
- Participants struggled to categorize statements, indicating complex and ambivalent attitudes.
- The INS managers did not cluster strongly, likely due to their diverse roles and demographics.
- The absence of a clear, authoritative national war narrative led individuals to rely on latent, personal stories.
Implications for War Narrative Development
- The lack of a cohesive, central war narrative created a vacuum filled by personal ideological stories.
- Different social milieus and political orientations shaped how public officials understood and responded to the war.
- The study suggests that official narratives may not fully influence individual perceptions in complex security environments.
Conclusions on Narrative Formation
- Personal values and experiences heavily influence war narratives in the absence of a unified government message.
- Conservative narratives emphasize vigilance and security, while liberal ones focus on civil liberties and temporary disruptions.
- Future research should explore how evolving official narratives impact public and administrative perceptions over time.