A Theoretical Analysis of Terrorist Propaganda and Organisational Internal Framing

(1)

LEIDEN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF SECURITY AND GLOBAL AFFAIRS

MSC CRISIS AND SECURITY MANAGEMENT

MASTER THESIS

A

T

HEORETICAL

A

NALYSIS OF

T

ERRORIST

P

ROPAGANDA AND

O

RGANISATIONAL

I

NTERNAL

F

RAMING

BY ANNA-MARIYA ANDREEVA S2085186

DATE:13TH_J_ANUARY₂₀₁₉

(2)

I would like to thank my supervisor Dr Johannes Vüllers for his guidance and support throughout this project. Although the process was somewhat shorter by about a month, I am grateful for his focused comments in helping me to quickly establish myself within the topic. As this is a topic I am passionate about, I am pleased that it was Dr Vüllers who was able to guide me in producing this paper.

I would also like to express my gratitude to Dr Joery Matthys. It is thanks to him not only that I was able to do the CSM master programme, but was also able to work on a thesis topic I love.

In a final note, I would also like to thank my parents for their support and encouragement throughout the last year. Their belief in my abilities was appreciated when I did not believe in myself.

(5)

A

T

HEORETICAL

A

NALYSIS OF

T

ERRORIST

P

ROPAGANDA AND

O

RGANISATIONAL

I

NTERNAL

F

RAMING

UNDER WHAT EXTERNAL CONDITIONS DOES THE INTERNAL FRAMING OF ISISCHANGE?

1.INTRODUCTION

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) declared the established Caliphate in June 2014 after capturing the city of Mosul, Iraq. A deep and complex history led to this moment when the organisation peaked in power over territories, resources, political strength and domination of international news. At the time of writing, ISIS has lost control over most of the territories it controlled during the declaration of its State, however, the group is still active, and so in other parts of the world. Attacks are still possible in the West and the war in Syria has no end in sight (BBC, 2018a). Therefore, considering the organisation’s size, its reach, and the potential threat it could still pose, a thorough understanding of this particular organisation is highly relevant, partly for its past and partly for its future. Because ISIS poses such a significant risk to our societies, it has been chosen as the source material in this research. The findings presented later in this paper aim to also provide a more general vantage point in understanding the internal functioning of terrorist organisations. Therefore, this paper aims to answer the research question Under what external conditions does the

internal framing of ISIS change?.

It is of interest here to understand what are the conditions or factors under which changes to framing occur, and what these changes signify, such as for example, the weakening or expanding of an organisation. Carron and Brawley discuss how “socialisation and interaction processes” (2000: 102) within groups can lead to stronger group cohesion. This research aims to translate these interaction processes with conditions external to the group structure, and argues that this can lead to an understanding of how the internal frames of terrorist groups change over time. These interactions are at the core of this research. As noted above, research already exists on the specific themes of ISIS propaganda, but what is lacking is an analysis of the particular interactions between these themes with the world outside of the group. Using ISIS as a case study to illustrate and hypothesise on the dynamics of most terrorist organisations is a conscious choice partly because material the organisation produces is somewhat easily available online. ISIS is also an organisation with far and wide reaching effects – it is known globally and attracts audiences from a myriad of backgrounds, therefore providing such academic understanding can be a useful addition in informing future policy decisions.

(6)

More broadly, the goal is to attain a better grasp of how terrorist groups in general maintain cohesion. An obvious aspect to the importance of group cohesion is the survival of the group. Group cohesion has been the subject of study in many psychology sub-disciplines (Carron and Brawley, 2000), but such thorough understandings and analyses are not necessary. However, it is still vital to define the broader term group cohesion in order to understand the holistic relevance of this research. Carron and Brawley (2000) define cohesion as a property belonging to (small) groups, with shared identities and goals (ibid: 94). In order to propose an understanding of how group cohesion functions particularly within terrorist organisations, the focal point in this research will be to analyse the efforts of leadership to maintain it, thus ensuring the group’s survival. Although thorough research on the creation of group cohesion within terrorist organisations is equally important, this research will take this initial construction of cohesion as a given and instead focus on the linear progression and development of organisational frames in order to maintain cohesion. This is important in understanding how terrorist group leadership works to ensure the survival of the group. Maintenance of group cohesion requires concentrated and continuous effort on behalf of organisational leaders, especially of terrorist groups which are constantly threatened with fractioning.

Therefore, maintenance of group cohesion, rather than its formation, is the focus of this study, and to achieve an understanding of this process, the research will analyse the changes in frames used by ISIS leadership through the group’s official media outlet magazines Dabiq and Rumiyah. Although when writing in relation to Dabiq and Al-Qaeda’s Inspire magazines, Ingram uses the following justification to study terrorist organisations’ propaganda material, which is also relevant here: “The central argument of this article is that Inspire and Dabiq provides their readership with a “competitive system of meaning” (i.e., an alternative perspective of the world compared to that presented by their opponents), that acts as a “lens” through which to shape their supporters’ perceptions, polarize their support, and, ultimately, convince them to mobilize.” (Ingram, 2017a: 358). The material published in these magazines targets wide readership, which is also reflected in their broad availability (accessible online in multiple languages). Often the messages target new recruits, current members and/or outside readers, but overall the messages reflect the group’s ideology.

Thorough analysis of the particular external frames used by ISIS in the propaganda they disseminate has been conducted by academics such as Charlie Winter (2017; 2018), Haroro Ingram (2016a; 2017a), Rothenberger et al. (2018) and Norris et al., (2003) amongst others. External in this sense refers to the themes, analytical frameworks and topics academics have created as a result of analysis. These external frames are highly valuable for a myriad of purpose ranging from expanding academic dialogue on terrorist organisations, to providing basis for policy advice in counterterrorism. This type of work provides an overview of the end products and outputs of ISIS propaganda, however the main

(7)

research topic in this paper concerns the more dynamic process of frame changes and the desired effects of this. As such, the particular focus is on internal framing - or, on how terrorist groups themselves create their identities and maintain cohesion through the language they adopt to present themselves (see also: Steinberg, 1998: 858). This is a key underlying theme in discourse analysis because it illuminates how research subjects shape their identities in relation to outside factors. Discourse analysis considers the internal, self-defined notions of identity. Identity construction and reconstruction is deeply related to the constant maintenance of cohesion between group members. To the maximum extent possible discourse analysis of frames removes researcher bias and provides a closest, clearest picture of reality.

A theoretical model of analysis is proposed as a guiding principle of this research, which argues that three important categories or factors affect changes in discourse frames. The three factors are part of the dynamics of most extremist terrorist organisations, and therefore the generalisations drawn should be applicable to theories about the internal framing of other such organisations. These categories are

Killing of civilians in territories of ISIS power; Killing of ISIS combatants; and Killing of the Other.

These conditions are constituent parts of broader themes noted in ISIS propaganda (Droogan and Peattie, 2017; Mahlouly and Winter, 2018), and because of the significant attention such acts evoke in citizens across the world, they have been chosen as indicative signifiers of changes in propaganda. These three factors revolve around the loss of life, which has significant impacts on targeted audiences whichever way it is framed. Such acts have the potential to mobilise support for the in-group or to incite hatred for the out-in-group, more so than other external factors.

The next chapter of this paper is divided into three general sections. Under literature review, I will examine the existing academic work on discourse analysis and framing theory. This gives the paper the groundwork from which to build up the academic analysis. Following on from this, I provide detailed examination of the literature on framing with regards to terrorist organisations. Because a large amount of research already exists on ISIS, and in particular their propaganda, a thorough overview is provided of the key texts. The chapter then concludes with a reflective part on discussion of group cohesion. By starting from a broader perspective and narrowing down the concepts studied to the particular research question posed above, the literature review aims to highlight the missing links and provide the stepping stones towards the theoretical model proposed in chapter three. Chapter three builds upon the literature examples provided in the previous chapter. In order to answer the research question, I propose a theoretical model through which to conduct the analysis. The model provides detailed definitions of the three external conditions briefly outlined above, as well as the

(8)

correlational relationship with the changes in internal framing. This will be the analytical tool used to understand better challenges to group cohesion and individual frame alignment.

In chapter four, I outline a brief historical overview of the case study, and answer some methodological concerns. ISIS is an important organisation to study because of its reach. It pulls in individuals from every part of the world, through the spread of propaganda and the way it presents itself to its audiences. Understanding these methods are vital in understanding how, in the short term, to prepare for its attacks, and in the long term, defeat it. In this chapter, I also acknowledge the choice of empirical evidence, and provide justification for relying on ISIS propaganda for the data in this research.

I continue by looking at the methodological considerations in chapter five, where the focus is on how I conducted this research. Here I acknowledge the specific methods I use, and the reasons for doing so. By focusing on discourse analysis and framing, descriptions of concepts and how they are integrated into the research, and the methods of data collection and analysis, I aim, in this chapter, to bring transparency to the research. I also hope to provide answers regarding the validity and reliability of this research.

Chapters six and seven provide an overview of the general findings and a more thorough analysis in regard the three internal frames, respectively. Whilst in chapter six I provide a summary of the commonalities present throughout the research, chapter seven looks deeper into the relationship between the three conditions and the internal frames of ISIS. Here, in chapter seven, I also apply the theoretical model proposed in chapter three to the findings and provide a discussion on the effects of the three factors on the frames and elaborate on what this means for group cohesion more broadly. Chapter eight concludes the paper with a short discussion departing from the research question posed above. This chapter also presents suggestions and possibilities for future research.

(9)

2.LITERATURE REVIEW

The literature presented below provides an overview of the academic body of knowledge that focuses on how organisational framing is maintained by different actors. The first section of this literature review presents an academic background into the methods used for the analysis later on. The literature presented does not exclusively focus on terrorist organisations, but rather the following section is used to provide an understanding of how organisations construct and maintain their identities. The literature examined is then applied to terrorist groups more specifically and will be illustrated later through the case study. Furthermore, a concise consideration of the body of work on the thematic areas of ISIS is presented, in order to help situate the discussion within the wider academic literature. Finally, an examination of group cohesion is presented in order to provide the broader and more abstract theoretical base upon which the research is based on.

Discourse Analysis And Framing

As Baker-Beall (2014) argues, discourse analysis can be a useful method to “analyse the constitutive relationship between social action and meaning.” (ibid: 214). Michel Foucault (1989) was one of the first to introduce discourse analysis to academia and to really establish it as an analytical method. For Foucault, discourse analysis allows actors the agency to create, shape and alter meaning through the use of language. This is especially true of the process of creating and maintaining identities (including group identity). Part of discourse analysis also rests on dichotomous divisions and interactions between actors. Milliken (1999) notes that binary oppositions exist in discourses as part of the process of creating a system of signification (ibid: 229). The construction of meaning is inherent in a larger system of relationships and signifiers. In the context of this research, particular interest is paid to the dichotomous division in an ‘us versus them’ system1_{. Through discourse analysis, the goal here is to} understand how terrorist groups use language to frame themselves as organisations (Hansen, 2006), and especially in response to external conditions. Using discourse analysis allows for a more thorough understanding of the development of terrorist group identity.

Going further, framing is an important concept used to analyse the different themes and relationships between active actors engaged in discourse construction. Much like Foucault in the field of discourse analysis, Erving Goffman has been considered one of the forefathers of frame analysis. Writing in 1974, Goffman described frames as “schemata of interpretation” (1974: 21). For Goffman, frames are contextual borders within which individuals are able to input information they perceive and make sense of it. Frameworks are shaped and constantly reworked and cannot exist in isolation precisely because of their nature. They are imbued with meaning they receive from other sources. As Snow et

(10)

al. discuss, “frames function to organise experience and guide action, whether individual or collective” (1986: 464). The authors go on to propose the theory of frame alignment, which describes the process of individuals’ beliefs and values aligning with that of small movement organisations or SMOs (ibid), and propose micromobilisation to explain the processes which facilitate communication and interaction. Furthermore, they insist that frame alignment is a necessary step in movement participation, but highlight that it is neither an assured characteristic, nor a constant one. The authors argue that frame alignment is something which must be constantly maintained and attended to. A further relevant insight into framing is provided by Snow and Benford to explain how the process is used to “assign meaning to and interpret, relevant events and conditions in ways that are intended to mobilise potential adherents and constituents, to garner bystander support, and to demobilise antagonists.” (1988: 198). Continuing with the notion of constant need to attend to frame alignment, this point further highlights the continuous nature of the process. A final important distinction the authors make is that when it comes to social movements, visibility of their actions and interactions is focused on events in the public, external side (ibid: 214). However, Snow and Benford (1988) argue that framing also takes place within the bigger framework in which the organisation aligns with individuals. This internal framing is of key interest in this research.

Finally, Steinberg (1998) reiterates framing as a process of mobilisation through the use of language and communication to sustain collective action (ibid: 846; see also Gerhards and Rucht, 1992). He also elaborates more clearly on the purpose of a master frame which serves as a broad tool, as “the edges, the mutable and fuzzy boundaries” (Steinberg: 1998: 859), used in collective action to create and shape meaning. He puts importance on the flexibility in the use of language in this process of meaning making, and argues that it is a shared process, a process which is “developed internationally with opponents and targets.” (ibid: 857, emphasis in original).

Mobilisation in the sense used by Steinberg (1998) and Gerhards and Rucht (1992) can be substituted in this research to more aptly refer to group cohesion. As the case study of choice here is ISIS propaganda, and the group more generally, it is important to read the literature to suit this. The focus is on the whole group and its cohesiveness, therefore the individuals within ISIS are understood as necessary, although not focal elements to the analysis. It is important to understand however, the master frame within which group cohesiveness is reinforced and maintained. The master frame constitutes the cohesive boundaries and the interactions within them, between ISIS leadership and group members. These interactions can be characterised as the messages and responses that are a centre of analysis in this research. These internal workings of the master frame are constantly shaped

(11)

through discourse - through the responses to different external conditions in the efforts of ISIS leadership to maintain frame alignment.

Framing, Themes and Terrorist Organisations

To understand the master frame as a process of group cohesiveness, a breakdown of specific characteristics that are used to establish this (or to further maintain this frame alignment) is necessary. The argument in this paper is that there are specific micromobilisation processes which are effects of the interaction (and reaction) between ISIS and events external to the organisation. More detail of these is provided in the next section. Furthermore, such micromobilisation processes have not been studied in depth thus far, therefore the review of available literature presented below serves as a guide on the common themes and approaches to ISIS framing in academia. It is important to note here that academic writing on terrorist or rebel groups’2_{internal framing approaches is somewhat lacking,} therefore the literature provided below focuses more on the methods of cohesion different extremist groups adopt.

A myriad of academic research exists on the various themes present in analyses of ISIS propaganda (Winter, 2015; Fernandez, 2015; Zelin, 2015; Torres Soriano, 2011; Ingram, 2016b, 2017a, 2017b), however, such analyses only provide basic starting points in terms of content of ISIS propaganda. Some of the main themes prominent in terrorist propaganda magazines are: recruitment and mobilisation (e.g. Ingram, 2017b); spread of fear (e.g. Winter, 2015); anti-western attitudes (e.g. Torres Soriano, 2011). These themes can serve as additional points of analysis, however the main focus of this research is on providing a correlational insight into external events and internal framing. The most relevant research on terrorist frames is provided in a recent publication by Mahlouly and Winter (2018), where the authors examined two media publications by ISIS in order to provide a better understanding of how the group presents itself. The end goal of Mahlouly and Winter’s research differs from that of this research in that they aim to categorise the common themes in ISIS publications, whereas in this research I look for a possible correlational relationship, however the methodology and content in Mahlouly and Winter’s work are a good starting point for this research paper. Because the focal analytical point in this paper is propaganda, it is useful to summarise what Mahlouly and Winter (2018) conceive to be the main research areas in the field. For them, “propaganda-focused literature is split between i) studies that examine online sympathiser communities and social networks; ii) archival studies that use thematic analysis to dissect the Islamic State’s meta-narrative; and iii) studies that use content analysis to decipher specific propaganda genres, motifs, and media products.” (ibid: 9). Furthermore, the authors highlight the fluidity in the

2_{Although in this research I acknowledge that there are differences between the two definitions, the two words terrorist}

(12)

organisational structure, and refer to the official propaganda as a key tool to reinforce the terrorist network, maintaining identity and cohesion (Mahlouly and Winter, 2018). Similarly, the authors also refer to Myriam Benraad’s work in noting that, for example, Dar al-Islam magazine (A French-language ISIS-published magazine) largely produces propaganda which “reflects European society more than anything else, framing Islam as a reaction to modernity” (Benraad, 2017, in Mahlouly and Winter, 2018: 10). These two points are key takeaways from the literature for two reasons. Firstly, they reiterate the idea that group cohesion has to be constantly maintained and attended to, and especially so through organisational propaganda. Secondly, the research hypothesis that the internal framing of identity and reinforcement of group cohesion are affected by external factors has some support.

For a better understanding of propaganda, and its significance within terrorist organisation settings, Winter (2015) writes that the concept cannot exist in isolation, but instead it exists in an interacting dynamic between ideas, actors and narratives3_{. Furthermore, he highlights the central objective of} propaganda and those utilising it is to reinforce beliefs. Similar to what Nacos (2005) notes about framing of female terrorists in media portrayals, the way a frame works is that it must exclude certain realities to preference others in order to re-establish and maintain a narrative. Therefore, if the master frame is group cohesion, the analysis in this paper will note reiteration of themes which maintain this (Ingram, 2016a). The dynamic interaction between propaganda and external conditions will be visible in analyses of micromobilisation presented below.

In a similar vein to Ingram’s work (2016b), this research aims to evaluate the ISIS-produced magazines Dabiq and Rumiyah, and look for micromobilisation processes informing the group cohesion of ISIS. Ingram (2016b) looked at in-group and out-group (Other) identity constructions through propaganda and the use of value-, dichotomy- and crisis-reinforcing narratives. He found that data he analysed provided a framework which served as a guiding post for target audiences to better understand group identity, as well as the outside world. Adding to the literature of group differentiation, Arland Jacobson (2013) writes an analysis between group dynamics between Israelis and Palestinians. He notes the creation of an enemy Other by in-group members by relying on negative emotions such as hate, mistrust and evilness. Although emotion in conflict is a fascinating research topic, it is beyond the scope of this paper to elaborate further on its significance. However, it is important to describe it here in order to note that it is a significant contributor to the construction of dichotomous identities between participants in different sides of conflict situations. Taking a different perspective and observing “identity fusion” from inside the organisation, Whitehouse et al. (2014b) looked at cohesion between members of combat groups in Libya. This research found that

(13)

the notion of “brotherhood” was particularly relevant between members of the same battalion, where a sense of identity fusion (i.e. a blend between member identities to one shared group identity) was more prominent between those that were partaking in fighting versus those that were not. The researchers found that 97% of those they surveyed had some sense of identity fusion with their battalions.

In a different research, Ingram (2017b) also notes that propaganda preferences the empowerment narratives aimed at supporters rather than narratives featuring threatening (crisis) situations. A final important conclusion relevant is that ISIS propaganda “is designed to proactively prepare its supporters for their rival’s critiques” (Ingram, 2017b: 9). These findings are important to the research presented here because they illustrate the significant effects of propaganda on how its audience interacts both with the larger group and the world outside. However, what Ingram’s analysis does not focus on is the content of the research, and more particularly the influence of external conditions. It rather focuses on the effects propaganda produces in its target audience. As it is now clear what these effects are, the research presented here will focus more on the aforementioned aspect to enhance the literature on terrorist propaganda more broadly.

Finally, as one of the analytical conditions constituting this research is the killing of civilians in

territories of ISIS power, it is important to note the work of Torres Soriano (2011). The author

analysed the propaganda of Algerian terrorist group Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (acronym from the French is GSPC) and writes of the group’s desire to create distance between itself and the “brutality, excesses and attacks on civilians” (Torres Soriano, 2011: 283). Torres Soriano argues that to do so, groups will in fact blame these events on their enemies (ibid). The propaganda used language to incite its readers to abstain from violence and harm to the civilian population, creating instead a mobilisation process where the enemy was highlighted to be the out-group, the Other. This is in line with Abrahms et al.’s (2017) research on terrorist propaganda videos, where the authors hypothesise (and confirm) that terrorist groups are less likely to claim attacks on civilians. These findings are important in that they prove a certain mentality of terrorist organisations concerning attacks on civilians. Therefore, the research here aims to illustrate how such attacks, whether by own personnel or foreign (Other) troops, is integrated in ISIS propaganda to further the master frame on group cohesion.

Group Cohesion and Terrorist Organisations

Writing from a psychological perspective on general organisational dynamics, Carron et al. (1998) define cohesion as “a dynamic process that is reflected in the tendency for a group to stick together and remain united in the pursuit of its instrumental objectives and/or for the satisfaction of member

(14)

affective needs” (ibid: 213). Further, Carron and Brawley (2000) refer to the social perceptions of individual group members towards the whole group as Group Integration (GI) beliefs. These serve as indicators of what individuals deem to be “closeness, similarity, and bonding as a whole and the degree of unification of the group field.” (ibid: 90). They are important indirectly in that such beliefs can shape individuals’ decision on whether to stick to group or not, which in turn can be manipulated by group leaders. The multidimensionality of cohesion means that there may be more than one reason for a group to remain together. However, such multidimensional analysis is beyond the scope of this research. The level of analysis here takes a perspective on the group as a whole, rather than individual decisions (see, for example, Cattell, 1948), as a multidimensional analysis would require. Additionally, Carron and Brawley (2000) argue that group cohesiveness is not static - it changes constantly due to a variety of factors such as the development and maintenance of the group itself. The focus of this research are the changes which can lead to the reinforcement of group cohesion, taking into account that such changes are perhaps only one factor to decisions on in-group participation. The notion of group cohesion takes form in this research as a wider background starting point for the rest of the research. The following theoretical model on the correlational relationship between external events and the changes in internal frames of terrorist groups, is superimposed on the overall argument that this relationship is vital for an insurgent group’s ability to maintain cohesion.

When writing on the importance of (the study of) group cohesion within rebel groups, Paul Staniland (2014) makes a number of important points. Most broadly speaking, cohesion of insurgent groups can have significant effects on how a conflict is shaped (see also, Staniland, 2010), the course it takes and the outcomes on political life in a post-war climate. Furthermore, Staniland highlights that cohesion can also affect the group’s effectiveness against counterinsurgent efforts (2014: 2). If group cohesion is not strong, and there is high presence of fractioning within a terrorist organisation, it is more likely that the group will be weaker against warring forces. This is a threat posed to both the (external) survival of the group in a global environment, and the internal power of leadership to effectively steer the group. Further, as cohesion can be negatively affected by increased chances of fragmentation, this can in turn be affected by “patterns of civilian victimisation on war” (Staniland, 2010: 41). The higher the reported levels of violence against victims, the higher the fragmentation. This distinction between violence against civilians and combatants is important, because it highlights different attitudes present in extremist behaviour, and will be a point of importance later on in this paper.

Marie Olson Lounsbery similarly notes that when group cohesion is low, rebel groups will be less effective in their military and battlefield efforts (Olson Lounsbery, 2016; see also Gates, 2002). Both

(15)

Olson Lounsbery (2016) and Staniland (2010) make the argument that weaker cohesion in rebel groups can lead to their demise by strong and determined governments and/or other rebel forces. Therefore, the very survival of the group can rest upon effective mobilisation from the group’s leadership. Further, Olson Lounsbery (2016; as well as Gates, 2002) notes that some rebel groups will exert higher levels of cohesion if there is a strong sense of identity shared within the group. However, the author also points out that some groups’ levels of cohesion are largely dictated by “strategy rather than identity” (Olson Lounsbery, 2016: 128; see also Christia, 2012: 20). Conversely, research by Fotini Christia (2012) shows, rebel groups will often promote cohesion based on the visions for the future rather than identity. Tied to the fundamental group survival, leaders of rebel groups may try to promote cohesion through recruitment messages, thus ensuring the long-term prospects of survival. Ultimately, techniques and reasons used by leadership to promote cohesion are the result of a stronger need for group survival. Christia (2012) also argues that fragmentation is directly linked to rebel groups incurring military losses – the higher the number of group lives lost, the likelier it is for the group to experience fragmentation.

Also writing about cohesion within rebel groups, Paul Kenny outlines the key aspect to cohesion to be the successful identification and alignment of an individual’s own goals with that of the group’s goals, or “organisational socialisation” (2010: 536). Aligning with the group in this sense is an important element, which, Kenny argues, increases cohesion. Conducting a comparative study between the Irish Republican Army (IRA) and the Burmese Karen National Union (KNU), the author also notes a positive correlation between cohesion and shared experiences between group members, including a shared sense of sacrifice (Kenny, 2010: 552). Final interesting point to emerge from Kenny’s research (2010) is that the author found that ideology does not play a primary role in maintaining cohesion, but rather it is identification and alignment with the group as an entity which is more important. Similarly, writing on fragmentation in rebel groups and the Eritrean Independence War specifically, Woldemariam (2016) reiterates Christia’s (2012) message and confirms that fragmentation will be more likely if loss of life is sustained by the group. However, his research departs here because it proceeds to focus on battlefield gains and stalemates and their effects on fragmentation. These are not directly relevant to this research because they focus on fragmentation within groups, rather than on how cohesion is maintained and recreated.

Cohesion, survival and identity all exist in dynamic relationships to others4_{and, as the work on} discourse analysis outlined above notes, they cannot exist in isolation. Therefore, the rest of this research paper aims to observe precisely these relationships of dependence and interaction, specifically between an in-group’s ultimate goal to secure cohesion and its relationship with external

(16)

events.

How do Terrorist Organisations Maintain and Re-create Group Cohesion?

To further develop the micromobilisation processes described by Snow et al. (1986) to secure frame alignment (and therefore group cohesion), in this paper I will also elaborate on the relevant strategies of identity building, as proposed by Wodak et al. (2009, in Rothenberger et al., 2018). Particular focus is paid to constructive strategies and strategies of perpetuation. Where the former “attempt to construct and to establish a certain national [terrorist group] identity by promoting unification, identification and solidarity, as well as differentiation” (Rothenberger et al., 2018: 436), the latter “attempt to maintain and to reproduce a threatened national [terrorist group] identity and its components into another identity” (ibid). These strategies are particularly useful for the analysis of how terrorist group identity and cohesion are created and maintained because they allow for elaboration on the processes which take place through propaganda. They provide an analytical model to understand the reasons behind the interaction between external factors and internal framing. As Archetti (2013) writes in relation to how narrative is used by rebel leaders, it is “a device exploited by terrorists not only to maintain internal cohesion within a violent extremist group and give direction to cells that might be operating on their own, but also for publicising their political cause, recruiting new followers, and providing a rationale for their activities” (Archetti, 2013: 128).

The literature review presented above outlines the main themes and research areas that have been the focus of most of the academic work on terrorist propaganda. Unfortunately, this research does not help our understanding of if and how identity frames used by terrorist organisations come about. The literature tells us the themes under which academic work on terrorist and rebel groups can be categorised, and the common signs exhibited by various terrorist organisations. However, we do not really know how the organisations function to create and maintain cohesion between members in opposition to, and as influenced by outside factors and events. This research paper came as a response to this gap in knowledge, and aims to propose only a correlational relationship, rather than to claim any causal link between internal frames and external events.

(17)

3. THEORETICAL MODEL

The following pages in this chapter present a theoretical model, which suggests what relationships could be at play. The chapter goes from the broad introductory description of the model in the first section, towards a more detailed elaboration of its component parts – namely, the frames and the factors that influence them. The second section focuses on the specific factors, why they were chosen and their significance for terrorist organisations. Following each factor is an elaboration on the proposed corresponding frame used by terrorist organisations, specifically ISIS in this case, to create and maintain their identity and cohesion within the group. These outlines of the different components of the theoretical model I propose aim to provide a clearer understanding of the mechanisms that are at work in this theoretical model, the interactions between them, and to subsequently aid the analysis.

Theoretical Model

The underlying foundation of this research paper is the notion that group cohesion is a key element aiding rebel group survival. The fluid notion of cohesion is maintained through constant efforts, and is reinforced through frames created by rebel and terrorist groups’ leaders. In this research, the focus is on looking for these frames as exhibited through ISIS propaganda in the Dabiq and Rumiyah magazines, shaped as responses to external factors. Going further, through this model, I argue that under different conditions (factors) the frame structures will alter, but maintain the same goal – survival through cohesion.

The theory in this paper proposes not only that frames exist to aid the overall survival of the group, and to serve as guideposts for group members to align to, but also frames have to be created and maintained in a more abstract sense. More specifically, different frames – centred on themes of identity, power, ideology, religion etc – exist in a symbiotic relationship with external factors and take their meaning from interactions between different actors, ideas and events (Winter, 2015). Through language and texts, these frames continue to exist and to be recreated, in order to provide meaning and explain reality to target audiences. More concretely, I argue that the frames in this theoretical model are used by terrorist group leadership to mobilise sympathisers and group members, to explain and strengthen the belief in the group’s doctrine, to dispel any doubt about their abilities, and to maintain the group togetherness.

In this research, I propose three specific frames focusing on themes that have been points of exploration in previous research. I build on the themes of identity, power and strength, and religious ideology to mould three frames. Although this is by no means an exclusive relationship, I suggest that these frames will be responses to three particular factors. These themes are at the core of academic

(18)

research on the internal workings of terrorist groups, and what this paper will contribute is a further understanding specifically of if and how the frames are formed. A correlational relationship is proposed in this theoretical model. In this instance, the internal frames – how the organisation portrays itself and its identity – are influenced according to their responses to external factors. In the next part of the chapter, I explain in more detail the factors and build up the frames.

Factors and Frames

Although there are numerous interactions between the world outside rebel groups and their internal workings, this theoretical model focuses on three particular external factors: the killing of civilians in

territories of ISIS power, the killing of ISIS combatants, and the killing of the Other. These are external

because they involve or centre around events external to group dynamics. There is a direct involvement with outside environments and this can cause significant influence on how one (organisation or individual) identifies oneself.

These factors were chosen firstly because their nature has significant repercussions for the organisation. The factors portray the magnitude of extremism the organisation is engaged with, and this theoretical model aims to provide a new way to understand this extremism. Furthermore, extremism is at the core of organisational activity in terrorist groups, thus making these factors highly relevant in the overall understanding. These three factors were also chosen because they have repercussions for the local and international communities. The loss of life on such a scale is significant (Human Rights Watch, 2018), not only for social and political life and human rights in Syria, but also contributes much to disputes internationally between various political actors. This major, rising death toll continues to shape how the conflict in Syria evolves, as well as other conflicts on an international scale, such as in Afghanistan, Iraq and even Yemen (BBC, 2018a). If such acts of extreme violence can have an impact on cohesion in terrorist groups, this is important to know in tackling further extremism. These factors were also chosen because of their substantial emotional significance and ability to, I propose, manipulate emotions arising from death to enforce in- and out- group identity and, indirectly, group cohesion. Looking at this from a more academic, analytical perspective, the choice of these three factors is such because this emotional manipulation through propaganda can influence, I argue, how frames are created. This point of view adds a further dimension in analysing the methods of cohesion maintenance. The factors can be applied to the study of other terrorist or rebel groups, because their nature is ubiquitous to the behaviour of many similar organisations relying on extreme violence.

Using the terms ‘factors’ and ‘categories’ interchangeably allows for a more systematic analysis of the magazines. The content is more easily categorised further on in the research process, and

(19)

particularly in relation to its analysis. The categories are kept purposely broad because they aim to include different narratives, arguments and events. The first category (or Category A) focuses on the

killings of civilians in the territories, which were at the time when the magazines were published,

under ISIS control. Category B looks into propaganda, which relies on examples of killings of ISIS

combatants or combatants who have killed in the name of the group. And Category C is a broad

reference to killings of those described as an enemy or an Other5_{in the pages of ISIS propaganda.} These three categories are not exhaustive, but cover a large part of the killings that have been part of the war with ISIS. Any further categorisation would benefit the understanding of the relationship between the factors and frames studied here, however it is beyond the scope of this paper. More detail of each factor, what challenges it poses to group cohesion, what part they each play in the framing process is provided below.

Category A: Killing of civilians in territories of ISIS power.

The killing of civilians in territories of ISIS power6_{is significant in a blame game where a consistent} narrative of an enemy is key to identity building. This is done in an indirect way through a relationship of binary oppositions between victims and enemies, where both are portrayed under different frames throughout ISIS propaganda to reinforce cohesion. Most important to understand in the argument here is that this narrative is necessary in order to create a picture of a victim, thus (emotionally) manipulating the messages in propaganda. The killing of civilians is often understood through a victimisation narrative in war settings (Staniland, 2010), and has the potential to fragment organisations and break down cohesion. Some members may question leadership, which can lead to further fragmentation and weakening of the group. This causes a significant threat to both leadership and more broadly, to the whole unity of the group.

Therefore, I argue here that this narrative of civilian victimisation is manipulated in propaganda in order to show the group as protectors and liberators of civilian life. A key important theme in this frame is the reliance on religious ideology to strengthen the notion of terrorist groups as types of protectors. Religious doctrine in particular plays an important role in terrorist, and especially in ISIS (Winter, 2015), narratives to solidify group identity. Groups do so through abstract claims, backed not by evidence but by belief. Particularly with Islamism, fundamental belief in the word of God is essential, and through a narrative frame which relies on this element, (Islamist) terrorist groups are able to use religion to explain, make sense of, and even manipulate the event of death. Religious

5_{As pointed out in the literature review regarding the distinction between in-group and out-group membership, the}

Other is categorised as part of the out-group. Therefore, the category will remain as “Killing of the Other” – it is not from the perspective of the organisation. It is the researcher setting the different categories and delineating what each category means. The organisation does not use the word “Other”.

(20)

doctrine fills the gap where group leadership cannot do so with facts. Once again returning to the importance of creating victims, a frame centring around religious ideology can be manipulated to create a convincing protector identity of a terrorist group, thus strengthening belief and unity within it. The internal frame of the ISIS group as protectors relies on religious ideology to create unity, cohesion, and stability within the group. This way, unity and stability tackle fragmentation and questioning from members and magazine readers, and strengthens the image of the leadership. This frame will be prominent as a response to external events related to the killing of civilians in territories of ISIS power at the time the magazines were published. In order to look for this frame throughout the analysis section, the following hypotheses are presented:

1. There will be clear victim/enemy dichotomy as created by the writers in the magazines, necessary in establishing the parameters of the frame.

This will lead to:

2. The use of religious terminology when writing about civilian deaths will create a group identity as protectors.

Category B: Killing of ISIS combatants.

Whilst the first category is centred on the killings of civilians in geographical territories where ISIS held power at the time, the second category shares the common theme of killing, but is more focused on the death of individuals who in one way or another partake in or align to the group’s extremist ideology. Included in this category are individuals who fight for the ISIS cause, the ideology, as well as Islamism, or to put it differently – individuals who all share beliefs, views and identify with one another and the group in some ways. These individuals fight in the name of ISIS. In understanding what unites these persons, it is helpful to look at the notion of brotherhood (Winter, 2015: 27; see also Whitehouse et al., 2014a). Often associated with combat groups and more particularly extremism, it helps to create an identity to which members can align and identify with, thus strengthening the bond within the group. In this instance, what poses a threat to cohesion and to the leaders of a terrorist group is when an external event leads to the members’ belief being shaken, therefore making them question the extent to which they can identify with the rest, and leading to weaker levels of cohesion with those who do.

The identity of the group, especially through the notion of brotherhood, must be strengthened in order for cohesion to remain. The threat of the group coming apart can be tackled through a strong frame where the focus is on rebuilding and reinforcing identity. In an identity frame, I propose that constructive strategies (Wodak et al., 2009) can be noticed in the narratives in the magazines, which work to promote enhanced unity, cohesion and stronger identification between members. Here, the

(21)

internal frame centring on identity will be a response to group cohesion challenges by building up and reinforcing a frame to which members can align to (see also: Olson Lounsbery, 2016, Gates, 2002). Stronger parameters and reiteration of group beliefs, values and ideology will be common features in this internal frame, as responses to external events where group members are killed. To understand whether this frame is part of terrorist narratives, the following hypothesis will be tested:

3. References to brotherhood and a unified identity will be prominent features of the internal frame on identity, and will be presented in responses to killings of ISIS combatants.

Category C: Killing of the Other.

In the third and final category, attention moves away from individuals who can be considered part of the in-group in a dichotomous division between in- and out-group membership. Therefore, the focus in this category is on individuals who are distinctly non-organisational members. In contrast to the previous two frames, a very strong focus on out-group members is present in this category. This is perhaps the broadest category in terms of the type of individuals who can be described as an ‘Other’. The most suitable definition will apply to individuals or groups of people who are otherwise described as an ‘enemy’ by ISIS leadership (see also: Jacobson, 2013; Torres Soriano, 2011). This aspect is particularly important because it allows the leadership to portray the in-group in a very positive light (to its audiences) as victorious over the Other. This distinction, I argue, is created by the writers of the magazines, and is necessary in building a frame, which seeks to strengthen cohesion through narratives of strength, power and control. The frame will be a direct response to threats to group cohesion. The killing of the Other has the potential to fragment opinions between members regarding the methods and motivations of the group. This differentiation, which I argue is created by leadership and will be present in the data analysed, between in- and out-group membership has the potential to be challenged by members precisely of the in-group. This will be especially so by those who are, for example, foreign fighters – group members who are also part of different frames, which may somehow align with members of the out-group. Further challenges to actions which rely on these dichotomies can question the leadership and, more importantly a common ideology, which promotes extreme violence. This can lead to the formation of smaller, fringe groups thus weakening the organisation from within. In response, a frame is required which can tackle this challenge, and which can offer a counterargument rooted in presenting the group as strong and powerful.

When the threat to leadership and to the survival of the group rests on challenges to leaders’ decisions, abilities and combat strategies, an internal frame with a strong narrative is necessary to distinguish between us and them. Creating these distinctions between different groups, the leadership can influence members (and/or readers) to align to a broader frame of belonging. This frame largely relies

(22)

on emotional manipulation and on creating a strong image of the Other as a hated enemy (Jacobson, 2013). By making this distinction, the frame can then be centred around the group’s strength and control. In war power is key, and this frame can be an important tool in strengthening the image of the group through the manipulation of an enemy image. I argue here that it is more likely for members to identify with a group which is strong and powerful, and believe in its doctrine, and they are therefore more likely to remain aligned with said group’s values. Using the narrative of ‘us versus

them’, the internal frame can create the justifications necessary to establish beneficial power relations.

Based on the arguments presented above regarding this external factor, the following hypothesis is proposed:

4. There will be significant references to the Other, imbued with language which is negative and divisional, which will lead to:

5. Language empowering the terrorist group will be used to build a narrative framework around the themes of control and strength.

Table 1. A summary of the theoretical model outlined above. External

Factor Category

Why and what challenge is this event for Group Cohesion?

In order to tackle this challenge the group creates the following internal frames:

A. Killing of civilians in territories of ISIS power

Creates a victimisation narrative; Questions leadership’s abilities, leading to rise of potential to fragment organisation.

By manipulating the notion of victimhood, the group can use religious ideology to create a frame of the group as protectors;

B. Killing of ISIS

combatants

Shakes members’ beliefs about their place in the group.

Using the notion of brotherhood, the group can focus on a frame which centres around the common characteristics of group identity, thus reinforcing cohesion and unity between members.

C. Killing of the Other

Can divide opinions regarding the methods and motivations of the group; Can further fuel doubts about the differentiation between in- and out-group membership, leading to:

Loss of unity between members and fragmentation of group.

Frame creates an enemy, which in turn creates a sense of in-group alignment necessary for a: Frame manifests itself through references of the group’s military strength and control over the enemy.

(23)

4. ISIS – A CASE

In order to illustrate the reasons why ISIS was chosen as a case for this research and to situate the research in more concrete settings, this chapter aims to provide a brief overview of the group. This rebel group was chosen for a number of reasons, least because it informs a large part of current political life across the globe.

Background

Although born out of a coalition with Al-Qaeda, ISIS as a group made ground in 2004 when its then leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi established its foundations under the name of Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Two years later, following mergers with other rebel groups, it was renamed to Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) and eventually due to its expansion took its current name Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (or, ISIS), with current leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. According to Martin and Solomon (2017), the group is a splinter organisation from Al-Qaeda, which strategically utilised Al-Qaeda’s early strength to establish itself. Since the early 2000s and its inception, ISIS has gone through significant developments and is now considered to be the most lethal terrorist organisation to exist to date. The authors also describe the organisation as “[c]onsisting of about 30,000 fighters, it has administrative rule of civil society (some 10 million people), control of territory in both Syria and Iraq, unmatched financial independence, sophisticated control of military expertise, and control of much of the infrastructure and lines of communication in the area.” (Martin and Solomon, 2017: 19). Additionally, the conflict in Iraq and Syria in the past decade has continued to attract foreign fighters in large numbers since 2011 (Weggemans, Bakker and Grol, 2014), thus posing new and more complex challenges on international governments, and making an understanding of what it is that draws people from across the world to fight for a foreign organisation crucial. The final goal of the organisation is much larger than that of any other terrorist organisation of this kind: to establish a global caliphate (ibid). Although at the end of 2017 the organisation was lessening in strength and resources, scholars still believe it is capable of returning to its once peak state (Bahney and Johnston, 2017), therefore the threat is still high, and studying the organisation is crucially important in order to gather the most comprehensive understanding possible.

Methodological Considerations

The picture of the organisation presented above should portray the importance of why we should study ISIS in detail. Although ISIS is the focus here and the data extracted from the research will be specifically illustrative of this terrorist organisation, the arguments presented throughout aim to be applicable to most prominent rebel groups. For example, the choice of the independent variables outlined above can be tailored to many similarly sized terrorist organisations.

(24)

The access to sources used in this research as empirical evidence is of importance. The written material in the Dabiq and Rumiyah magazines is the largest available published propaganda of its kind. It is also the most consistent form of propaganda published by a terrorist organisation available in English7_{and, because it is a direct reflection of ISIS leadership ideology, it is a highly effective} source of research validity. Furthermore, these magazines have a sustained, relatively long-term publication trajectory, which can present a clear, continuous reflection of ISIS’ ideology, more so than fragmented pieces of information published through other channels. The group also uses other forms of media outlets to distribute propaganda of their ideological message, such as via printed weekly newspapers, Twitter, videos, and nuqat i‘lamiyya or media points (Zelin, 2015). However, the vast majority of these present a variety of problems, including distribution only within the geographical regions the organisation occupies and are only available in the Arabic language, as is the case of printed newspapers and material distributed through the media points. In the case of Twitter and videos published online, the content has often been removed by website moderators (Zelin, 2015) and it is difficult to find content which has been verified as authentic. These considerations do not permit research into materials published via such methods in this particular research paper, however it is an area which must be considered for future research.

Additionally, the availability of the magazines in different languages is a significant sign of the group’s resources and global reach. Another important point to address for using ISIS as an exemplar terrorist organisation is that the target audience for these magazines is not only incredibly large but the messages in the media also have various different goals. From recruitment to widespread awareness of the organisation and gathering support from emphatic audiences across the world, the ISIS propaganda is effective and far reaching. Therefore, careful study of ISIS propaganda is necessary in aiding academic and social understanding of terrorism.

The magazines were published at the peak of the organisation’s success, which could possibly reflect a somewhat skewed view of ISIS, however it must also be noted that the magazines were published over the span of three years, starting with the public declaration of the caliphate. The presuppositions in this study do not discard the fact that ISIS may once again rise to such levels, despite best international efforts against this. Therefore, as long as the organisation is functioning, it is important to know how its leadership addresses organisational identity.

7_{as well as Arabic, German and French for Dabiq, and Arabic, German, French, Indonesian, Turkish, Uyghur and Urdu} for Rumiyah.

(25)

Areas of ISIS control between 2015 – 2017. Source: The Guardian, 2017

(26)

5. METHODOLOGY

This chapter is divided into two main sections – the first section is an elaboration of the mechanisms at work of the methods employed here for analysis of the data. Understanding how discourse analysis and framing techniques are applicable in this particular case is important in explaining the choices in operationalisation and data collection. Whilst the focus is on one particular case study, a mix between different methods, including both deductive and inductive analyses were applied, as well as others less prominently. The inductive approach is more often associate with discourse analysis, where the concepts researched are not defined through any dimensions prior to the research taking place. Deductive analysis, on the other hand, is done by establishing indicators for the concepts studied prior to the research gathering and analysis processes, which then serve to inform these. Thus, the second section focuses on providing a somewhat detailed description of how the factors and frames were identified in the research, as well as a broader section which described how data was collected and analysed as a whole. It is of key importance to understand here that employing the discourse analysis techniques is a very specific choice. There are very few rules and specific steps to follow when conducing this type of analysis, and this was a factor part of the conscious choice of this research method. As much as possible, descriptions of how key concepts were identified are provided in the second part of this chapter, however a large part of the research data was consciously left uncategorised.

Discourse Analysis and Framing

This research was conducted through a discursive analysis of the different frames present in ISIS propaganda available on the internet. Broadly speaking, discourse analysis focuses on language used, on the meanings that could be portrayed through written word and subtleties of communication not normally analysed. These in turn allow researchers to observe and comment on social processes through a different lens. This specific contextual insight will add to the body of research on terrorist organisations as a whole, and ISIS in particular. The commentary of this research aims to elaborate on more abstract understandings of how the organisation situates itself within and in relation to the wider, international community. As Milliken (1999) notes, discourse analysis is not situated in the concrete analytical world of “material objects whose existence is independent of ideas or beliefs about them” (Campbell, 1993: 7-8 in Milliken, 1999: 225), but rather in the meanings actors (researchers included) assign to processes and interactions. Discourse analysis is rooted in understanding the nuanced discussions between different actors, as well as contextual ambiguities, therefore the interpretations based on this research are to a certain extent influenced by the researcher’s own predispositions. The care that has been taken to minimise this is presented in more detail in the following sections of this chapter. There is no standard, one way of conducting discourse analysis,

(27)

therefore a further elaboration on the method is to clarify that framing analyses will be applied. The common belief within discourse analysis is that reality is constructed by the actors in different situations through the use of language, and the meanings, values, emotions and beliefs portrayed through that language. Social construction of reality is a core principle in discourse analysis, especially so through observations of the “relationships in which things are placed in a sign system and, more precisely, in relations by which one object is distinguished from another in the system” (Milliken, 1999: 229). In this research, analysis of precisely such relationships is vital in understanding how ISIS leadership frames the organisation in an oppositional relation to events taking place outside its internal workings. As Milliken puts it “a discourse analysis should compare [the] object spaces to uncover the relational distinctions that arguably order the ensemble, serving as a frame… for defining certain subject identities.” (1999: 233). Further, Baker-Beall argues that the constitution of identity relies simultaneously on that what the discursive actor “aspires to be and partly through that which it differentiates itself from.” (2014: 217). These examples highlight the connection between discourse analysis and framing, and the need to analyse such processes because through the manipulation of “relevant events and conditions” (Snow and Benford, 1988: 198) terrorist organisation are able to construct and maintain their identities and group cohesion.

Operationalisation

As a general note, a thorough justification for using the three external factors is already presented in chapter three and further elaborated on here. As academic research aims to provide a certain level of reliability to its methods, the factors were partly chosen because of their ubiquity in war settings. Many lives are lost in war and this is not without its consequences. In order to get a better understanding of extremist organisations, it is of interest in this research if and how events of loss of life are manipulated in propaganda. As the overall theme of the paper is to propose that group cohesion in rebel and terrorist organisations is affected by external factors, the three presented above were also chosen because of their magnitude and ability to impact the internal dynamics of terrorist organisations. Below, I present the operationalisation guidelines I used in looking for the three external factors, as well as the outlines used to interpret if propaganda messages can be categorised under the three different frames proposed in chapter three.

The independent variables in this research were the three external factors – killing of civilians in

territories of ISIS power, the killing of ISIS troops, and the killing of the Other. These independent

variables I argue, have an influence on how internal frames in the terrorist organisation change as a response. The three internal frames (dependent variables) I identified to be most prominent centre around: religious ideology, identity, and power and control, respective to the factors. The