Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Dividing the Nation: The Weaponization of “Terrorism” in Russian Influence Operations in the USA

  • ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • Published:
Society Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The term terrorist represents the ultimate enemy: someone that is evil, illegitimate, and outside of the social order. Branding political rivals as terrorists delegitimizes them, transforming them from political adversaries into enemies or irrational actors. One does not negotiate with enemies, but rather eradicates or neutralizes them. Terrorism’s ill-defined qualities and multitude of definitions have transformed it into a potent stigmatizing floating signifier, one that retains the negative valence without clear boundaries. Such a term can be weaponized by entrepreneurial actors intent on dividing society along internal cleavage points. We illustrate this through the Russian trolls’ usage of the term “terrorist” on Twitter during the 2016 influence operation in the US Presidential Election. We code hundreds of tweets associated with the Russian disinformation operation, identifying the way the term was used and its target audience. Russian operatives weaponized the term to polarize the American public, marking entities and individuals as “terrorist” with the intent of increasing distrust across communities. Our results introduce important implications on the influence of leaders on the dynamics of floating negative signifiers like terrorists, especially regarding their weaponization for political reasons.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Notes

  1. Hence the reluctancy to negotiate with terrorists: negotiations can impart legitimacy (Toros, 2008).

  2. Facing a definitional quagmire, many other experts often sidestep the organizational definition and focus on defining the action, not the actor, emphasizing terrorism as a tool.

  3. Existing scholarship on the Russian campaign’s impact offers conflicting results, depending on the focus and method. A study that focusses on media and framing suggests that the campaign was instrumental in setting public opinion (Jamieson, 2020). Another study suggested that the impact of the campaign on belief conversion may be limited, though the authors suggest that it may be due to the campaign targeting people to emphasize pre-existing beliefs, somewhat matching our findings here (see Eady et al. 2023).

References

  • Adut, A (2008). On Scandal: Moral Disturbances in Society, Politics and Art. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adut, A (2018). Reign of Appearances: The misery and splendor of the public sphere. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, J (2006). The Civil Sphere. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Al-Rawi A, & Rahman A. (2020). Manufacturing rage: The Russian Internet Research Agency’s political astroturfing on social media. First Monday. 25(9). https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/download/10801/9723https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v25i9.10801

  • Altheide, DL (2004). Consuming terrorism. Symbolic Interaction 27(3): 289-308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alvares, C, & Dahlgren, P (2016). Populism, extremism and media: Mapping an uncertain terrain. European journal of communication, 31(1): 46-57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersen, H, & Mayerl J (2018). Attitudes towards Muslims and fear of terrorism. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 41(15): 2634-2655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Auger, VA (2020). Right-wing terror. Perspectives on Terrorism 14(3): 87-97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, CJ, & Miner, E (2013). Who gets designated a terrorist and why?. Social Forces, 91(3): 837-872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Best, J (2021). Social Problems (4th edition). New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blain, M. (2015). Social science discourse and the biopolitics of terrorism. Sociology Compass, 9(3), 161-179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blakeley, R (2009). State terrorism and neoliberalism: The north in the south. London. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bleakley, P (2023). Panic, pizza and mainstreaming the alt-right: A social media analysis of Pizzagate and the rise of the QAnon conspiracy. Current Sociology, 71(3): 509-525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bogel-Burroughs, N, & Garcia, SE. (2020). What is antifa, the movement trump wants to declare a terror group?. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/article/whatantifa-trump.html

  • Bradshaw, S. (2020). Influence operations and disinformation on social media. Center of International Governance Innovation. https://www.cigionline.org/articles/influence-operations-and-disinformationsocial-media/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=ai-series

  • Bureau of Counterterrorism. (2024). Foreign terrorist organizations. https://www.state.gov/foreign-terrorist-organizations/

  • Celso, AN (2015). The Islamic State and Boko Haram: Fifth Wave Jihadist terror groups. Orbis 59(2): 249-268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, A. (2015). The Agency. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/magazine/the-agency.html

  • Chiluwa, I. M., & Chiluwa, I. (2022). “We are a mutual fund:” how Ponzi scheme operators in Nigeria apply indexical markers to shield deception and fraud on their websites. Social semiotics, 32(3), 355-380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, M (2003). The naming of ‘terrorism’ and evil ‘outlaws’: geopolitical place-making after 11 September. Geopolitics, 8(3): 87-104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connor, S (2007). We’re onto you: A critical examination of the Department for Work and Pensions’ Targeting Benefit Fraud’ campaign. Critical Social Policy, 27(2), 231-252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cosentino, G. (2020). Social media and the post-truth world order: the global dynamics of disinformation. Springer.

  • Crenshaw, M (1990). The Logic of Terrorism : Terrorism as the Product of Strategic Choice Origins of Terrorism : Psychologies, Ideologies, Theologies, States of Mind. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, AK. (2003). The” FTO List” and Congress: Sanctioning Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations. Congressional Research Services. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA445050.pdf

  • Deleuze, G (1994). Difference and Repetition. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, AR (2022). Conspiracy theories and the manufacture of dissent: QAnon, the ‘Big Lie’, Covid-19, and the rise of rightwing propaganda. Critical Sociology, 48(6): 1025-1048.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiResta, R., Shaffer, K., Ruppel, B., Sullivan, D., Matney, R., Fox, R., Jonathan, A., & Johnson, B. (2018). The Tactics and tropes of the internet research agency. New Knowledge Report prepared for the United States Senate Select Committee on Russian Interference in the 2016 Election. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=senatedocs

  • Eady, G, Paskhalis T, Zilinsky, J, Bonneau, R, Nagler, J, and Tucker, JA (2023). Exposure to the Russian Internet Research Agency foreign influence campaign on Twitter in the 2016 US election and its relationship to attitudes and voting behavior. Nature Communications 14(1): 62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etudo, U, Yoon, VY, and Yaraghi, N. (2019). From Facebook to the streets: Russian troll ads and Black Lives Matter protests. Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. HICSS. https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/3b1a59b0-f010-4343-b3e2-e677365bf3a1/content

  • Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical discourse analysis. In Gee, J. P., & Handford, M. (Eds.) The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 9-20). Routledge.

  • Freelon, D, Bossetta M, Wells C, Lukito J, Xia Y, and Adams K (2022). Black trolls matter: Racial and ideological asymmetries in social media disinformation. Social Science Computer Review, 40(3): 560-578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ganor, B (2002). Defining terrorism: Is one man’s terrorist another man’s freedom fighter? Police Practice and Research 3(4): 287-304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golovchenko, Y, Buntain, C, Eady, G, Brown, MA, and Tucker, JA (2020). Cross-platform state propaganda: Russian trolls on Twitter and YouTube during the 2016 US presidential election. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 25(3): 357-389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, A (2017). Defining terrorism: one size fits all?. International & comparative law Quarterly, 66(2): 411-440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, I, & Lim, DJ (2019). Doxing democracy: influencing elections via cyber voter interference. Contemporary Politics 25(2): 150-171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodgson, JS, and Tadros, V (2013). The impossibility of defining terrorism. New Criminal Law Review, 16(3): 494-526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, B (2017). Inside terrorism. New York: Columbia university press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Huddy, L, Feldman, S, Taber, C, and Lahav, G (2005). Threat, anxiety, and support of antiterrorism policies. American journal of political science, 49(3): 593-608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, R, & Hall, G (2016). Talking about terrorism: A study of vernacular discourse. Politics, 36(3): 292-307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jamieson, KH (2020). Cyberwar: how Russian hackers and trolls helped elect a president: what we don’t, can’t, and do know. Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jaster, D., Swed, O., & Frère, B. (2022). The critical masses: The rise of contemporary populism and its relation to solidarity, systems, and lifeworlds. Society, 59(6), 701-713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, Jeffrey. 2008. Terrorism’s Fifth Wave: A theory, a conundrum and a dilemma. Perspectives on Terrorism 2: 12-24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kappeler, V. E., & Kappeler, A. E. (2004). Speaking of evil and terrorism: The political and ideological construction of a moral panic. Sociology of Crime, Law and Deviance, 5, 175-197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laclau, E (2005). On Populist Reason. New York: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • LaFree, G. (2018). Is Antifa a terrorist group?. Society, 55, 248-252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laqueur, W. (1987). The age of terrorism. Little Brown.

  • Le Bon, G (2002). The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind. New York: Dover.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linvill, D. L., & Warren, P. L. (2020). Troll factories: Manufacturing specialized disinformation on Twitter. Political Communication, 37(4), 447-467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynn, TJ, and Williams, LS (2018). ‘Have a Quiet, Orderly, Polite Revolution’: Framing Political Protest and Protecting the Status Quo. Critical Sociology, 44(4-5), 733-751.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MEMO. (2023). Hamas sent high-level delegation to Moscow at Russia's invitation. Middle East Monitor. https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20230316-hamas-sent-high-level-delegation-to-moscowat-russias-invitation/

  • Mueller, RS (2019). Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nguyen, T. (2020). How ‘antifa’ became a Trump catch-all. Politico. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/02/how-antifa-became-a-trump-catch-all-297921

  • O’Donnell, SJ (2021). Antisemitism under erasure: Christian Zionist anti-globalism and the refusal of cohabitation. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 44(1): 39-57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ragazzi, F (2016). Suspect community or suspect category? The impact of counter-terrorism as ‘policed multiculturalism’. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 42(5): 724-741.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramsay, G (2015). Why terrorism can, but should not be defined. Critical Studies on Terrorism 8(2): 211-228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rapoport, D (2004). The Four Waves of Modern Terrorism. Pp. 46-73 in Audrey Kurth Cronin and James Ludes (eds.), Attacking Terrorism: Elements of a Grand Strategy. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roeder, O. (2018). Why We’re Sharing 3 Million Russian Troll Tweets. FiveThirtyEight. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-were-sharing-3-million-russian-troll-tweets/

  • Romero, LA, and Zarrugh A (2018). Islamophobia and the making of Latinos/as into terrorist threats. Ethnic and Racial Studies 41(12): 2235-2254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savchuk, L. (2018). Meet the activist who uncovered the russian troll factory named in the mueller probe. NPR. https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2018/03/15/594062887/some-russians-see-u-s-investigation-into-russian-election-meddling-as-a-soap-ope

  • Schmid, A (2004). Terrorism-the definitional problem. Case W. Res. J. Int’l L., 36(2/3): 375.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmid, A (Ed.). (2011). The Routledge handbook of terrorism research. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherif, M (1937). An Experimental Approach to the Study of Attitudes. Sociometry 1(1/2): 90-98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spencer, A (2012). The social construction of terrorism: media, metaphors and policy implications. Journal of International Relations and Development 15: 393-419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stampnitzky, L. (2017). Can terrorism be defined? In Stohl, M., Burchill, R., & Englund, S. (Eds.) Constructions of Terrorism: An interdisiplinary approach to research and policy (pp. 11-20). University of California Press.

  • Stelzenmüller, C. (2017). The impact of Russian interference on Germany’s 2017 elections. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-impact-of-russian-interference-on-germanys-2017-elections/

  • Stern, KS (1996). A Force Upon the Plain: The American Militia Movement and the Politics of Hate. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stock, CM (1996). Rural Radicals: Righteous Rage in the American Grain. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tilly, C (2004). Terror, terrorism, terrorists. Sociological Theory 22(1): 5-13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toros, H (2008). We don’t negotiate with terrorists!’: Legitimacy and complexity in terrorist conflicts. Security Dialogue, 39(4): 407-426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tucker, E and Fox, B. (2020). FBI director says antifa is an ideology, not an organization. Associated Press. https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-ap-top-news-elections-james-comeypolitics-bdd3b6078e9efadcfcd0be4b65f2362e

  • Turk, AT (2004). Sociology of terrorism. Annual Review of Sociology 30: 271-286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Dijk, TA. (2015). Critical discourse analysis. The handbook of discourse analysis. Blackwell Publishers.

  • Volchek, D. (2021). Inside The 'Propaganda Kitchen' -- A Former Russian 'Troll Factory' Employee Speaks Out. Radio Free Europe. https://www.rferl.org/a/russian-troll-factoryhacking/31076160.html

  • Walsh, JP (2017). Moral panics by design: the case of terrorism. Current Sociology 65(5): 643-662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinberg, L, Pedahzur, A, and Hirsch-Hoefler, S (2004). The challenges of conceptualizing terrorism. Terrorism and Policical Violence, 16(4): 777-794.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welch, T (2018). Theology, heroism, justice, and fear: an analysis of ISIS propaganda magazines Dabiq and Rumiyah. Dynamics of Asymmetric Conflict, 11(3): 186-198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ye, H., & Chen, K. (2023). A study on the discourse strategy of telecommunication fraud based on proximization theory. Discourse & Communication, 17(2), 155-173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Texas Tech University, Lubbock, USA

    Ori Swed, Daniel Jaster & Mary Adami

Authors
  1. Ori Swed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniel Jaster
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mary Adami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Ori Swed—methods, data, analysis, discussion. Daniel Jaster—theory. Mary Adami—data.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ori Swed.

Ethics declarations

Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate

Not applicable.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 15 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Swed, O., Jaster, D. & Adami, M. Dividing the Nation: The Weaponization of “Terrorism” in Russian Influence Operations in the USA. Soc (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-024-00989-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-024-00989-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation