Narrative and the "War of Narratives" in the Era of Resistance and Imposed Wars

Hassan Beheshtipour
Machine Translation edited by Mandana Karimi

2026-10-1

War does not only occur on the battlefield; part of it continues in the realm of meaning, memory, and narrative. Every war, along with military and human events, creates narratives about its cause, the role of the actors, the concept of victory and defeat, sacrifice and suffering, and ultimately the future of society. These narratives later influence how the past is understood, the formation of collective identity, and even the evaluation of political decisions.
From this perspective, “narrative” cannot be limited to simply recording the memories of warriors, writing the history of the war, or retelling events. Oral history, memory, literature, media, film, photographs, and documents can all be raw materials for the formation of a narrative; but narrative, in a more precise sense, is a process in which a set of scattered events and experiences are placed in a meaningful framework and lead the audience to a specific interpretation of those events. For this reason, in any war we are usually faced with multiple narratives; narratives that are produced and reproduced by the parties involved, the media, political institutions, eyewitnesses, and subsequent generations. The important question is what events each of these narratives’ highlights, what events they marginalize, what connections they make between events, and what roles and characteristics they present to the audience of the actors of the war.

Narrative, Beyond an Incident Report

If we see narrative simply as a report of what happened, we have missed an important part of its function. A report can tell what happened, when and where; but a narrative also attempts to answer the question of what this event means and why it should be understood in this way.
From this perspective, one of the most important elements of narrative is “meaning-making.” Two sides in a war may provide relatively similar information about a particular event, but the interpretation and meaning they provide of that event may be quite different. Thus, narrative competition is not just a competition over information; it is also a competition over meaning.
The fundamental question is how narrative is formed and when can we say that a narrative has had an impact on society?

From Event to Narrative

To understand this issue, we can use the thought of the French philosopher Paul Ricœur. In discussing narrative, Ricœur emphasizes a process that begins with lived experience, is organized in the form of narrative and plot, and regains meaning when confronted with the audience.
Accordingly, three stages can be distinguished from each other: before the formation of the narrative, the stage of configuration and presentation of the narrative, and finally the stage in which the narrative is reconfigured in the mind of the audience.
In the first stage, there is a collection of events, experiences, and memories. In the second stage, these scattered materials are organized into a coherent narrative. But the third stage is perhaps the most important of all; because the narrative achieves social power when the audience understands and interprets it and gives it meaning in their own minds.
From this perspective, narrative is not a “project” that an individual or organization designs in a room and then presents to society. Narrative is more of a "process" than a final product; a process that is formed in the interaction between the event, the narrator, the media, and the audience, and if socially accepted, can become part of collective memory.

Three Important Elements of Narrative

In this framework, the three elements of “configuration,” “framing,” and “plot” are of particular importance.
Configuration determines how a series of scattered events are placed together; where the narrative begins, what steps it takes, and where it ends.
Framing, especially in the media, determines from what angle the audience sees an event and which parts of it to consider prominent or understated. The media is not simply a transmitter of information; the choice of headline, image, order of news, time of publication, and how an event is explained can all affect the audience’s frame of perception.
The third element is “plot,” that is, the design that connects the scattered events and transforms them into a meaningful whole. This is where the narrative moves beyond a collection of scattered information and becomes a coherent story about the cause, consequence, and meaning of an event.

The Rival Narrative and the Issue of Endurance

In a war of narratives, each side tries to convey its interpretation of reality to the audience. Therefore, the question is not just who is the first to spread the news of an event; the more important question is who can establish the meaning of that event in the mind of the audience.
In this context, “endurance” can be considered as one of the main plot elements of the narrative of a society that has positioned itself against foreign intervention or aggression. For example, if a foreign power justifies its presence or intervention with concepts such as freedom, security, or salvation, the rival narrative can interpret the same event in terms of independence, national sovereignty, and the right to self-determination.
Here, endurance does not simply mean being present on the battlefield. If a meaning is accepted in society, it can also be reflected in social behavior; on the street, in the media, in academia, in art, literature, and in other areas of social life. Therefore, the field of narrative should not be limited to the military field.
Of course, for such a narrative to be effective, it is not enough to simply repeat a slogan. The narrative must be able to answer the audience's real questions, establish a connection between the lived experience of the people and political events, and provide an understandable and coherent explanation for the events.

The Audience; the Defining Element of the Narrative

A narrative gains power when it reaches the audience and is reconstructed in their minds. Therefore, the audience is not a passive recipient of the narrative. They interpret the narrative with their personal experiences, prior knowledge, family memories, trust or distrust in the media, and their own perception of social conditions.
A narrative may be completely coherent in the eyes of the producer, but the audience does not accept it. In such circumstances, the narrative does not achieve the expected social power. Conversely, sometimes a poem, film, memory, image, or even a short sentence can convey a meaning whose impact far exceeds the amount of information it contains.
From this perspective, “believing” the narrative is a decisive stage. But even accepting a narrative is not the end. In order for a narrative to become part of collective memory, it needs continuity; that is, it must be able to be reproduced and reinterpreted over time, against competing narratives.

Being a Pioneer in the Field of Narrative

One of the important lessons of recent wars is that in the realm of narrative, as in the military arena, time matters. If one side manages to establish the initial framework of an event in public opinion before the other, subsequent narratives may inevitably be formed within the same framework.
Therefore, leadership in narrative is important. Leadership does not mean hasty dissemination of information. An effective narrative must be based on accurate information, reliable documents, and a correct understanding of the historical and political context. Because if the narrative is inconsistent with demonstrable facts, it may attract an audience in the short term, but it will undermine public trust in the long term.
For this reason, oral history can play an important role in this field. The memories of witnesses and activists record lived experiences that are rarely seen in official documents. But oral history also gains more value when it is placed alongside documents, other narratives, and independent evidence. A distinction must be made between “recording a memory” and “accepting a historical interpretation.”

Narrative as Social and Political Action

Ultimately, narrative cannot be seen as simply a retelling of the past. When embedded in collective memory, narrative can influence how a society views itself and others, and can even influence social and political behavior. From this perspective, the war of narratives is in fact a competition over the “meaning” of events. Each side tries to convey to the audience its explanation of what happened, why it happened, and what this event means for the future. Thus, narrative in the era of imposed wars is not only responsible for recording the past; it also plays a role in shaping the historical memory of the future. If the war narrative becomes just a list of operations, dates, statistics, and incidents, it will record part of reality; but if it can establish a connection between the event, human experience, historical context, meaning, and audience, then it will become a living and lasting memory. In this light, the “war of narratives” should not be seen as a mere media competition. It is a competition over how to understand the past and the meaning that society makes of it to interpret its present and future. Therefore, understanding the mechanism of narrative, paying attention to the role of the audience, being careful with sources and documents, and avoiding reducing narrative to propaganda are serious necessities for any society that wants to pass on the experience of war to future generations.[1]

Share