Truth, Story and Power III
Part III: Propaganda, Public Diplomacy, and the Performance of Power
This series is based on a book chapter by Ida Manton, originally published in Macedonian in Mediumska pismenost.
With the author’s permission, the text has been edited for brevity and adapted into a three-part series for publication on Cardigan Collective. The structure and subheadings are editorial additions intended to guide readers through the themes of the original work.
If the digital network has amplified the reach of storytelling, contemporary politics has adapted to this environment by placing even greater emphasis on narrative construction and symbolic performance. Power now operates not only through institutions and legal mechanisms, but also through carefully shaped public images and strategic communication.
The boundary between governance and staging has therefore become increasingly difficult to distinguish.
Politics as Performance
Certain political leaders treat the public sphere as a space of performance in which political life resembles a directed spectacle. Public appearances, legal confrontations, and media engagements are framed within larger narratives that project strength, legitimacy, and historical necessity. These narratives do not always rely on direct fabrication. More often, they depend on selective emphasis, repetition, emotional mobilisation, and symbolic gestures that reinforce collective identity.
Within such contexts, populism and nationalism frequently converge. Leaders present themselves as restorers of dignity or protectors of cultural supremacy in a globalised world that is portrayed as hostile or destabilising. They draw on imagery that evokes mythic struggle rather than administrative responsibility, positioning themselves as figures chosen to defend or redeem the nation.
Sustaining such an image depends upon a communication infrastructure that amplifies favourable narratives and reduces the visibility of critical scrutiny.
Propaganda and the Rewriting of Cultural Memory
The use of storytelling to legitimise power is not new. Regimes throughout history have reshaped cultural figures, artists, and intellectuals in order to align them with dominant narratives. Ida Manton refers to the reinterpretations of Mayakovsky, the avant-garde futurist who later became a symbol of Soviet mainstream culture. A rebellious poet was recast as a representative of state ideology, and through this transformation, the revolutionary spirit was appropriated and neutralised.
Such examples demonstrate that propaganda does not begin in the digital age. What changes in the digital era are the speed and scale with which narratives circulate. Disinformation spreads through social networks, foreign influence campaigns, coordinated messaging, cyber operations, and the strategic release of materials. Media ownership structures also shape narrative environments, particularly when outlets are controlled by actors with political ambitions or economic interests aligned with specific ideological positions.
Propaganda does not always depend on outright falsehoods. It may distort context, selectively present information, or frame events in ways that generate doubt and uncertainty. Its purpose is often less to establish a single alternative truth than to weaken confidence in shared standards of verification.
Public Diplomacy and Its Ambiguities
Public diplomacy developed as an adaptation to democratic expectations that governance should be accountable and transparent. If political authority derives from citizens, then foreign policy cannot remain entirely confined to private negotiations among elites. Public participation and visibility are increasingly demanded.
Yet diplomacy has traditionally relied on discretion, limited circles of negotiation, and strategic ambiguity. This tension creates fragility. When democratic institutions function effectively, public diplomacy can foster dialogue and mutual understanding. When they weaken, it risks becoming an extension of domestic political messaging, shaped by branding strategies and simplified narratives.
Cultural diplomacy occupies an especially ambiguous position. Some definitions restrict it to official state-sponsored cultural initiatives. Others evaluate it by its outcome, namely, whether it promotes genuine mutual understanding, regardless of formal governmental involvement. In practice, campaigns, slogans, and national branding efforts often blur these distinctions, transforming culture into an instrument of geopolitical positioning.
At the centre of both diplomacy and poetry lies the word. A phrase can escalate confrontation or open space for negotiation. Narrative can justify conflict or prevent it. The ethical responsibility attached to language is therefore considerable.
Responsibility in the Digital Age
In the contemporary information environment, the role once occupied by poets, chroniclers, and official narrators has expanded to include public relations professionals, communication strategists, and digital platform architects. These actors shape the narratives that circulate widely across societies.
They can contribute to a deeper understanding, or they can prioritise visibility and influence over reflection and accountability.
When storytelling becomes detached from ethical considerations, societies risk entrenching divisions reinforced by simplified myths and recurring symbols. Communities may romanticise their own identity while demonising others, narrowing the space for dialogue and compromise. Polarisation then moves beyond digital platforms and into civic life, weakening shared institutions and common reference points.
If earlier forms of media provided filters that mediated public discourse, the digital environment has diminished many of those safeguards. Rebuilding trust requires legal regulation, professional standards, and sustained education. Media literacy becomes essential not only for recognising deliberate disinformation, but also for understanding the subtle distinctions between interpretation, selective reporting, and fabrication.
At the same time, those who produce and circulate information must recognise the broader consequences of their work. The pursuit of profit or influence does not eliminate responsibility.
The struggle between truth and storytelling will not disappear because narrative is intrinsic to human societies. Yet, as Aristotle suggests in the Nicomachean Ethics, inquiry must begin with what people of sound character and experience can broadly agree is true, and from there move toward deeper understanding.
Whether storytelling contributes to wisdom or manipulation depends not only on technological systems but on the ethical commitments of those who participate in them.
About the Author
Ida Manton is a writer and scholar whose work explores storytelling, myth, media, and political power. Her writing examines the thin line between truth-telling and narrative construction in both historical and contemporary contexts.