from Gdansk, Poland

   DOI : 10.48256/TDM2012_00146

Introduction

The year 2020 has so far provided very relevant cases that are studied in politics and international relations theory. In practice itself, such cases would however normally appear in a rather subtle form or they would be at least treated as a matter which is less of a concern for the public. Nevertheless, the Covid-19 pandemic has proven that handling an emergency situation is foremostly about handling information on the situation. According to the World Health Organisation, the pandemic in its basis is a “Public Health Emergency of International Concern”. It has not only become a matter of international concern due to its sanitary aspect, but rather everyone’s concern due to its implications in all other spheres of life. Herewith, it is going to be argued that what determines how we experience an event like this is primarily dependent on the way information on it is handled and communicated.

An example which demonstrates the value of information in politics and international relations on a meta-level is reflected in multiple statements made by US officials from March to August 2020 on China delaying to provide information on the virus threat and thus enhancing its worldwide spreading (Brunnstrom, 2020, Wong, Barnes & Kanno-Youngs, 2020). Whether such a claim is truthful or not is for this discussion essentially irrelevant. Hence, instead of speculating on what might be the case, the text will provide a theoretical and historical account of the value of information in such contexts. The paper will thus aim to shed light on why the pandemic, besides being a sanitary emergency, is also considered to be a matter of politics and public affairs.

What is information? 

What we refer to as information in this text is a spectrum of news, rumours, and speculations which may be found in the form of official letters, oral reports, or any other form of information that may be obtained as personal evidence. Another key property of information is that it is being communicated to the audience in a specific manner. Understanding the aspect of communication is crucial for understanding how information is being presented. Namely, the most basic way of presenting a piece of information is through an assertion. 

In the course of presenting information, it is being imposed what the ‘truth’ is, i.e. the reader is being informed on what is going on through an assertion. The very effect of such speech act undermines any basis for a true/false criterion which stems from semantic properties of language because a statement by its form presumes to be expressing truth. The universal grammatical property of language is such that any statement assumes by default to be truth. This is what Hinzen and Sheehan (2013) call “a linguistic approach to realism”. While asserting the truth is a grammatical default, falsehood needs to be lexical. In order that a falsehood may be asserted it requires a lexical marker – negation. 

The reason for providing such grammatical background in the context of information is to indicate that both truth and a falsehood (if such binary division could be made at all, but in this case referring to information, misinformation, distorted information, speculations etc.) are linguistically found in the same form when asserted. Hence, when the public assesses whether an asserted proposition is true or false, it is pointless to focus on the assertion itself. What is generally taken into account as the criterion for truth assessment is whether it comes from a reliable source. It follows that the information which is being communicated to the public is not matter of knowledge but rather matter of belief, and the strength of the belief depends on the authority and credibility of the reporter.

Control and manipulation of information – a historical account

In order to emphasise the significance of ability to handle information in politics and international relations, we will refer to historical examples from renaissance Italy. Lazzarini (2015) in her study on diplomatic relations in Italy during the renaissance period introduces four functions of diplomacy based on Michael Mallett’s triad: 1) diplomacy to avoid war; 2) diplomacy to prepare for war; 3) diplomacy to end war; and adds herself the fourth function, 4) diplomacy as war.

The reason for introducing the fourth function – diplomacy as war with words – is found in Francesco Sforza’s (Duke of Milan 1450–1466) account in which he emphasised the utility of being able to control and manipulate information. On Sforza’s remark, Lazzarini further notes that “playing games with news and rumours, and using them as instruments of politics and conflict, became a deliberate practice. In Italian chanceries information was systematically manipulated in order to conceal facts and distort reality in many ways, such as by slowing or accelerating the diffusion of some items of news instead of others, by cutting or altering the content of the letters that were written, copied, and sent around, and even by falsifying them partially or entirely” (Ibid.).

However, indeed because of such practice, instead of being a tool of communication and revealing information, language has become more and more perceived as a tool for disguising and distorting information. As Lazzarini adds, it has led towards “a growing scepticism towards the idea of determining events through the control of information, and an increasing political paralysis” (Ibid.). That this is still relevant in todays world is also claimed by Treverton and others (2018) in their report “Addressing Hybrid Threats”. Be it by diplomatic or war means, they argue that “Information operations – that is, the weaponizing of information for strategic objectives – serve as important tools due to their utility in trying to shape the political discourse and popular narrative in many countries” (Treverton, G. F. et al., 2018).

Information processes – politics and linguistics

Political systems are built upon networks of information. Therefore, any mutations in that network lead to alternations of that system. An alternated system means that a new paradigm on the state of affairs has been conceptualised. However, this also means that the actors who are in the position of controlling the information distribution are in a favourable position to lead towards new understandings of the reality. What it implies in practice is that such a position enables them to uphold or reshape the systems in accordance with their interests. 

When speaking of information distribution and its presentation, we need to acknowledge that it is a linguistic process. The fundamental idea of this argument is that language is a tool for making policies as legitimate, necessary, and justified, as well as ‘realistic’ to their relevant audiences (Hansen 2016). Another feature of such process concerns the very reception of information, that is how a certain meaning is being assigned to it. 

A piece of received information conceives its meaning only when the receiver attempts to understand it. For instance, this occurs when grammatical rules are applied to the newly received information, thus determining whether it is possible in logical terms. On these grounds it is being further assessed through a criterion in the form of developed rational patterns of concepts and beliefs (Hinzen & Sheehan, 2013, Chomsky, 2007b). Considering that different groups of a society with pre-existent patterns of attitudes and understanding of the society will inevitably attempt to fit the available information into these patterns, the received information will be assigned different interpretations and meanings. This is how multiple pictures of reality are being created on a single issue.

2020 – handling healthcare situation or handling information on the situation?

Having multiple pictures of reality on a certain issue within a society leads to a contest over establishing what is ‘real’. If the issue happens to be a matter of public concern, the contest then becomes political. This leads to a setting in which a particular representation of an event (or of a policy, or a process) enables relevant political implications. In other words, if a certain discourse takes precedence, it imposes a specific understanding of the event which hence allows a certain agency as a reaction to the presented situation.

The same contest can be noticed in the Covid-19 crisis and it provides the conditions to consider it as not only a health issue but also a political one. Uncertainty, lack of knowledge and lose proofs have enabled overly wide space for interpretations. Overwhelming presence of the topic in the media by presenting contradictory accounts has not contributed to its better understanding but rather the opposite. It has likewise enabled more space for misinformation and mistrust towards relevant authorities. All the mentioned has contributed to enhancing the political aspect of the crisis. Reason for it is that the environment as such can mobilise a wider spectrum of factions within a society. Such a vague situation provides a great opportunity for justifying agendas of any of the factions because the environment of uncertainty is inherently more tolerant towards the discourses that would otherwise be rejected (Hogg et al., 2013).

Back to the beginning – the ending remarks

Referring back to the example of the US accusation of China of withholding information on the Covid-19 threat mentioned at the beginning of the text, the paper demonstrates the value of handling of information in two ways. 

Firstly, such an accusation may present an attempt to shape a specific understanding of the situation by making sense of the information out there. Such an accusation has had the aim to incite a certain question, or in this case induce a suspicion, rather than to provide an answer. It follows the line of argument that one who designs a question has already designed to a good extent the very answer of it. Hence, one who is in the position to impose certain questions to the public is likewise in a good position to project a preferred answer. It remains uncertain whether the assertion made in the accusation is true or not. However, what remains too is mistrust and suspicion, which is in times of uncertainty enough to justify if the US decides to treat China in an even less friendly manner.

Secondly, the example illustrated above demonstrates that one who is in the position to choose which information is to be distributed and which to be withheld is in that way shaping the preferred understanding of an event. In this case it refers to the possibility that China has indeed willingly withheld the information on the virus threat for the purpose of pursuing its own interests. This alludes to the earlier mentioned Francesco Sforza’s approach to handling information in diplomacy. When applied to this case, it reads that by concealing facts and distorting reality from China’s side, the others have reacted too late to prevent the spread of the virus, which thence led to a shutdown of economy.

The way information on the crisis has been handled so far has only been opening new frontiers. This leaves many opportunities for redefining the existing social concepts. As it stands, the overwhelming amount of information, characterised primarily by indefiniteness, provides an open field for contesting new understandings that will define the post-crisis world order, which also suggests that the political aspect of the crisis may outlast its sanitary aspect. 

Bibliography

Brunnstrom, D. (2020, March 25). Pompeo says China still withholding coronavirus information. Reuters. Retrieved 15 October 2020, from https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-heath-coronavirus-pompeo/pompeo-says-china-still-withholding-coronavirus-information-idUSKBN21B3IH 

Chomsky, N., (2007b). Reflections on language. On language. New York: The New Free Press.

Hansen, L. (2016). Discourse analysis, post-structuralism, and foreign policy. In S. Smith, A. Hadfield & T. Dunne, Foreign policy: theories, actors, cases (pp. 95–110). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hinzen, W., & Sheehan, M. (2013). The philosophy of universal grammar. Oxford University Press.

Hogg, M. A., Kruglanski, A., & Bos, K. (2013). Uncertainty and the Roots of Extremism. Journal of Social Issues, 69(3), 407–418. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12021 

Lazzarini, I. (2015). Communication and conflict: Italian diplomacy in the Early Renaissance, 1350-1520. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Treverton, G. F., Thvedt, A., Chen, A. R., Lee, K., & McCue, M. (2018). Addressing Hybrid Threats. Swedish Defence University.

Wong, E., Barnes, J., & Kanno-Youngs, Z. (2020, August 19). Local Officials in China Hid Coronavirus Dangers From Beijing, U.S. Agencies Find. NY Times. Retrieved 15 October 2020, from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/19/world/asia/china-coronavirus-beijing-trump.html 

 

Autore dell’articolo*: Stefan Vucic, currently based in Gdask, Poland, where he is working as Research Analyst at Refinitiv.

***

Nota della redazione del Think Tank Trinità dei Monti

Come sempre pubblichiamo i nostri lavori per stimolare altre riflessioni, che possano portare ad integrazioni e approfondimenti. 

* I contenuti e le valutazioni dell’intervento sono di esclusiva responsabilità dell’autore.

Editor’s Note – Think Tank Trinità dei Monti

As always, we publish our articles to encourage debates, and to spread knowledge and original and alternative points of view.

* The contents and the opinions of this article belong to the author(s) of this article only.