Global geopolitics

An Opinion Analysis of Systemic Conditioning, Cognitive Dissonance, and Identity Defence in Caitlin Johnstone’s Critique of Western Narrative Hegemony

Western public discourse surrounding foreign policy rests upon a conceptual infrastructure that most citizens rarely examine in structural terms. Caitlin Johnstone argues that resistance to critiques of the United States and its allied power structures does not primarily arise from informed disagreement but from psychological discomfort associated with cognitive dissonance. Her analysis aligns with Leon Festinger’s foundational theory that individuals experience measurable stress when confronted with information that conflicts with deeply held beliefs, and that they will often reject such information to preserve internal consistency (Festinger, 1957). Empirical studies conducted at Stanford and Princeton have demonstrated that individuals exposed to counter-attitudinal political information exhibit defensive processing patterns rather than analytical reconsideration, particularly when identity is implicated (Taber and Lodge, 2006). Defence of empire narratives therefore functions as defence of identity stability.

Johnstone observes that many western citizens acknowledge isolated misconduct by their governments while stopping short of concluding that the overarching power structure generates systemic harm. Antonio Gramsci’s theory of cultural hegemony provides an explanatory framework for this partial recognition, arguing that dominant classes maintain control not solely through coercion but through the normalisation of their worldview as common sense (Gramsci, Prison Notebooks). The belief that western states act fundamentally in good faith against adversarial regimes in Russia, China, Iran, or North Korea forms part of that hegemonic structure. Even partisan shifts between major political parties occur within this conceptual boundary, preserving the assumption that capitalism functions effectively, democracy remains intact, and media institutions operate in trustworthy fashion.

Johnstone contends that confronting the possibility of systemic deception threatens an individual’s entire worldview rather than a single policy position. Social identity theory supports this claim by demonstrating that political beliefs intertwine with group belonging and personal meaning, making ideological revision psychologically destabilising (Tajfel and Turner, 1979). When individuals are asked to reconsider narratives about Ukraine or China, they must also reconsider trust in media institutions, educational systems, and historical memory. Such reconsideration implicates childhood socialisation, professional identity, and social networks, thereby raising the perceived cost of inquiry. Behavioural economists describe this as loss aversion operating in the cognitive domain, where potential identity loss outweighs perceived epistemic gain (Kahneman and Tversky, 1979).

Johnstone locates the origin of this dynamic within systemic conditioning mechanisms embedded in capitalism and imperial governance. Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky’s propaganda model identifies structural filters within corporate media, including ownership concentration, advertising dependency, sourcing reliance, flak mechanisms, and anti-communist or security framing, which shape permissible discourse (Herman and Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent). Subsequent media scholarship at the University of Westminster and elsewhere has demonstrated that reliance on official sources during wartime produces narrative uniformity that marginalises dissenting perspectives. Mass schooling systems reinforce this structure by embedding civic myths within curricula that emphasise national virtue and humanitarian intent.

Capitalism’s competitive logic compounds this conditioning. Political economy scholars such as Robert Cox argue that material structures generate ideological superstructures that justify their reproduction (Cox, 1981). Labour markets reward compliance with institutional norms, while dissent carries professional risk. Citizens trained to function as employees within hierarchical organisations internalise obedience and competition as normal behavioural expectations. Johnstone describes individuals as shaped into “good cogs in the imperial machine,” a formulation consistent with Michel Foucault’s analysis of disciplinary institutions producing self-regulating subjects (Foucault, Discipline and Punish). Corporate and state power therefore converge in producing a conditioned citizenry aligned with systemic imperatives.

Her argument extends to the case of Israel, which she characterises as a state whose policies depend upon public indoctrination into accepting structural violence. Scholars of settler colonialism such as Ilan Pappé and Rashid Khalidi have documented patterns of displacement and segregation within the Palestinian territories, while human rights organisations including B’Tselem and Amnesty International have described the legal regime as apartheid. Johnstone attributes popular support for these policies to systemic conditioning rather than inherent moral deficiency. Political psychology research indicates that exposure to threat framing increases in-group solidarity and acceptance of coercive measures against perceived out-groups (Huddy et al., 2005). State narratives framed around security and existential danger thus cultivate public endorsement of policies that might otherwise generate moral opposition.

The emotional intensity observed when official narratives are challenged reflects this identity fusion. Neurocognitive research at Emory University demonstrates that threats to political beliefs activate brain regions associated with personal threat perception rather than analytical reasoning (Kaplan et al., 2016). Defensive anger therefore emerges not as calculated argument but as visceral protection of self-concept. Johnstone notes that defenders of empire narratives appear emotionally invested beyond the policy details under discussion. Psychological defence mechanisms described by Freud and later elaborated by contemporary cognitive science operate to shield the ego from destabilising information.

Her account further observes that relinquishing mainstream consensus reality can produce epistemological instability. Political scientists studying radicalisation processes have documented transitional phases in which individuals abandon dominant narratives without acquiring coherent alternatives, rendering them vulnerable to conspiratorial frameworks. Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule analysed how information cascades within marginal networks can produce epistemic bubbles detached from empirical verification. Johnstone acknowledges this risk while maintaining that abandoning falsehood remains necessary for truthful understanding. The transitional instability therefore constitutes a structural feature of worldview revision rather than evidence against systemic critique.

Geopolitically, defence of imperial narratives sustains public consent for military expenditure and intervention. United States defence spending exceeded 800 billion dollars in recent fiscal cycles, dwarfing allocations of rival powers combined. Political economist Seymour Melman documented the long-term industrial dependence of American manufacturing regions on defence contracts, creating domestic constituencies for continued militarisation. Public belief in benevolent intervention supports this expenditure and legitimises alliance expansion. When citizens internalise narratives portraying adversarial states as uniquely aggressive or tyrannical, diplomatic alternatives appear naïve or dangerous.

Johnstone’s contention that humans are products of conditioning aligns with sociological institutionalism, which posits that organisational environments shape actor preferences and cognition (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). Mass media and schooling function as institutions transmitting normative scripts that define acceptable thought. These scripts operate continuously from early childhood through adulthood. Educational theorist John Taylor Gatto argued that compulsory schooling inculcates conformity and deference to authority through structural design rather than explicit instruction. The resulting citizen internalises system-compatible assumptions long before encountering formal political debate.

Resistance to systemic critique thus reflects layered reinforcement across psychological, economic, and geopolitical dimensions. Individuals defending empire narratives protect identity coherence, social belonging, professional security, and moral self-conception simultaneously. The scale of potential loss explains the intensity of reaction. Johnstone advises patience toward those who resist inquiry, framing their response as fear rather than malice. Her position resonates with developmental psychology findings that belief revision follows stages often marked by discomfort and confusion before integration.

Structural transformation therefore requires more than fact correction within existing media cycles. Information that challenges hegemonic narratives must pass through institutional filters that systematically marginalise dissent. Independent scholars such as Glenn Diesen have argued that multipolar international development challenges Western narrative dominance by expanding informational pluralism across Eurasian and Global South platforms. Digital decentralisation complicates narrative control yet also produces fragmentation and algorithmic manipulation. The political economy of information remains decisive.

Systemic conditioning does not imply human depravity but structural incentive alignment. Economic competition, media concentration, and security framing generate behavioural patterns consistent with imperial maintenance. Individuals shaped within these systems reproduce them unconsciously. Johnstone’s central thesis therefore identifies the system as primary rather than individual moral failure. Sociologist Pierre Bourdieu described habitus as the internalised structure of social systems manifesting within individual dispositions (Bourdieu, 1977). Empire narratives operate through habitus embedded in language, media consumption, and institutional trust.

The persistence of imperial consensus in western societies thus reflects interlocking psychological defence mechanisms, economic incentives, and hegemonic narrative reproduction. Dissonance avoidance protects identity, while institutional conditioning narrows acceptable discourse. Foreign policy debates unfold within predetermined conceptual boundaries that render systemic critique socially costly. Johnstone’s analysis situates responsibility within structural arrangements shaping cognition and behaviour. Transformation requires recognition of those arrangements and sustained inquiry beyond consensus frameworks.

So, this preceding opinion analysis is grounded in two essays by Caitlin Johnstone which readers should consult directly for full context and original formulation.

The first, titled “It’s Always About The System,” argues that resistance to confronting Western imperial power structures arises from cognitive dissonance produced by recognising systemic deception. Johnstone maintains that individuals are conditioned by capitalism, imperial ideology, and mass media systems into accepting structural violence as normal, and that moral failures attributed to populations are more accurately located within institutional frameworks that shape belief and behaviour. The article contends that indoctrination through schooling, media, and political culture produces compliant citizens who sustain imperial arrangements, and that meaningful understanding requires abandoning partial attachment to mainstream narratives.

The second essay, “People Who Defend Empire Narratives Are Really Just Defending Their Worldview From Destruction,” examines the emotional intensity displayed when official Western foreign policy narratives are challenged. Johnstone argues that such reactions reflect psychological defence of identity structures rather than reasoned policy disagreement. Questioning narratives about states such as Russia, China, Iran, or conflicts such as Ukraine forces individuals to reconsider trust in media, education, and political institutions, thereby threatening their entire conceptual framework. The article describes this process as destabilising and disorienting, explaining why many prefer partisan shifts within mainstream consensus reality over structural critique of the system itself.

Readers are encouraged to engage with both essays in full to understand the conceptual foundation upon which the above analysis has been developed.

“It’s Always About The System” is available at:

https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/its-always-about-the-system

“People Who Defend Empire Narratives Are Really Just Defending Their Worldview From Destruction” is available at:

https://caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/people-who-defend-empire-narratives

Authored By: Global GeoPolitics

Global GeoPolitics is entirely reader supported and independent from corporate or state funding structures. Sustained research and publication on geopolitics, political economy, and systemic analysis require time and material backing from readers who value independent inquiry. Paid subscriptions support archival access, exclusive research publications and the continuation of critical examination of global power structures. Support can also be provided through Buy Me a Coffee or Ko-fi platforms for readers who prefer one-time contributions.

https://buymeacoffee.com/ggtv or

https://ko-fi.com/globalgeopolitics

References

(APA 7th edition style based on works cited in your essay)

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge University Press.

Cox, R. W. (1981). Social forces, states and world orders: Beyond international relations theory. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 10(2), 126–155.

DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.

Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Pantheon Books.

Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks. International Publishers.

Herman, E. S., & Chomsky, N. (1988). Manufacturing consent: The political economy of the mass media. Pantheon Books.

Huddy, L., Feldman, S., Taber, C., & Lahav, G. (2005). Threat, anxiety, and support of anti-terrorism policies. American Journal of Political Science, 49(3), 593–608.

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291.

Kaplan, J. T., Gimbel, S. I., & Harris, S. (2016). Neural correlates of maintaining one’s political beliefs in the face of counterevidence. Scientific Reports, 6, Article 39589.

Melman, S. (1985). The permanent war economy: American capitalism in decline. Simon & Schuster.

Sunstein, C. R., & Vermeule, A. (2009). Conspiracy theories: Causes and cures. Journal of Political Philosophy, 17(2), 202–227.

Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755–769.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.

Johnstone, C. (Year). It’s Always About The System. [Publication details/URL].

Johnstone, C. (Year). People Who Defend Empire Narratives Are Really Just Defending Their Worldview From Destruction. [Publication details/URL].