Rethinking the Concept of Hybrid Warfare within the Framework of Semiotic Anthropology

Igor Vujčić


The term psychological operations, viewed in the context of security sciences as one of the fundamental methods of contemporary hybrid warfare is commonly described as the use of non-military means such as information campaigns, subversive activities, indirect strategic communication and propaganda in attempts to achieve certain strategic goals. However, I will argue that by describing these activities as psychological, we risk losing sight of their cultural aspects, namely the fact that they are directed at and conducted within a specific cultural context. By placing the concept of hybrid warfare within the framework of semiotic anthropology, I will show how the activities traditionally viewed by the security experts as psychological in nature are actually directly linked to shared cultural meanings, values, motivations, worldviews and cultural and subcultural identities. I will argue that hybrid warfare, in its essence, can be viewed as a conflict resulting from the simultaneous presence of competing interpretations of social reality within one sociocultural context.

Słowa kluczowe: Hybrid warfare, political warfare, PSYOPS, semiotic anthropology, cultural communication

Bakardjieva M.
2005 Internet Society: Th e Internet in Everyday Life, London.

Baudrillard J.
1995 Th e Gulf War did not Take Place, Indianapolis.

Brockmeier J.
2005 Th e Text of the Mind, in: Th e Mind as a Scientifi c Object, ed. C.E. Erneling, D.M. Johnson, Oxford, p. 432–447.

Burgers T., Romaniuk S.
2016 Hybrid Warfare in the South China Sea: Th e United States’ Little Grey (Un)Men, (access: 16. 11. 2018).

Christensen J.
2018 Sound and the Aesthetics of Play: A Musical Onthology of Constructed Emotions, Aalborg.

Coleman G.
2010 Ethnographic Approaches to Digital Media, “Annual Review of Anthropology”, no. 39, p. 487–509.

Geertz C.
2000 Interpretation of Cultures, New York.

Hoff man F.
2014 On Not-So-New Warfare: Political Warfare vs. Hybrid Th reats, http://warontherocks. com/2014/07/on-not-so-new-warfare-political-warfare-vs hybridthreats/ (access:16.11.2018).

Kofman M., McDermot R.
2015 No Return to Cold War in Russia’s New Military Doctrine, http://www.eurasiareview. com/03022015-no-return-cold-war-russias-new-military-doctrine-analysis/(access: 16.11.2018).

Kofman M., Rojansky M.
2015 A Closer Look at Russia’s “Hybrid War”, “Kennan Cable”, no. 7, p. 1–8.

Korybko A.
2015 Hybrid Wars: Th e Indirect Adaptive Approach to Regime Change, Moscow.

Leach E.
1976 Culture and Communication: Th e Logic by Which Symbols are Connected, Cambridge.

Leavitt J.
1996 Meaning and Feeling in the Anthropology of Emotions, “American Ethnologist”, no. 23, p. 514–539.

Lévi-Strauss C.
1977 Strukturalna antropologija, transl. I. Kuvačić, Zagreb.

Luman N.
2001 Društveni sistemi: osnovi opšte teorije, transl. L. Topić, Novi Sad.

Mattis J., Hoff man F.
2005 Future Warfare: Th e Rise of Hybrid Wars,

2005-11/future-warfare-rise-hybrid-wars (access: 16.11.2018).

Munck V. de
2013 A Th eory Explaining the Functional Linkage between the Self, Identity and Cultural Models, “Journal of Cognition and Culture”, no. 13, p. 179–200.

Nedeljković S.
2006 Mit, religija i nacionalni identitet: mitologizacija u Srbiji u periodu nacionalne krize, „Etnoantropološki problemi”, no. 1, p. 155–180.

Newson R.
2014 Counter-Unconventional Warfare Is the Way of the Future: How Can We Get Th ere?, (access: 16.11.2018).

Obućina V.
2016 Što je hibridno ratovanje i kako se Rusija snalazi u njemu?, (access:7.5.2016).

Olson D.
2005 Mind, Brain and Culture, in: Th e Mind as a Scientifi c Object, ed. C.E. Erneling, D. M. Johnson, Oxford, p. 160–165.

Spracklen K.
2015 Digital Leisure: Th e Internet and the Popular Culture, Basingstoke.

Strauss C., Quinn N.
1997 A Cognitive Th eory of Cultural Meaning, Cambridge.

Turner V.
1992 From Ritual to Th eatre: Th e Human Seriousness of Play, London.

Zlatohlávek P.
2016 Hybrid Warfare: A New Phenomenon in Europe’s Security Environment, (access: 16.11.2018).

Žakula S.
2012 Da li kiborzi sanjaju biomehaničke ovce? Telo i hiperrealnosti, „Antropologija”, no. 12, p. 43–61.

Žikić B.
2008 Kako složiti babe, žabe i električne gitare: uvod u kognitivnu antropologiju, „Antropologija“, no. 6, p. 117–139.

2010 Antropologija i žanr: naučna fantastika – komunikacija identiteta, „Etnoantropološki problemi”, no. 5, p. 17–34.

2012 Popularna kultura, nadkulturna komunikacija, „Etnoantropološki problemi”, no. 7, p. 315–341.

Sources (access: 16.11.2018). (access: 16.11.2018). (access: 16.11.2018). (access: 16.11.2018). (access: 16.11.2018). (access: 16.11.2018). cation-293/ (access: 16.11.2018). (access: 16.11.2018). 16.11.2018). (access: 16.11.2018). html (access: 16.11.2018). (access: 16.11.2018). (access: 16.11.2018). (access: 16.11.2018). (access: 16.02.2019). (access: 16.02.2019). (access: 16.02.2019).

https://www.foreignaff er-crimea (access: 13.02.2019). (access: 13.02.2019). occupation-echoes-hitler (access: 14.02.2019). (access: 16.02.2019). (access: 16.02.2019). (access: 14.02.2019). (access: 14.02.2019). (access: 16.02.2019). (access: 16.02.2019). (access: 16.02.2019). (access: 16.02.2019). (access: 18.02.2019). (access: 16.02.2019). (access: 16.02.2019). (access: 14.02.2019). (access: 14.02.2019). (access: 18.02.2019). (access: 13.02.2019). (access: 18.02.2019). (access: 18.02.2019). (access: 16.02.2019). (access: 14.02.2019).

https://www.foreignaff (access: 13.02.2019). (access: 18.02.2019). ees-russian-homophobia/ (access: 16.02.2019). (access: 16.02.2019). (access: 18.02.2019). (access: 18.02.2019).

Kwartalnik "Prace Etnograficzne" ukazuje się w sposób ciągły on-line.

Pierwotną wersją czasopisma jest wersja elektroniczna publikowana kwartalnie w internecie.