How Enemy Images Are Manufactured

The concept of the "enemy image" (Feindbild in German, where much of the early theoretical work was done) refers to a simplified, moralized, and typically dehumanized mental representation of an adversary — whether a person, group, nation, or ideology — that justifies hostility by stripping the adversary of qualities that would otherwise engage empathy or moral consideration.

Enemy images are not simply negative opinions or even strong dislike. They are systematic cognitive-emotional packages that serve specific psychological functions: they reduce ambiguity, provide a coherent narrative of causation (they are why things are wrong), license aggression by relocating moral responsibility onto the enemy, and consolidate in-group identity through shared opposition.

Social psychologists distinguish between ordinary prejudice and the full enemy image. Ordinary prejudice is the attribution of negative characteristics to an out-group. An enemy image goes further: it attributes active malevolence, existential threat, and irredeemable nature to the out-group. The enemy is not merely flawed or different; the enemy is dangerous by their very existence, and must be opposed, contained, or eliminated.

Nils Petter Gleditsch, Jacek Kugler, and others working in the tradition of conflict psychology have identified consistent components of the enemy image:

- Negative mirror image: The belief that the enemy possesses exactly the traits we deny in ourselves. Whatever we fear we are, we project onto them. - Attribution of malicious intent: Actions by the enemy, even neutral or defensive ones, are interpreted as hostile. Actions by our side that are objectively hostile are interpreted as defensive or justified. - Zero-sum framing: Their gain is our loss. Any outcome that benefits them is by definition bad for us. - Homogenization: All members of the enemy group are the same. The individual variation that we naturally recognize within our own group disappears. - Moral exclusion: The enemy is placed outside the moral community — outside the zone of people to whom our normal moral obligations apply.

Each of these components is a distortion of reality. And each one, individually, can be identified and corrected. The problem is that they don't usually appear individually — they come packaged together, mutually reinforcing.

One of the most significant contributions of social neuroscience to the study of enemy images is the documentation of what happens in the brain when people are presented with dehumanizing representations of others.

Lasana Harris and Susan Fiske at Princeton conducted a landmark fMRI study (2006) examining how the brain responds to photographs of different social groups. When participants viewed members of most groups — athletes, elderly people, businesspeople, even people from different races — the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) activated. The mPFC is associated with social cognition — the process of thinking about other people as minded beings with intentions, feelings, and perspectives. It is, in a literal sense, the part of the brain that sees other people as people.

When participants viewed photographs of homeless people and drug addicts — groups that they had rated as low in both warmth and competence — the mPFC did not activate in the same way. Instead, the regions associated with disgust and objects (not persons) lit up. The social brain was not treating these individuals as people to be understood — it was treating them as things to be responded to.

This finding is profound in its implications. Dehumanization is not merely a metaphor or a rhetorical strategy. It is a description of a specific neurological state in which the normal mechanism for recognizing persons — the mechanism that generates empathy, that registers suffering, that engages moral consideration — has been switched off or bypassed.

Importantly, Harris and Fiske also found that even brief individualizing information — a detail about the person's preferences, their name, something personal — could re-engage the mPFC. The depersonalization is not permanent or fixed. The mechanism can be re-activated. This is significant for the question of reversal, addressed in the companion article.

Nick Haslam's dual-model framework of dehumanization (2006) distinguishes between two types:

- Animalistic dehumanization: The target group is denied specifically human traits — morality, rationality, self-control, civility. They are framed as primitive, bestial, driven by instinct rather than reason. This is the framework activated by calling people animals, vermin, or savages. - Mechanistic dehumanization: The target group is denied the traits of warmth, emotion, and depth — framed as cold, rigid, interchangeable, lacking individuality. This is the framework activated when people are described as cogs, drones, or units.

Both types produce moral exclusion, but through different routes. Animalistic dehumanization tends to generate disgust and aggression; mechanistic dehumanization tends to generate indifference and instrumentalization. Historical atrocities have often combined both.

Enemy images do not emerge spontaneously. They are produced through identifiable processes, many of which have been well-documented by propaganda researchers, genocide scholars, and historians.

Step 1: Threat construction. The foundation of any enemy image is a perceived threat. The threat may be real, exaggerated, or entirely fabricated — but it must be felt as real. Effective threat construction targets specific anxieties: economic insecurity, physical safety, cultural integrity, status competition. The more diffuse the actual threat, the more useful a concrete enemy image becomes as a channel for anxiety. You can't fight economic globalization, but you can fight the group that's blamed for your job loss.

Step 2: Categorical attribution. The crucial step is moving from a specific harm or threat to a categorical claim. Not "these specific people did this specific thing" but "people of this type are like this." The categorical leap requires suppressing individuating information — the information that would make individual members of the group distinct from the stereotype. Once the category is established as meaningful, it can absorb new information in distorted ways: behaviors that confirm the stereotype are taken as evidence; behaviors that disconfirm it are dismissed as exceptions or deception.

Step 3: Language of essence. Dehumanizing language works by suggesting that the out-group's threatening characteristics are not contingent (a result of circumstances, history, or choices) but essential — built into their nature, unchangeable, prior to any action they take. "They are criminals." Not "some of them commit crimes." "They are violent." Not "some of them have committed violence." The shift to essence-language is the shift that makes enemy images stable and resistant to counter-evidence. If the threat is essential, no individual counter-example can disprove it.

Step 4: Social amplification. An enemy image circulated by one person is an opinion. Circulated by many, repeated across contexts, embedded in institutions, entertainment, news media, and casual conversation, it becomes part of the social reality — something that feels like fact rather than framing. Gordon Allport's classic work on the nature of prejudice documented how social consensus around a negative out-group representation becomes self-reinforcing: people see what they're primed to see, remember what confirms the image, and explain away what contradicts it.

Step 5: Authority endorsement. When institutions or authority figures endorse an enemy image — governments, religious leaders, media outlets — it receives a credibility boost that individual prejudice doesn't carry. The implicit message: this isn't just your personal animus, it's the considered judgment of people who know more than you. This endorsement is particularly powerful when the authority figure is perceived as being on your side, speaking in your defense.

Step 6: Moral licensing. Once the enemy image is established and socially endorsed, it provides moral license for what would otherwise be prohibited actions. Harm to the out-group stops being harm and becomes protection, justice, or necessity. The literature on genocide consistently documents this progression: dehumanization precedes mass violence not because people enjoy violence but because it removes the psychological and moral inhibitions that would otherwise prevent it. Jacques Semelin's analysis of genocide and political massacres identifies dehumanization as the necessary precondition — not sufficient, but necessary.

Enemy images are not politically neutral. They are almost always instruments of power — either to maintain existing power arrangements by diverting discontent onto a scapegoat group, or to mobilize power by building cohesion through shared opposition.

The scapegoat dynamic is well-documented. When a population experiences economic hardship, insecurity, or loss of status, hostility toward out-groups tends to increase. The psychological mechanism is displacement: the actual causes of suffering are diffuse, abstract, or politically difficult to confront, so the hostility gets redirected onto a more available target. This has been weaponized by political actors for as long as political actors have existed. The pattern is consistent across cultures and historical periods: when conditions deteriorate, those who need a distraction look for an enemy. The enemy image is the distraction made permanent.

The in-group cohesion function is equally important. Nothing bonds a group like a shared enemy. In-group solidarity, cooperation, resource-sharing, and collective action all increase when the group perceives itself under external threat. This means that manufacturing or amplifying a threat — even one that is not proportionate to reality — is a reliable way to consolidate group loyalty. The manufactured enemy serves the leader who needs loyalty more than it serves the group whose safety the leader claims to protect.

Recognizing this dynamic requires asking, when confronted with an enemy image: Who is advancing this? What do they stand to gain from my hostility toward this group? What would they lose if I examined the claim carefully? These are not questions of cynicism — they are questions of ordinary critical thinking applied to the domain of political psychology.

The hardest part of this material is the personal inventory.

Because enemy images are socially installed, and because they are experienced as clarity rather than distortion, most people carry several that they have never examined. Not dramatic, overt dehumanizations — most people don't carry those consciously — but subtler constructs: the sense that some category of person is essentially untrustworthy, essentially dangerous, essentially incomprehensible. The feeling that their suffering is less real, their logic is inevitably corrupt, their motivations are inherently suspect.

The categories vary by who you are and where you came from. They might run along political lines, class lines, racial lines, religious lines, national lines, or any of the other axes along which human beings sort themselves and each other. The specific target matters less, for this diagnostic purpose, than the quality of the image: Is it categorical? Does it attribute essence? Does it foreclose individuating information? Does it generate a feeling of righteous clarity rather than complex discomfort?

If yes, you are probably looking at an enemy image rather than a carefully examined judgment.

Henri Tajfel's social identity theory and the minimal group paradigm studies demonstrated that human beings will show in-group favoritism and out-group discrimination based on essentially arbitrary group assignments. Participants assigned to groups based on coin flips or art preference allocate resources more favorably to their in-group and less favorably to their out-group — despite knowing the assignment is arbitrary. The bias is that automatic. It doesn't require animus or a manufactured enemy image. But it creates the psychological scaffolding that enemy images colonize.

The discomfort of recognizing your own enemy images is genuine. It requires holding two things at once: the acknowledgment that real harms have been done and real threats exist, and the acknowledgment that the enemy image you've been handed may be a distortion of reality that serves purposes other than your own clarity or protection.

The basic mechanisms of enemy-image manufacturing are ancient. The specific tactics available in the current information environment are historically unprecedented in their reach and precision.

Algorithmic amplification. Social media recommendation systems are optimized for engagement. Outrage, fear, and moral condemnation generate more engagement than nuance, ambiguity, or correction. This means that dehumanizing content about out-groups systematically outperforms humanizing content in algorithmic environments. The enemy image is not just manufactured by specific actors — it is continuously amplified by infrastructure that has no stake in the accuracy of the representation.

Micro-targeted fear. Political advertising on social platforms can now deliver threat-framing to specific audiences calibrated to their specific anxieties. The enemy image is no longer broadcast — it is personalized. Different versions of the same out-group threat are served to different audiences based on their individual psychological profiles.

Pseudoscientific laundering. Claims about out-groups acquire credibility when dressed in the language of science, statistics, or expertise. The history of scientific racism demonstrates how thoroughly pseudoscience can be used to dress an enemy image in the authority of empirical fact. Contemporary versions of this persist — in misused crime statistics, in repackaged phrenological claims about cognitive difference, in the selective use of genetics research to suggest what the research explicitly does not support.

Moral inversion. Advanced enemy-image construction doesn't just portray the out-group as threatening — it portrays opponents of the enemy image as the real threat. People who object to the dehumanization are framed as naive, as traitors, as themselves in league with the enemy. This closes off the corrective mechanism by making the act of questioning the enemy image itself evidence of danger or complicity.

The specificity test. Take any generalized negative claim about a group and force it to become specific. What specific actions by which specific people? Specific claims can be evaluated. Categorical claims cannot — that's their purpose.

The reversal test. Apply the same standard of evidence and the same emotional weight to a comparable claim about a group you belong to. If the evidence standard would be considered laughably thin if applied to your group, it's probably thin when applied to the out-group.

The beneficiary question. Who gains from your hostility toward this group? Is the person or institution advancing this enemy image materially or politically served by your hostility? If yes, add a significant discount to the credibility of the claim.

The exception protocol. When confronted with a member of a group you hold an enemy image of who does not fit the image, notice what you do with the information. Do you update the image? Or do you explain it away ("they're one of the good ones")? The explanation pattern is a diagnostic. Real evidence updates beliefs. Enemy images explain away counter-evidence.

The humanizing encounter. Research on intergroup contact — Gordon Allport's contact hypothesis, updated by Thomas Pettigrew's meta-analyses — consistently shows that direct, equal-status contact with members of an out-group reduces prejudice. The enemy image depends on abstraction. Concrete individuals are harder to hold in an abstract mold. This doesn't mean naive or forced exposure — the conditions matter — but it does mean that deliberate engagement with the specific, human reality of people your enemy image is about is among the most reliable corrective tools available.

The bodily signal. Notice where in your body you feel the enemy image. The tightening, the contraction, the sense of readiness for defense or disgust. That feeling is real and it is telling you something — but what it is telling you may not be what you think. The body's threat response can be triggered by manufactured stimuli just as readily as by real threats. The feeling of certainty is not evidence of correctness. The question is whether you have examined what's generating the signal.

---

1. Harris, L. T., & Fiske, S. T. (2006). Dehumanizing the lowest of the low: Neuroimaging responses to extreme out-groups. Psychological Science, 17(10), 847–853.

2. Haslam, N. (2006). Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 252–264.

3. Allport, G. W. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice. Addison-Wesley.

4. 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.

5. Semelin, J. (2007). Purify and Destroy: The Political Uses of Massacre and Genocide. Columbia University Press.

6. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783.

7. Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(3), 193–209.

8. Glick, P. (2002). Sacrificial lambs dressed in wolves' clothing: Envious prejudice, ideology, and the scapegoating of Jews. In L. S. Newman & R. Erber (Eds.), Understanding Genocide: The Social Psychology of the Holocaust. Oxford University Press.

9. Staub, E. (1989). The Roots of Evil: The Origins of Genocide and Other Group Violence. Cambridge University Press.

10. Zimbardo, P. (2007). The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil. Random House.

11. Baumeister, R. F. (1997). Evil: Inside Human Violence and Cruelty. W. H. Freeman.

12. Paxton, R. O. (2004). The Anatomy of Fascism. Alfred A. Knopf.

13. Wievorka, M. (1993). The Making of Terrorism. University of Chicago Press.

14. Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Going to Extremes: How Like Minds Unite and Divide. Oxford University Press.