National identity

Since it is a concept that is hard to define, there are numerous descriptions of its content, the viewpoints from which it is observed and ultimately the disciplines that deal with it. Given the context of this analysis, I shall observe its functional dimension because that is precisely the dominant target of the attacks by the influence operations. National identity is a cohesive factor of the society in the sense of collectivization of interests, branding of the nation and consequently the state (Skoko 2009), which is closely related to the achievement of political and economic goals. On the other hand, national identity is associated with a sense of group belonging which is in opposition to an individual ‘who does not belong’ and in this sense, it may seem as a weak link to the author of the influence operation, which often corresponds to reality.
‘The Croatian example illustrates that the (elite) ideology was adopted if it was attractive to other groups, in the sense of national and cultural identity, if it succeeded in imposing a responsibility that could have equal constitutive power, if there were no alternative ideologies, in the sense of it being constitutively crucial, if the “imposed discourse” was accepted as the only one because any other would imply unwanted coercion, if the ideology was “planted” as if it came from the people, which was accomplished here in the sense of the “general, common thing” and if the ruling discourse of the elite possessed the media and ways to launch that discourse in the sense that it had found the most appropriate modes of representation. In the case of raising awareness of the Croatian subject, such ideology, with its excellence, choice, quality, and persuasiveness, was “made to order”, so it could have had a strong effect.’ (Milanja 2012:162)