A Structural Analysis of the Role of Ideological Discourse in the Transformation of Perception and Legal Responsibility
With Emphasis on the Situation of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Abstract
In ideological structures, cruel violence is not merely an isolated physical act, but rather the result of a gradual process in the engineering of perception, emotion, and moral judgment within the framework of dehumanizing discourse.
This article, relying on the theoretical literature of dehumanization and “Crimes of Obedience” and with reference to international criminal law jurisprudence—particularly Article 7 of the Rome Statute and the judgment of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in the Nahimana (Media Case)—demonstrates that responsibility for systematic crimes must extend beyond field perpetrators and include discursive instigators and ideological architects as well.¹ ³
Subsequently, based on the findings of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Islamic Republic of Iran, the pattern of dehumanization in official discourse and its role in the formation of a widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population are analyzed, and the implications of this analysis for accountability and the design of criminal justice mechanisms are examined.² ¹⁰
1. Introduction: From Individual Act to Ideological Structure
What is commonly referred to in public language as “violence,” in ideological contexts, is not merely an instantaneous physical act, but rather part of a structural process that gradually transforms the perception, emotions, and moral judgment of perpetrators. In such a context, the issue is not only the severity of the act, but the systematic pattern of dehumanization, normalization of violence, and redefinition of the meaning of cruelty in the minds of perpetrators; a point at which cruelty can be transformed into “duty,” “necessity,” or “virtue.” In these structures, violence does not emerge suddenly.
It is first produced at the level of discourse by narrators and intellectual architects of the ruling authority, then institutionalized within institutional structures, and ultimately manifested in field behavior. From this perspective, the legal analysis of systematic behaviors against civilians requires attention to the discursive and structural context, not merely isolated acts.
2. Conceptual Framework: Ideology, Dehumanization, and the Normalization of Violence
2–1. Ideology and Radical Dualization
Totalitarian ideologies, by producing absolute dualisms of self/other and good/evil, remove the “opponent and protester” from the position of humanity and transform them into a legitimate threat. This dualization increases the moral distance between the actor and the victim and severely weakens the level of empathy.
2–2. From Discursive Dehumanization to Perceptual Dehumanization
Dehumanization in the first stage occurs at the level of discourse: official, media, and symbolic language represent the “protester” with labels such as “pest,” “enemy,” or “mercenary.” With the repetition of these representations, discursive dehumanization turns into perceptual dehumanization. The victim is no longer understood as a subject possessing dignity but rather as an object of mission or a symbol of threat. This perceptual transformation provides the psychological ground necessary for the normalization of violence and the gradual reduction of emotional sensitivity toward human suffering.⁵ ⁶
2–3. The Chain of the Engineering of Violence
The process of the engineering of violence can be formulated as a condensed chain as follows:
Totalitarian ideology → discursive dehumanization → transformation of perception and emotion (erosion of empathy, emotional numbness) → normalization of violence → erosion of independent moral judgment → execution of violent action in the form of “obedience” or “duty.”
This chain constitutes a bridge between psychological analysis and legal analysis, as it demonstrates how a “widespread or systematic attack” begins at the level of discourse and is realized at the level of action.⁷
3. Structural Instigators: Discourse-Producers and Ideological Architects
In a structural perspective, instigators are not merely issuers of direct orders, but producers of meaning, perceptual frameworks, and legitimizing narratives. Discourse-producers—from political and religious leaders to media managers—through the repetition of concepts such as “enemy,” “threat,” “riot,” “enmity against God,” and “defense of the system,” redefine the meaning of violence so that cruel action, in the mental horizon of perpetrators, is transformed into “defense” or absolute obedience to the leader. Official language and ideological narratives, through the repetition of dehumanizing discourse, shift the boundaries of empathy and render violence semantically acceptable and even desirable; violence is legitimized at the level of discourse prior to the field.
This logic has also been reflected in international criminal jurisprudence. In Prosecutor v. Nahimana et al. (Media Case), the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda held media executives responsible as instigators due to their role in dehumanization and direct and public incitement to genocide and persecution.³ ⁸
Similarly, at Nuremberg, the architects of Nazi ideology and propaganda, alongside military officials, were prosecuted as part of the structure responsible for crimes.⁴
4. Perpetrators: From Obedience to the Transformation of Perception and Emotion
The explanation of perpetrators’ behavior cannot be sufficiently captured solely by the concept of “obedience to orders.” Research in sociology and social psychology on “Crimes of Obedience” demonstrates that authority, normalization, and dehumanization construct a dialectical structure in which individuals commit acts that would be incompatible with their conscience under ordinary conditions.⁷
In many cases, the issue goes beyond obedience and reaches the internalization of ideological discourse; that is, the individual affirms the dominant narrative and perceives themselves as the executor of a “moral mission.”
The repetition of dehumanizing and enemy-constructing narratives alters the cognitive and emotional framework of the individual and increases psychological distance from the victim; violence is no longer necessarily experienced as cruelty, but rather perceived as the execution of a duty defined within an ideological framework.
In this process, emotional sensitivity toward human suffering is reduced and a form of acquired emotional numbness emerges; in more advanced stages, the violent act itself may be perceived as meaningful or even virtuous.⁶
5. Iran as a Case Study: From Official Discourse to Systematic Attack
The Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Islamic Republic of Iran, established following the suppression of the “Woman, Life, Freedom” protests, in its 2024 reports and subsequent updates, has documented extrajudicial killings, disproportionate use of lethal force, widespread arbitrary arrests, torture, rape and other forms of sexual violence, enforced disappearances, and harassment of families, and has characterized this مجموعه as a “widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population” and as constituting “crimes against humanity.”² ⁹ ¹⁰
These reports emphasize the pattern, repetition, organization of these acts, and the awareness of authorities regarding them. Simultaneously, the official discourse of the Islamic Republic employs labels such as “rioter,” “foreign mercenary,” “enmity against God,” and “corrupter” to describe protesters and critics—including women and girls who have demanded equal rights—and transforms protest from a civic right into a threat against “national security” and the “system.”
This same pattern, on a much broader scale, was implemented in the Dey Mass Killing (18–19 Dey 1404, Persian calendar), in a form that previously had no precedent at this quantitative scale and also lacked qualitative precedent.
The killing of ordinary people with live ammunition in circumstances where no political or legal necessity existed, execution-style killings of the wounded, targeting of sexual organs, mutilation and acts amounting to genital mutilation, as well as the absence of distinction between children, adolescents, girls, and women, were among the patterns that, documentarily, corresponded with the findings of the Fact-Finding Mission and substantively confirm the central thesis of this article.² ¹⁰
Ultimately, these forms of labeling reproduce the same mechanism of dehumanization and securitization: the protester is reduced from a “rights-bearing citizen” to a “dangerous element,” and violence against them, within the perceptual horizon of perpetrators, appears acceptable or even necessary.
6. Legal Framework: Crimes against Humanity and Differentiated Responsibility
According to Article 7 of the Rome Statute, “crimes against humanity” include acts such as murder, imprisonment, torture, rape, persecution, and other inhumane acts, when committed as part of a “widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population” and with knowledge of the attack.¹
An “attack against a civilian population,” as defined in the Elements of Crimes, requires the existence of a State or organizational policy and a course of repeated acts, rather than a single isolated incident.¹¹
From this perspective, the engineering of discourse and dehumanization is not a peripheral element but may constitute part of the “policy” or “organized pattern” that shapes and sustains the attack. The Nahimana (Media Case) demonstrated that hate-inciting and dehumanizing speech, when accompanied by direct incitement to violence and situated within the context of an organized attack, may amount to criminal participation in genocide and persecution as crimes against humanity.³ ⁸
Consequently, discursive instigators—including political and media authorities—potentially fall within the scope of international criminal accountability as part of the chain of responsibility.
In the case of Iran, the combination of the findings of the Fact-Finding Mission regarding the widespread and systematic pattern of violations and the analysis of dehumanizing official discourse provides a basis for the argument that responsibility assessment should not be limited to field agents alone.² ⁹ ¹⁰
7. Conclusion
The structural analysis of this article demonstrates that systematic violence in ideological regimes cannot be reduced to the level of “individual obedience” or “personal deviation.”
What occurs is the gradual engineering of perception, emotion, and moral judgment within the framework of dehumanizing discourse, which transforms cruelty into duty, necessity, or virtue. In such a framework, legal responsibility is not confined solely to field perpetrators; discursive and structural instigators—by virtue of their role in the semantic engineering of violence and the provision of its perceptual and institutional groundwork—must also be placed at the center of accountability mechanisms.
In the case of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the linkage between dehumanizing official discourse and the pattern of a widespread and systematic attack against protesters elevates this discussion from a theoretical level to an urgent legal and political agenda for ensuring accountability and preventing the recurrence of crimes.
Sara Ghoreishi
References
1. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 1998, Article 7.
2. United Nations Human Rights Council, Report of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Islamic Republic of Iran, 2023–2024.
3. ICTR, Prosecutor v. Nahimana, Barayagwiza and Ngeze (Media Case), Judgment, 2003.
4. International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg Trial Proceedings, 1945–1946.
5. David Livingstone Smith, Less Than Human, 2011.
6. Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 2016.
7. Herbert C. Kelman and V. Lee Hamilton, Crimes of Obedience, 1989.
8. American Bar Association & Open Society Justice Initiative, analyses on the Nahimana case and hate speech as crimes against humanity.
9. Center for Human Rights in Iran, “Crimes Against Humanity: State Atrocities in Iran Revealed in First Report of UN Fact-Finding Mission,” 2024.
10. OHCHR, Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Islamic Republic of Iran.
11. International Criminal Court, Elements of Crimes, Article 7 (Crimes against humanity).
