How Inventing Political Enemies Can Create Real Civil Division in Society

A recent sociological study offers a striking insight into how civil wars don’t just deepen existing political divides—they can actively create entirely new ones. Published in the December 2025 issue of the American Sociological Review, the research examines how political rhetoric and strategic actions during conflict can manufacture enemies, reshape identities, and leave behind long-lasting divisions. The study focuses on mid-twentieth-century Colombia, a country whose civil war history reveals how imagined threats can become very real social forces.

Rethinking How Civil Wars Shape Political Divisions

It is often assumed that civil wars simply intensify political divisions that already exist. According to this study, that assumption misses a critical part of the picture. Sociologist Laura Acosta of the University of California, San Diego argues that civil wars can redefine political fault lines altogether, not just harden old ones.

In Colombia, the conflict initially centered on long-standing rivalry between Liberals and Conservatives. However, over time, politicians reframed this rivalry as a fight between the state and communist guerrillas, even though organized communist insurgency was minimal at the start. This reframing didn’t merely describe the conflict—it actively reshaped it.

The Colombian Civil War as a Case Study

The study focuses on the period from 1948 to 1964, a violent era often associated with La Violencia. During this time, political leaders increasingly accused their opponents of being connected to international communism. These accusations were largely unsubstantiated, but they were repeated so frequently and forcefully that they began to influence public perception, political alignment, and military action.

Instead of remaining a partisan struggle between two traditional political camps, the conflict evolved into something far more ideological. The state positioned itself as defending the nation from a looming communist threat, while civilians were pressured—sometimes violently—into choosing sides.

How Political Discourse Turned Fiction into Reality

Acosta’s research shows that political language played a decisive role in transforming imagined enemies into real ones. By framing communism as an existential threat, politicians justified preemptive military actions, surveillance, and repression. These actions, in turn, pushed marginalized groups toward actual armed resistance, creating the very insurgency leaders claimed they were trying to stop.

In other words, the narrative came first, and the reality followed.

Three Social Processes That Created a New Enemy

The study identifies three interconnected social processes that explain how fabricated enemies became a genuine insurgent force.

Enemy legitimation occurred when repeated claims about communist infiltration convinced the public that such a threat truly existed. Even without concrete evidence, constant messaging made communism appear dangerous and omnipresent, turning it into a legitimate military target.

Boundary demarcation followed as political groups reorganized themselves around this new perceived threat. Alliances shifted, loyalties changed, and communities were increasingly defined by whether they supported or opposed anti-communist efforts.

Identity shift completed the transformation. Communism became more than a political label—it turned into a social identity. People used it to interpret events, identify allies and enemies, and justify participation in violence, protest, or repression.

Together, these processes transformed an imagined “third enemy” into a defining force in Colombia’s civil war.

How the Study Was Conducted

To reach these conclusions, Acosta relied on a wide range of sources. She analyzed archival government documents, newspaper coverage, and oral histories from civilians and combatants. By comparing political rhetoric with patterns of violence and social alignment over time, she traced how discourse and action reinforced each other.

This multi-method approach allowed the study to capture not only what political leaders said, but how ordinary people understood and responded to those messages during periods of intense violence.

Why This Matters Beyond Colombia

Although the research is grounded in Colombian history, its implications extend far beyond one country or era. The study highlights how political discourse can become self-fulfilling, especially during periods of instability. When leaders repeatedly describe a group as dangerous or subversive, those claims can reshape social realities—even if they start out false.

The findings also help explain how global ideological threats—such as communism during the Cold War—can be transformed into local enemies, fueling internal conflict. This process has parallels in many modern conflicts where governments frame internal dissent as part of a broader international conspiracy.

Implications for Peace and Policy

One of the study’s most important contributions is its relevance for peacebuilding and post-conflict policy. Acosta argues that lasting peace requires more than addressing the original causes of a civil war. Policymakers must also confront the new divisions created during the conflict itself.

If peace efforts ignore these newly formed fault lines, they risk misunderstanding who citizens now see as enemies and allies. These perceptions influence voting behavior, public trust, and willingness to support peace agreements. In short, unresolved identity shifts can undermine even the most carefully negotiated settlements.

Understanding Political Identity in Times of Conflict

This research adds to a growing body of work showing that political identities are not fixed. They are shaped, reshaped, and sometimes invented through discourse, fear, and violence. Civil wars accelerate this process, turning language into a powerful tool that can mobilize entire populations.

By showing how imagined threats can produce real social consequences, the study encourages a more cautious and critical approach to political messaging—especially during times of crisis.

Why This Research Stands Out

Published in one of sociology’s most respected journals, the study offers a rare combination of historical depth and theoretical insight. It moves beyond simplistic explanations of civil conflict and shows how words, policies, and perceptions interact to produce lasting divisions.

For anyone interested in political polarization, conflict studies, or the sociology of war, this research provides a valuable framework for understanding how societies fracture—and how those fractures can persist long after the fighting ends.

Research paper:
Laura Acosta, Fabricating Communists: The Imagined Third That Reinvented the National Fault Line in Mid-Twentieth-Century Colombia’s Civil War, American Sociological Review (2025).
https://doi.org/10.1177/00031224251371066