Introduction

In the age of precision bombing and high-tech surveillance, the contemporary state still depends on older yet symbolically powerful tactics such as air raid sirens, blackouts and war rhetoric amplified by the media, to regulate public conduct in wartime. This paradox necessitates a more careful examination of Michel Foucault’s theories of governmentality, discourse, and subjectification. Foucault (1975) contends that contemporary power does not simply work through direct coercion but also the subtle construction of norms, knowledge, and conduct to create compliant subjects through what he terms ‘discourse’. Power in modern warfare is not exercised only through missiles and drones but also through language, images, and emotional coercion. Media rhetoric, public emergency protocols, and nationalistic symbols help construct a discourse that positions the citizen as both vulnerable and protected—encouraged to obey, conform, and self-regulate. This essay analyzes how such discursive strategies contribute to the making of passive, law-abiding subjects, reinforcing state authority under the appearance of collective security.

War as Governmentality: Foucault’s Analysis of Power, Discourse, and Control

Michel Foucault’s concept of governmentality highlights how the contemporary state not only governs through laws or force, but also through directing people’s thoughts and actions via institutions, norms, and systems of knowledge (Foucault, 2007). In this case, power is manifested through the production of discourses — defined patterns of speaking and thinking — that determine what is normal, true, or socially acceptable. In war, the state produces discourses that contain predominant notions of danger, bravery, and sacrifice. Such narratives are not simply informative, but they govern perceptions and behaviour.

War discourse dominates political communication, media depiction, and imagery and exudes urgency and fear as well as heroic nationalism. It renders war inevitable while simultaneously making it an essential situation for effective control and militarization. People subjectively adapt to the logic of the state through surveillance initiated not through physical coercion, but structural discipline (Foucault, 2007). In this way, war is strategically utilized not just to respond to conflicts, but also to manage populations. In his exploration of governmentality, Foucault shows how people become subjects, they do not merely follow rules but also internalize them.

Emergency Measures and the Rituals of Obedience: War Discourse and Civilian Subjectification

In history, states have deployed emergency measures such as blackouts, air raid sirens, and civil defence drills to control civilian behaviour during wartime. Cities throughout North America and Europe implemented strict blackout policies alongside the use of sirens and public drills to mitigate the effects of air raids during World War II (Overy, 2013). Although seemingly effective at reducing the number of allied civilian casualties and bomb-guided aircraft sorties, these tactics also bolstered bombers’ disorientation and served to propagate a culture of obedience and control among the populace.

Even with the advent of infrared targeting and GPS-guided weaponry, many of these measures remain in place today. Their practicality has diminished to a symbolic role. Modern states, as Foucault (1975) has argued, through discourse. The state creates the discourse on war which legitimizes these emergency measures as mechanisms of subjectification. By partaking in these rituals, individuals internalize the threat-safety logic of the state, learning how to self-regulate and obey. These strategies foster citizens who claim allegiance to state demands, not as imposed violence, but as ‘common sense.’

Media, Discourse, and the Manufacture of Consent: Wartime Narratives and the Emotional Politics of Subjectification

Media during wartime plays a central role not only in communicating events but also in constructing the discursive frameworks through which war is understood and justified. As Michel Foucault (1975) explains, power in modern societies operates through discourse—shaping what can be perceived as true, urgent, or morally valid. Media becomes a vital mechanism of governmentality, enabling states to align public emotion with national security objectives.

Thumbnails from Zee News (May 9, 2025), such as “Pakistan ka quboolnama, Bharat ne mitti me mila diya,” “Aaj raat Pakistan ki aakhiri raat!”, and “Pakistan par ek aur bheeshan hamla shuru, uda dale kayi shehar”, are striking examples of rhetorical intensification (Zee News, 2025a; 2025b; 2025c) (See Appendix A, Figures 1–3). They dramatize conflict in absolute terms, constructing narratives of total victory or existential threat. Such portrayals are not unique to one nation; states across geopolitical divides—whether India, Pakistan, or others—employ similar media strategies to foster national unity, justify military actions, and silence dissent. This analysis is limited to Indian media due to restricted access to Pakistani broadcasts within India, not due to an imbalance in practice.

As Judith Butler (2009) argues, “Specific lives cannot be apprehended as injured or lost if they are not first apprehended as living” (p. 1). This framing effect determines whose suffering is visible and whose is obscured. By selectively highlighting threats and sacrifice, the media renders some lives as grievable and others as expendable. Through this process, individuals internalize the moral logic of national security, participating in subjectification—not as coerced bodies, but as emotionally invested citizens acting within a state-defined narrative of loyalty, fear, and protection.

The Self-Regulating Subject: Voluntary Compliance and the Internalization of Wartime Discourse

The wartime discourse created by the state results in the process of what Foucault (1975) calls subjectification: the process by which people identify themselves in relation to state-mandated expectations, self-regulating their actions in relation to power. Through performance and discourse, as well as through watching and being watched, the citizen is transformed from a democratic participant to an object within the logic of national security.

What remains unexamined is public compliance with emergency orders, voluntary censorship, and consumption of wartime propaganda infotainment that constitutes a new form of subjectification. Citizens volunteer to be framed as loyal subjects under threat, willing to cede rights as a bargaining chip for protection. Charged discourses, such as those distributed with media thumbnails and alert-style announcements, incite automatic compliance with the attitudes and behaviours these discourses prescribe. There is no need for overt enforcement of such a program. Instead, it remains within the paradigm of self-regulation in which persons align their mental frameworks, fears, and actions with normative decorum defined by the state. In this way, they begin to uphold the very mechanisms of subjugation of which they are victims. The subject of war is not simply ruled by state only but also by self, through being manipulated.

Conclusion

In the age of advanced warfare, the modern state no longer governs solely through force, but through discourse that constructs fear, loyalty, and obedience. Drawing on Foucault’s concepts of governmentality and subjectification, this essay has shown how emergency rituals and media rhetoric work together to shape citizens’ perceptions and behaviors. Even symbolic acts—like sirens or war-themed news coverage—serve to normalize state power and militarized responses. Citizens become subjects not by coercion, but by internalizing the narratives that define who is a threat and what is acceptable action. Though this study draws on Indian examples, such strategies are global in scope. Understanding them is crucial to resisting the uncritical reproduction of fear-driven obedience in wartime contexts.

References

Butler, J. (2009). Frames of War: When Is Life Grievable? London: Verso Books.

Foucault, M. (1975). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Vintage Books.

Foucault, M. (2007). Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1977-78. Springer.

Overy, R. (1995). The Bombing War: Europe 1939- 1945. London: Allen Lane.

Zee News. (2025a, May 9). Pakistan ka Quboolnama, Bharat ne Mitti me Mila Diya! [YouTube thumbnail]. Zee News India.

Zee News. (2025b, May 9). Aaj Raat Pakistan ki Aakhiri Raat! [YouTube thumbnail]. Zee News India.

Zee News. (2025c, May 9). Pakistan Par Ek Aur Bheeshan Hamla Shuru, Uda Dale Kayi Shehar! [YouTube thumbnail]. Zee News India.

Appendix A: Media Thumbnails from Zee News (May 9, 2025)

Figure 1. Thumbnail from Zee News YouTube video titled “Pakistan ka quboolnama, Bharat ne mitti me mila diya!” showing sensational rhetoric during wartime coverage.

Figure 2. Thumbnail from Zee News YouTube video titled “Aaj raat Pakistan ki aakhiri raat!” using hyperbolic framing of conflict.

Figure 3. Thumbnail from Zee News YouTube video titled “Pakistan par ek aur bheeshan hamla shuru, uda dale kayi shehar!” depicting destructive imagery and military action.

***

Anurag Kumar Bauddh is pursuing his Master’s in Sociology from the Delhi School of Economics (DSE), University of Delhi. His academic interests include caste, social movements, ecology, urban sociology and social justice.