Digital Dimensions of Conflict: Analyzing Malian conflict and violence through Social Media and Mixed-Methods Approach
Digital Culture and Society, volume 11, issue 2 (2026), pp. 199-222
"Our findings show that Twitter is a battlefield of imaginaries of conflict. Ford and Hoskins (2022: 117-68) would refer to this as ‘attention’ in which the war is archived, defined, and imagined. People who participate in conflict-Twitter are no longer passive actors in conflict, but they shape it by their online behavior. Although many users rarely initiate debates or engage in discussions, they shape the content’s visibility and interpretation through what they tweet, retweet, and amplify. As such attention itself becomes a form of involvement. Meanwhile, Twitter users who create messages focus on certain parts or layers of conflict. Hence, those who click, read, and retweet endorse these imaginations or representations of war.
Tracing digital war on Twitter revealed 4 clusters of imaginaries: 1. National politics referring to the role of the French, the arrival of the Russians, and the government’s events and celebrations. 2. International politics that discuss ECOWAS sanctions, the role of France, Russia, the European Union and MINUSMA, reference to news agencies RFI and France 24, as well as a discussion of Ukraine. 3. The economic and security situation which affect the population. 4. The local violence that results in massacres, killings, the role of jihadist groups, framed as ‘terrorists’. Imaginaries 1 and 2 are most prominent. The tweets on politics have a supportive tone for the actions of the government. They are anti-French and supportive of Russia. Imaginary 3 popped up especially in the frequency and keyword analysis. The crisis related to national politics, under IBK and later under Assimi Goïta, is a consequence of the political and economic situation of Mali that the population immediately feel in their daily life. Imaginary 4 occupies a small space in Twitter discussions. Twitter users hardly discuss the horrific atrocities of the conflict. We conclude that Twitter discursive practice generally has a positive attitude towards the military government and is supportive of its measures. Twitter does show popular reasons for protest, which addresses the economic situation in daily life and the ‘hatred’ of the French military interventions.
However, Twitter users hardly discuss violence against civilians, which we as ethnographers considered as important events in the conflict. Hence these events do not enter the general Twitter discourse on conflict. Twitter creates an imagination of the war in which extremely violent events are avoided. As a result, Twitter informs the public on the heroic actions of the Malian army and legitimizes the government as a righteous actor in the conflict. Due to the selective framing and circulation of content that celebrates the violent state on Twitter, cultural violence and participatory warfare emerge. Users participate not through debating or addressing massacres against civilians, but by amplifying political and geopolitical narratives through tweeting and retweeting. They thereby normalize a pro-government imagination of war.
Malians read and participate in Twitter to find news about the situation in their country. They ‘trust’ Twitter. For many it is one of the only reliable media where they can find information about conflict, or about the political situation in the country. This comes close to Galtung’s definition of cultural violence, information that legitimizes actions of the government and military, or information that feeds biased interpretations. Twitter helps them to legitimize the protests and the actions of the government. The silencing of massacres and violence also influences people’s opinions as they do not ‘see’ the horrors of the conflict. Hence, Twitter operates as a medium through which digital cultural violence is produced and transmitted." (Discussion and Conclusion, pages 218-219)
Tracing digital war on Twitter revealed 4 clusters of imaginaries: 1. National politics referring to the role of the French, the arrival of the Russians, and the government’s events and celebrations. 2. International politics that discuss ECOWAS sanctions, the role of France, Russia, the European Union and MINUSMA, reference to news agencies RFI and France 24, as well as a discussion of Ukraine. 3. The economic and security situation which affect the population. 4. The local violence that results in massacres, killings, the role of jihadist groups, framed as ‘terrorists’. Imaginaries 1 and 2 are most prominent. The tweets on politics have a supportive tone for the actions of the government. They are anti-French and supportive of Russia. Imaginary 3 popped up especially in the frequency and keyword analysis. The crisis related to national politics, under IBK and later under Assimi Goïta, is a consequence of the political and economic situation of Mali that the population immediately feel in their daily life. Imaginary 4 occupies a small space in Twitter discussions. Twitter users hardly discuss the horrific atrocities of the conflict. We conclude that Twitter discursive practice generally has a positive attitude towards the military government and is supportive of its measures. Twitter does show popular reasons for protest, which addresses the economic situation in daily life and the ‘hatred’ of the French military interventions.
However, Twitter users hardly discuss violence against civilians, which we as ethnographers considered as important events in the conflict. Hence these events do not enter the general Twitter discourse on conflict. Twitter creates an imagination of the war in which extremely violent events are avoided. As a result, Twitter informs the public on the heroic actions of the Malian army and legitimizes the government as a righteous actor in the conflict. Due to the selective framing and circulation of content that celebrates the violent state on Twitter, cultural violence and participatory warfare emerge. Users participate not through debating or addressing massacres against civilians, but by amplifying political and geopolitical narratives through tweeting and retweeting. They thereby normalize a pro-government imagination of war.
Malians read and participate in Twitter to find news about the situation in their country. They ‘trust’ Twitter. For many it is one of the only reliable media where they can find information about conflict, or about the political situation in the country. This comes close to Galtung’s definition of cultural violence, information that legitimizes actions of the government and military, or information that feeds biased interpretations. Twitter helps them to legitimize the protests and the actions of the government. The silencing of massacres and violence also influences people’s opinions as they do not ‘see’ the horrors of the conflict. Hence, Twitter operates as a medium through which digital cultural violence is produced and transmitted." (Discussion and Conclusion, pages 218-219)
