Cognitive Dissonance and Contradictions in Public Awareness in Syria

In recent months, the Syrian arena has witnessed a rise in contradictory discourse that reflects a complex socio-psychological condition experienced by a society exhausted by wars and divisions. This contradiction is evident in the adoption by wide segments of Syrians of mutually opposing ideas and slogans simultaneously, without attempting to reconcile them or choose the more logical among them, according to social analysts.

The clearest example appears in attitudes toward the Druze community, where some narratives accuse them of collaboration, while at the same time the current authorities remain keen to preserve indirect channels of communication with Israel. This overlaps with another viewpoint that calls for avoiding previous forms of “resistance” and for opening normal relations with Israel to spare Syrians further conflict.

Despite the obvious contradiction between the two ideas, segments of society embrace both without acknowledging the inconsistency.

Psychology experts attribute this behavior to the phenomenon of cognitive dissonance, an internal conflict that arises when an individual holds two contradictory beliefs or behaves in a way that contradicts their convictions. To reduce this tension, the mind, according to scientific interpretation, resorts to justifying the behavior, ignoring the contradiction, or adjusting one of the beliefs—an attempt to achieve psychological comfort that is not necessarily logical.

This issue also appears in attitudes toward the Kurdish community, the Syrian Democratic Forces, and the Alawite community, as well as in the spread of narratives that undermine trust in minorities in general. Researchers argue that these positions are the product of a long historical accumulation, as Syria, before 1946, was not defined by a unified identity but rather as regions with distinct identities, such as Jabal al-Druze, the Kurdish Mountains, and the Alawite Mountains.

With the establishment of the modern state, and later with the rise of the Baath Party to power, the ruling system imposed a unified ideological discourse centered on security and militarization. Over six decades, this weakened acceptance of diversity and marginalized dissenting voices. Analysts believe this process entrenched a collective mindset inclined toward totalitarianism and seeking the “reassurance” provided by closed ideologies, away from criticism and scrutiny of dominant narratives.

Despite the collapse of traditional state institutions in recent years—including the dissolution of the Baath Party and the escape of the regime’s leader—a large share of the ideas that shaped the political and social environment has remained deeply present, and even acquired a more pronounced religious or sectarian tone, according to experts.

Field reports indicate that this climate has enabled the justification of violations and divisions, despite the shared experiences of Syrians regarding war-related killing, displacement, detention, and looting. The same contradiction is evident in public reactions to repeated Israeli strikes since December 2024, which—despite targeting what remains of the army’s arsenal—have not elicited significant public responses or notable condemnation.

Analysts argue that this multilayered situation reflects the depth of the psychological and social crisis in Syria, and that cognitive dissonance has become one of the mechanisms of adaptation adopted by society in facing a complex reality open to many possibilities.