Focused Genealogical Configuration Analysis: A Methodological Framework for Tracing Persistent Psychological Configurations in Political Violence and Adversarial Mobilisation

GP-2026-013   |   March 2026

Author: Iliyan Kuzmanov

Editor: Iliyan Kuzmanov

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19070816

ABSTRACT

Adversarial mobilisation succeeds not by constructing psychology from zero but by activating cognitive-affective configurations that populations carry as historically installed substrates — architectures of identity, threat, grievance, and sacred necessity that persist beneath continuous surface ideological mutation. Focused Genealogical Configuration Analysis (FGCA) is a structured qualitative methodology that traces the historical installation, transmission, and contemporary availability of these psychological capture architectures across documentary evidence. Synthesising cognitive historiography, microhistorical evidential reasoning, and Annales-school mentalités reconstruction, FGCA provides a unified analytical procedure for a class of problem none of those traditions individually addresses: the systematic tracing of persistent psychological configurations across historical stratigraphic layers. The framework identifies four capture mechanisms — identity fusion, grievance inversion, sacralised violence, and cosmic dualism — through a formal three-outcome taxonomy distinguishing documented transmission, mediated persistence, and structural recurrence. Operational outputs include configuration profiles, capture depth estimates, continuity classifications, carrier maps, and downstream receptivity hypotheses. Applications span radicalisation, terrorism, hybrid warfare, mnemonic statecraft, and extremist aesthetic production. The synthesis and its specific application to this problem-class constitute the original methodological contribution.

Keywords: psychological capture | cognitive historiography | configuration analysis | radicalisation | hybrid warfare | identity fusion | mnemonic persistence | political violence methodology

1. The Methodological Problem

Adversarial mobilisation — the organised process through which populations are prepared for violence, political capture, or systemic destabilisation — does not invent psychology from nothing. It reactivates what has already been installed. Across radicalisation pathways, terrorist communication architectures, hybrid warfare operations, and nationalist-aesthetic production, the same fundamental patterns recur: a population historically equipped with specific cognitive-affective configurations of enemy logic, sacred mission, grievance coding, and identity fusion is dramatically more susceptible to adversarial docking than one that has not. Surface vocabulary changes continuously — ideological labels rotate, enemy categories are renamed, mobilisation formats migrate across platforms — while the underlying architecture persists, available for redeployment, across decades and centuries. This technical note introduces Focused Genealogical Configuration Analysis (FGCA), a structured qualitative methodology that traces the historical installation, transmission, and contemporary availability of these psychological capture architectures across documentary evidence. FGCA synthesises three established methodological traditions — cognitive historiography (Dunér and Martin), microhistorical evidential reasoning (Ginzburg), and Annales-school mentalités reconstruction (Febvre) — into a unified analytical procedure designed for a class of problem that none of them individually addresses: the systematic tracing of persistent psychological formations across historical stratigraphic layers, with application to the comparative study of political violence, hybrid warfare, and adversarial mobilisation. The synthesis and its specific application to this problem-class constitute the original contribution. What the traditions provide separately — cognitive-environmental grounding, clue-based evidential rigour, and long-duration structural persistence — FGCA combines into a single auditable protocol whose outputs include configuration profiles, capture depth estimates, continuity classifications, and downstream receptivity hypotheses. What makes the installed architecture durable is not its ideological content — which mutates continuously — but its psychological necessity, which does not.

On 15 March 2019, a 74-page manifesto was published online hours before its author killed fifty-one people in Christchurch, New Zealand. Every major automated detection system assessed it as ideologically incoherent — a composite of far-right nationalism, environmental anxiety, accelerationist logic, and cross-spectral civilisational grievance that matched no known fingerprint in any training corpus. From the perspective of frameworks calibrated to recognisable surface vocabulary, it registered as noise. What those frameworks missed was not the absence of ideological content but the presence of a different kind of structure entirely: not a label but an architecture — a cognitive-affective pattern of self-other logic, sacred mission, grievance inversion, and existential threat framing whose surface vocabulary was deliberately composite and whose deeper grammar was structurally legible. Detection trained on ideology found incoherence. Detection trained on psychological capture architecture would have found four familiar mechanisms operating simultaneously. This distinction — between the surface vocabulary adversaries continuously adapt and the persistent formation beneath it that they cannot abandon without destroying their operational effectiveness — is the gap FGCA is designed to close.

Five analytical demands must be handled simultaneously, and this is where existing approaches reach their structural limits. Historical depth is the first: configurations are installed across centuries, and their contemporary reactivability can only be assessed through analysis that reaches the stratigraphic layers where installation occurred — a temporal scale that methods designed for contemporary corpora cannot reach (Koselleck, 2004). Fragmentary evidence is the second: documentary sources are incomplete, heterogeneous, and strategically produced, requiring an explicit evidential paradigm for inference from partial traces to structural claims (Ginzburg, 1989). Anti-anachronism is the third: historical texts must be read through the cognitive environment available in their period rather than through contemporary categories projected backward — failing this produces the interpretation of tenth-century sources as if their producers understood twenty-first-century psychology, which is precisely the epistemological error the method must prevent (Febvre, 1982; Skinner, 1969). A three-outcome distinction is the fourth: documented transmission, mediated persistence, and structural recurrence are analytically distinct continuity types with different evidential requirements, and conflating them is the dominant weakness in historical genealogical claims. Auditable thresholds are the fifth: configuration claims must be inter-subjectively verifiable, with explicit standards for confirmation, disconfirmation, false positive, and null result (Lincoln and Guba, 1985; Mahoney and Goertz, 2006). No existing approach was designed to handle all five simultaneously — which is the analytical reason the synthesis proposed here is necessary rather than merely convenient.

Wave-based models of political violence (Rapoport, 2004) provide categorical architecture for periodising and comparing organised violence but, as English (2024) argues, underspecify the substrate-level mechanisms that persist beneath ideological mutation. The Discourse-Historical Approach (Reisigl and Wodak, 2009) offers historically contextualised discourse analysis but operates across shorter temporal spans than configuration tracing requires. Comparative historical analysis (George and Bennett, 2005) addresses macrostructural outcomes but not the close-documentary marker convergence through which capture architectures are identified. Memory studies (Assmann, 2011) address mnemonic persistence but lack systematic evidential thresholding. Computational detection achieves scale but — as composite formations like Christchurch demonstrate with lethal precision — targets the surface vocabulary that adversaries have learned to mutate. Focused Genealogical Configuration Analysis is proposed as the minimum composite method that occupies the intersection where all five demands coexist.

2. FGCA Defined: Synthesis and Genealogy

Focused Genealogical Configuration Analysis synthesises three established methodological traditions into a unified analytical procedure for tracing persistent psychological formations across historical stratigraphic layers — a problem none of the three traditions individually addresses. Cognitive historiography, developed by Dunér (2019) and Martin (2012), provides the epistemological premise: historical texts can be read as evidence of publicly available cognitive architectures rather than as mere records of events, because historical actors operated within specific cognitive environments that constrained what could be thought, believed, feared, and acted upon in a given period. Microhistorical evidential reasoning, anchored in Ginzburg's foundational work (1980, 1989, 1993), provides the clue-based inferential procedure: structural conditions are inferred from fragmentary documentary traces through convergence across multiple independent evidence types, never from a single marker alone. Annales-school mentalités reconstruction, established by Febvre (1982) and extended through Burke (1990) and Chartier (1988), provides the theory of long-duration collective patterning — the mental equipment available in a given period, reconstructed on its own terms before any connection to contemporary frameworks is drawn. Cognitive historiography can reconstruct what architectures were available but provides no evidential procedure for establishing how installed formations moved between historical layers. Microhistory provides that evidential procedure but operates at the scale of individual cases and cannot account for why cognitive patterns persist across centuries of contextual transformation. Mentalités provides the theory of long-duration structural persistence but was not designed as a detection instrument and offers no pathway from documentary evidence to contemporary analytical application. FGCA combines all three to produce what none provides independently. The genealogical orientation follows Foucault (1977) — tracing contingent emergence and reactivation rather than asserting linear descent — while Koselleck (2004) provides the theoretical basis for distinguishing surface semantic mutation from the structural formations that persist beneath it. The synthesis and its specific application to this problem-class constitute the original methodological contribution.

Psychological capture is the organising concept that gives the synthesis its analytical unity and its practical urgency. Defined precisely: the installation of cognitive-affective configurations that persistently shape how subjects categorise self, other, threat, and legitimate action — in ways that are difficult to revise without significant identity cost. Capture is not a single event but a process: configurations are installed through repeated symbolic, linguistic, aesthetic, and institutional exposure; maintained through mnemonic and social reinforcement; and rendered available for reactivation under adversarial conditions long after their original installation context has disappeared. Two qualifications govern how the concept operates throughout this paper. Psychological capture is not a claim about the private mental states of individual historical actors — the method reads what was publicly deployed against audiences through documentary evidence, not what any individual internalised. Nor is it a claim that every member of a population is captured; it is a claim that specific formations are present as publicly available cognitive resources in a population's shared symbolic environment, structurally accessible for adversarial activation under defined conditions. Four mechanisms constitute the operational content of the capture architecture — detection categories, not a typology, deployable in combination or independently. Identity fusion collapses the boundary between personal and collective identity until threats to the group register as threats to the physical self (a process that, once complete, bypasses deliberation entirely), producing the self-sacrifice logic that makes extreme action cognitively available (Swann et al., 2012; Tajfel and Turner, 1979). Grievance inversion transforms the aggressor into the aggrieved, reframing offensive mobilisation as defensive necessity and dissolving the actor's perception of their own violence as violence (Benford and Snow, 2000; Bandura, 1999). Sacralised violence elevates destruction to the status of purification, repositioning destructive action as contribution to a higher order and rendering material deterrence structurally irrelevant (Atran and Ginges, 2012). Cosmic dualism reduces complexity to an irresolvable existential binary, constructing the out-group as ontologically threatening and making compromise itself a form of contamination (Hogg, 2007). When all four mechanisms operate simultaneously, each supplies what the others require — capture depth is at its greatest and resistance to revision at its most durable. The architecture is self-reinforcing. Remove one mechanism and the others weaken.

3. The Operational Procedure

FGCA operates through a structured, transparent, and auditable qualitative protocol — not replicable in the quantitative sense of producing identical outputs when applied by different researchers, but inter-subjectively verifiable in the sense that every step, every evidential threshold, and every outcome classification is open to scrutiny and revision (Lincoln and Guba, 1985; Mahoney and Goertz, 2006). Claims are made at six nested levels of analysis: marker instance, document, corpus within a stratigraphic layer, configuration claim within a layer, cross-layer outcome claim, and comparative case inference. Higher-level claims require confirmation at every level below them — a cross-layer transmission claim cannot be advanced until configuration claims within each layer have independently met their evidential threshold. The first operational tool is process tracing (Beach and Pedersen, 2013; Bennett and Checkel, 2015; Mahoney, 2012), which maps the causal mechanisms through which cognitive formations were transmitted, codified, and reactivated within and between stratigraphic layers. The operative question is not whether two layers are similar but through what specific institutional mechanisms, textual carriers, or social practices the architecture of one layer produced the architecture of the next. Process tracing requires positive causal process observations — specific documentary evidence of the connecting mechanism — rather than inferring transmission from resemblance. Where such evidence is absent, the framework does not report failure: it classifies the outcome as mediated persistence or structural recurrence, both of which constitute analytically informative findings in their own right.

Configuration extraction, the second operational tool, adapts Ragin's configurational logic (1987, 2008) to documentary analysis through four independent marker types. Lexical markers identify the vocabulary through which self and other are categorised — the epithets, enemy names, and sacred community terms through which capture architecture is linguistically constituted. Metaphorical markers identify the conceptual metaphors that scaffold perception — the enemy as parasite, contamination, or cosmic threat; the community as sacred body or wounded family (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980). Narrative-structural markers identify the underlying plot architecture of the documents — the recurring sequences of betrayal, suppression, and purifying restoration. Enemy-ontological markers identify the fundamental nature assigned to the adversary — defined as existentially threatening, non-negotiable, and incompatible with the in-group's survival. Within the lexical and metaphorical types, a linguistic micro-protocol specifies eight capture-relevant dimensions: pronoun polarisation (we/they, true people/traitors), modality and certainty (must, inevitable, final), dehumanisation and contamination registers (parasite, disease, infestation), euphemised violence formulas (necessary action, cleansing, special operation), agent deletion and passive constructions that obscure in-group aggression, intertextual sacred citation that carries formations forward through doctrinal echo, and sloganisation that signals installed architecture rather than argued position. Most analytically significant is temporal grammar — the tripartite structure of golden past, fallen present, and imminent cleansing future — because it is the most stable linguistic pattern across surface ideological mutation and the only single dimension that simultaneously encodes all four capture mechanisms. A corpus-specific codebook specifying necessary indicators, optional indicators, exclusion criteria, false-positive risks, and rival explanations is constructed before analysis begins; first-cycle coding identifies marker instances, second-cycle coding identifies configurational patterns, and theoretical coding connects patterns to the four capture mechanisms (Saldaña, 2021; Baker, Vessey and McEnery, 2021; Reisigl and Wodak, 2009).

Convergent evidence — the third operational tool — operationalises Ginzburg's evidential paradigm at multi-century scale: no configuration claim is advanced on the basis of a single marker type, a single document, or a single layer. Three confidence tiers govern all claims. SUGGESTIVE requires two of four marker types across a minimum of two documents and warrants further investigation only — it is not sufficient for a configuration claim. PROBABLE requires three of four marker types across a minimum of three independent documents and supports a qualified configuration claim with explicit uncertainty stated. STRONG CONFIRMATION requires all four marker types across a minimum of four independent documents of different types and is the threshold required for unqualified configuration claims and transmission claims. All three tiers produce analytically useful findings — SUGGESTIVE tells the analyst where to extend the corpus, PROBABLE supports conditional claims with upgrade pathways, STRONG CONFIRMATION closes the evidentiary case. No tier is wasted. Each produces a classified finding with an explicit upgrade pathway. FGCA yields five formal outputs from this procedure. A configuration profile identifies which capture mechanisms are present at what confidence tier. A capture depth estimate classifies the degree of installation as shallow (isolated markers, minimal convergence), intermediate (multi-marker convergence, stable temporal grammar, some institutional reinforcement), or deep (all four mechanisms active, multiple carriers, mnemonic and ritual reinforcement, documented reactivation capacity). A continuity classification assigns the three-outcome verdict with its confidence tier. A carrier map identifies which symbolic channels — textual, visual, ritual, institutional, or digital-native — are actively maintaining the installed architecture. A downstream receptivity hypothesis offers a conditional, explicitly qualified claim about differential population receptivity to adversarial mobilisation — a hypothesis requiring pairing with contemporary audience evidence before being advanced as a direct analytical finding. These five outputs rest on the evidential architecture the three-outcome distinction provides — which is why the taxonomy that governs cross-layer claims is the method's most consequential methodological contribution.

4. The Three-Outcome Distinction

Most historical genealogical analysis carries a specific methodological vulnerability: the conflation of connection with resemblance — treating structural similarity between two historical formations as evidence of continuity without specifying what type of continuity is claimed or what evidence would be required to establish it. FGCA addresses this directly through a formal three-outcome taxonomy that converts what most diachronic approaches treat as a binary verdict — connected or not connected — into a graduated classification system whose three categories are analytically distinct, carry different evidential requirements, and produce different types of claim. Documented transmission requires identifiable channels, actors, institutions, texts, or doctrines connecting two stratigraphic layers — positive causal process observations showing that the cognitive formation did not merely reappear but was actively carried through a specific mechanism (Beach and Pedersen, 2013; Bennett and Checkel, 2015). Mediated persistence applies where no single direct chain is traceable but strong convergent evidence establishes mnemonic, ritual, symbolic, or discursive carry-over across generational transitions — formations preserved not through institutional transmission but through commemorative practice, sacred citation, cultural performance, and the social reinforcement of collective memory (Assmann, 2011; Halbwachs, 1992; Nora, 1989; Olick and Robbins, 1998). Structural recurrence applies where similar formations re-emerge under analogous cognitive and mobilisational conditions without provable continuity — independent activation under comparable structural pressures (Sewell, 1996; Abbott, 2001). Structural recurrence is not a consolation finding: it supports the inference that the formation addresses durable psychological demands across contexts with no genealogical connection, which is precisely what makes it relevant for anticipatory threat assessment beyond any single historical corridor.

Every outcome type in the taxonomy can be falsified, and this is the framework's answer to the unfalsifiability objection that qualitative historical methods routinely face. A configuration claim is falsified if convergent evidence across three of four marker types cannot be established from the documentary corpus — the PROBABLE tier minimum. A transmission claim is falsified if process tracing fails to identify positive causal process observations connecting two layers. In both cases the method does not produce an unclassified null: it produces a reclassified finding — mediated persistence or structural recurrence — whose evidential basis is explicitly stated and whose analytical implications are specified. The framework cannot accommodate any outcome without producing a classification, which means every application either confirms a claim at a stated confidence tier or produces a classified finding at a lower tier or a different outcome type. Boundary conditions — the specification of where the model holds and where it does not — are among the most analytically productive outputs FGCA can generate, because they establish the limits of structural persistence and transmission in ways that define both the scope of the capture architecture and the ceiling of its adversarial exploitability (George and Bennett, 2005; Flyvbjerg, 2006). A method that treats its null results as classified findings rather than absences is not a method that can prove anything it wants — it is a method that cannot generate unclassified noise.

5. Demonstrations

Among all available documentary cases, the Comintern's relationship to Western European communist parties in the 1920s and 1940s provides the most complete corpus for demonstrating FGCA at its STRONG CONFIRMATION threshold. The corpus comprises Comintern executive directives (1919–1935), training materials from the French Parti Communiste Français and the British Communist Party of Great Britain (1921–1940), and the published theoretical journals La Correspondance Internationale and The Communist Review — Tier One and Tier Two sources in French and English. Configuration extraction identifies all four marker types at STRONG CONFIRMATION across the full corpus. Lexical markers include "class enemy," "bourgeois contamination," and "vanguard of the pure." The metaphorical layer constructs the class enemy as a parasite on the social body and the party as the immune system of the proletariat. The narrative-structural layer operates through a betrayal-redemption-purification sequence in which social democracy represents not an alternative but a corruption of authentic working-class consciousness. The enemy-ontological layer performs its most diagnostically significant move through the Bolshevisation directives of 1924–1925, which reclassify social democrats as "social fascists" — more dangerous than open reactionaries precisely because they contaminate from within, a formulation that simultaneously activates cosmic dualism, sacralised violence, and grievance inversion. Process tracing identifies the transmission mechanism through positive causal process observations: the Comintern school in Moscow, translated instruction materials, Comintern representatives in national party congresses, and the enforced standardisation of ideological vocabulary across affiliated parties. The rival explanation — parallel ideological development — is ruled out at STRONG CONFIRMATION by the CPO evidence, which documents not resemblance but installation. Outcome: DOCUMENTED TRANSMISSION at STRONG CONFIRMATION.

Kita Ikki's An Outline Plan for the Reorganisation of Japan (1919) deploys a configuration fingerprint structurally identical to European fascist formations of the same period despite no documented transmission pathway connecting them — making it the analytically ideal case for demonstrating structural recurrence and the method's capacity to produce a classified finding in the absence of genealogical connection. The corpus comprises Kita Ikki's Plan, Ōkawa Shūmei's writings of the 1920s and 1930s, February 26 Incident documentation, and ultranationalist society publications from the Kokuryūkai and Genyōsha — accessed through English-language Tier Two scholarship, which supports PROBABLE but not STRONG CONFIRMATION; Tier One Japanese primary source access would be required to upgrade the tier, and this scope limitation is stated rather than obscured. Configuration extraction confirms three of four marker types at PROBABLE: lexical markers identify "racial purity," "national spirit," and "Western contamination"; the metaphorical layer constructs Japan-as-body whose spirit has been corrupted by foreign materialism and whose restoration requires surgical purification; and the enemy-ontological layer frames Western influence and domestic liberal-capitalist elites as existential threats to authentic Japanese identity that cannot coexist with its survival. Process tracing finds no causal process observations connecting this formation to European fascism — the absence is the finding. Psychological validation provides the secondary plausibility layer: Hogg (2007) on uncertainty-identity dynamics under rapid modernisation, and Kruglanski et al. (2014) on significance quest activated by national humiliation, together explain why the cognitive formation reappears under analogous structural conditions without requiring genealogical connection. Outcome: STRUCTURAL RECURRENCE at PROBABLE. The finding does not diminish the analytical yield — it strengthens the inference that the installed architecture addresses durable psychological demands that produce convergent solutions independently.

Afrikaner nationalism and the ISIS apocalyptic architecture share no genealogical connection and demonstrate two of FGCA's three outcome types in contexts separated by geography, ideology, and century. Calvinist covenant theology installs a cosmic dualism formation in seventeenth-century southern African settler communities; no single institutional transmission chain connects it to the apartheid legislative apparatus of the twentieth century, yet the cognitive pattern is continuously present across that span through mnemonic practices — the Great Trek commemoration, the Day of the Vow, Broederbond cultural activities, and the Afrikaner language movement — each functioning as a carrier that reactivates rather than transmits the original installation (Assmann, 2011; Halbwachs, 1992; Nora, 1989; Olick and Robbins, 1998). Outcome: MEDIATED PERSISTENCE, demonstrating how the framework deploys memory-theoretical resources when direct CPO evidence is absent. The ISIS corpus, by contrast, requires no genealogical bridge because the finding is structural recurrence: the apocalyptic dualist formation documented in Dabiq publications (McCants, 2015) shares all four marker types with both the Comintern case and the Japanese case with no connection to either — cosmic dualism, sacralised violence, identity fusion, and grievance inversion confirmed at PROBABLE through published scholarship (Atran and Ginges, 2012; Kruglanski et al., 2014; della Porta, 2013). The portability test is the analytical yield: the same configuration fingerprint is identifiable across contexts with no genealogical relation, strengthening the inference that FGCA is not corridor-specific but traces architectures that recur wherever the same durable demands arise.

Soviet KGB active measures doctrine provides the state-linked hybrid warfare demonstration most operationally relevant to the contemporary threat environment. Layer One — Soviet active measures architecture (1960s–1989) — is extracted from published KGB defector accounts, US Senate Intelligence Committee documentation, and Fridman's (2018) scholarship on Russian hybrid warfare doctrine. Configuration extraction confirms all four capture mechanisms at STRONG CONFIRMATION: cosmic dualism frames Western liberal democracy as an existential civilisational threat to authentic Slavic identity; grievance inversion positions Soviet foreign policy as defensive response to Western aggression; sacralised violence codes revolutionary action as historically necessary purification; identity fusion demands subordination of individual identity to the Soviet collective. Process tracing between Layer One and Layer Two — contemporary Russian state information confrontation operations (2008–present), documented through Paul and Matthews (2016) and Nehring (2021) — identifies professional culture as the transmission mechanism: the KGB as an institution did not survive 1991 intact, but the intelligence community of practice that staffed FSB, SVR, and affiliated media and political structures carried the doctrinal architecture across the institutional rupture as embodied professional knowledge. The same configuration fingerprint — civilisational cosmic dualism, grievance inversion through NATO expansion framing, sacralised violence in "special military operation" language — is identifiable in Layer Two at STRONG CONFIRMATION. Outcome: DOCUMENTED TRANSMISSION through professional culture, with the critical analytical implication that the 2022 Ukraine communications architecture was not assembled in 2022: it was installed, transmitted, and is now being reactivated.

Four cases. Three outcome types. One consistent analytical procedure. What remains is to locate that procedure within the methodological landscape and assess the limits of what it can claim.

6. Discussion: Comparative Validation and Operational Relevance

Before the comparative case is made, one limit must be stated from the inside rather than defended from the outside: FGCA traces what persists, but persistence is not the same as exploitability. A deeply installed capture architecture may remain dormant for generations — either because no adversarial actor has chosen to activate it, or because the social conditions for activation have not aligned. The method identifies what is structurally available to be activated; it cannot determine, by itself, which installed architectures are operationally live and which are culturally inert. That judgement requires contextual analysis the protocol does not supply, and any application of the method that collapses the distinction between what persists and what is currently dangerous oversteps what the evidence can support. This is not a peripheral qualification — it is the boundary that separates rigorous diachronic analysis from security threat assessment, and crossing it without acknowledgement is the most common misuse of genealogical methods in security studies. What FGCA provides — and what the adjacent methods do not — is the map of what is available to be activated. The carrier map and capture depth estimate narrow the range of uncertainty significantly. But the activation question remains open.

Comparative validation in a methodological paper is not an exercise in demonstrating general superiority but in showing that the proposed framework occupies a methodological position adjacent methods do not — one defined by the simultaneous coexistence of task demands that each neighbouring approach addresses only partially. Wave-based models provide categorical architecture for periodising political violence but underspecify substrate-level persistence mechanisms beneath ideological mutation. The Discourse-Historical Approach offers historically contextualised discourse analysis but was not designed for multi-century documentary archaeology. Comparative historical analysis addresses macrostructural outcomes but not the close-documentary marker convergence through which capture architectures are identified. Memory studies address mnemonic persistence but lack systematic evidential thresholding. Computational detection achieves scale but, as the Christchurch case demonstrated, targets precisely what adversaries have learned to mutate. FGCA occupies the intersection where all five demands coexist simultaneously — which is its differentiated position, not a claim about general superiority. FGCA does not displace its neighbours. It occupies the intersection they cannot reach simultaneously. What it produces in that position has three named dimensions and one novel diagnostic output. Cross-temporal configuration identification traces the same cognitive-affective architecture across centuries of ideological mutation, grounded in the cognitive environment of each period. Outcome differentiation converts the binary verdict of connected or not connected into a three-part graduated taxonomy whose categories are themselves analytically informative. Tiered evidential confidence makes every claim's epistemic status explicit and open to scrutiny. Beyond these three, capture depth estimation — the classification of installation as shallow, intermediate, or deep based on carrier diversity, marker convergence, and mnemonic reinforcement — converts the framework from a tracing method into a tracing-and-diagnostic method, generating outputs directly relevant to assessing adversarial exploitability before any specific operation is launched.

Counter-measure relevance is among FGCA's most operationally significant yield dimensions, and it addresses one of the most persistent failures in prevention policy. A 2020 systematic review of targeted counter-narrative interventions across forty-five studies (Carthy et al., 2020) found that the majority of counter-radicalisation programmes achieved limited effect on the populations most deeply exposed to extremist content — precisely because they were designed to contest surface claims rather than engage the cognitive-affective architectures those claims were activating. Counter-narratives that address ideological vocabulary leave identity fusion, grievance inversion, sacralised violence, and cosmic dualism operationally intact: the architecture continues to make the adversarial message available and emotionally coherent even when its specific factual claims have been refuted. RAND Corporation analysis of Russian information warfare operations (Paul and Matthews, 2016) reaches an equivalent conclusion from the strategic communication side: high-volume, multi-channel adversarial messaging succeeds not by persuading populations from zero but by activating pre-existing narrative dispositions that make the message feel like recognition rather than persuasion. FGCA provides the substrate map that any counter-measure operating at the right level requires: the carrier map (Output 4) identifies which symbolic channels are actively maintaining the installed architecture, the capture depth estimate (Output 2) establishes how intensively counter-engagement must operate, and the configuration profile (Output 1) specifies which mechanisms must be addressed rather than which vocabulary must be contested. Direct counter-propaganda evaluation is downstream from this paper — but the analytical foundation it requires is not.

FGCA's five application domains each represent a distinct operational context in which surface-level detection systematically underperforms because the cognitive-affective architecture beneath the surface remains unread. In radicalisation, the method's primary value is pre-violent installation detection: the linguistic micro-protocol — particularly temporal grammar and sloganisation — identifies the cognitive preparation stage before any actionable surface signature appears, enabling intervention at the point of installation rather than at the point of mobilisation (Baker, Vessey and McEnery, 2021). In hybrid warfare, the framework traces the substrate that makes adversarial docking possible — the historically installed formations that allow a contemporary operation to achieve uptake without needing to construct identity, threat, and sacred mission from zero, as the Soviet-to-Russian transmission demonstration established. In terrorism, the method explains why violence-framing packages recur across ideologically unconnected movements by identifying the shared capture architecture beneath surface ideological variation — the same four mechanisms operating across different historical and geopolitical contexts produce convergent mobilisation architectures. In mnemonic statecraft, the analytical protocol maps how institutional memory carriers preserve and reactivate capture across generational transitions, providing both a supply-side diagnostic and a vulnerability diagnostic. In nationalist and extremist aesthetic production — including the visual grammar of poster and monument design, the performative staging of mass ritual, and the ironic meme aesthetics of digitally-native far-right communication (Schmid, Schulze and Drexel, 2025) — FGCA-V and FGCA-R extend the method's capture detection logic to carriers that operate below the threshold of explicit argumentation and can achieve deniability through aestheticisation.

Two live methodological controversies bear directly on FGCA's validity claims and are engaged here rather than avoided. The agency-structure tension in historical methodology — Ginzburg's microhistorical attention to individual actors against Febvre's structural mentalités — is resolved through the double temporal frame: a microtemporal register situates specific actors, texts, and institutions within their particular historical context, while a macrotemporal register connects their actions to long-duration configurational consequences that no single actor controlled or anticipated (Abbott, 2001; Sewell, 1996). The framework operates at both registers simultaneously — the codebook identifies marker instances at the level of individual documents, while the three-outcome classification makes claims at the level of cross-century configurational persistence. The anachronism objection — that applying contemporary psychological frameworks to historical subjects is methodologically illicit — is answered through the two-level logic the method maintains throughout. At Level One, diachronic interpretation proceeds through the mental equipment available in each period: texts are read through the cognitive environment they both reflected and constituted, not through categories their producers could not have held (Febvre, 1982; Skinner, 1969). At Level Two, contemporary psychology — significance quest theory, ontological security, identity fusion, moral disengagement — functions as a secondary plausibility layer for persistence mechanisms, explaining why formations address durable demands without claiming to describe what historical actors were experiencing. The psychological validation layer explains recurrence; it does not diagnose the dead.

7. Scope, Limitations, and Conditions of Validity

FGCA is a qualitative, documentary, and interpretive framework designed for problems where temporal depth, fragmentary evidence, anti-anachronism requirements, outcome differentiation, and auditable thresholds coexist simultaneously. Where these five demands do not all converge, adjacent methods are more appropriate instruments — this is a design specification, not a concession. The method is not computational: FGCA-T does not produce scalable output and was not designed to, and its value relative to computational systems lies precisely in the depth and mechanism-sensitivity that scale forecloses. Configuration identification depends on convergent marker analysis across independent evidence types, not on corpus-frequency statistics that would produce false positives wherever extremist vocabulary is common and true negatives wherever it is euphemised. Tier One linguistic competency in the corpus language is a scope condition specifying the conditions under which the method operates validly — the capacity for slow reading in the source language, in Ginzburg's sense, is not a researcher preference but a methodological requirement for the first-tier evidential work the procedure demands. FGCA-T, the textual core, is the fully demonstrated operational form as presented in this paper. FGCA-V, FGCA-R, and FGCA-M — the visual, ritual, and multimodal extension modules — are architecturally defined and their carrier logic is specified, but their full coding protocols require separate methodological elaboration and are not claimed as demonstrated here. Validity across all demonstrated applications is governed by Lincoln and Guba's (1985) trustworthiness framework: credibility through convergent evidence across independent marker types, transferability through the comparative portability testing the demonstrations perform, dependability through codebook transparency and rival-explanation protocol, and confirmability through the explicit statement of what would falsify every claim advanced. The downstream receptivity hypothesis — Output 5 — is the method's most consequential but most conditional output. FGCA reconstructs historically sedimented capture architectures that may condition differential population receptivity to adversarial mobilisation under specific conditions; it does not directly measure uptake, activation, or behavioural consequence. Output 5 is a hypothesis, not a finding, and must be presented as such in every application — requiring pairing with contemporary audience evidence, platform data, ethnographic material, or discourse uptake indicators before being advanced beyond the hypothesis stage.

Three dimensions constitute the methodological contribution this paper advances. The first is procedural: the synthesis of cognitive historiography, microhistorical evidential reasoning, and Annales-school mentalités reconstruction into a unified, auditable procedure for tracing persistent psychological formations across historical stratigraphic layers — with the three-outcome distinction between documented transmission, mediated persistence, and structural recurrence as a conceptual contribution to historical methodology that extends beyond the immediate application domain and is available to any analytical tradition that must account for how cultural and cognitive formations survive across time. The second is substantive: a procedure for the differential question that strategic communication scholarship and hybrid warfare analysis have identified as the central unresolved problem — why identical adversarial operations produce radically different effects in different populations — addressed by reading the pre-installed capture architecture that determines receptivity before any specific operation begins rather than analysing the operation's surface features after it has been launched. The third is scope-defining: by specifying the evidential conditions under which FGCA's claims are and are not warranted, the method's design scope, the confidence tier attached to every output, and the upgrade pathways through which provisional findings can be strengthened, this paper contributes the boundary conditions that allow the framework to be applied without being over-applied — a form of methodological precision that serves the field more durably than any single finding the method might produce. Psychological capture architectures are historically traceable, analytically identifiable, and — where the carrier map and capture depth estimate are taken seriously — operationally anticipatable. That is what the method is for.

REFERENCES

Abbott, A. (2001) Time Matters: On Theory and Method. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Assmann, J. (2011) Cultural Memory and Early Civilization: Writing, Remembrance, and Political Imagination. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Atran, S. and Ginges, J. (2012) 'Religious and Sacred Imperatives in Human Conflict.' Science, 336(6083), pp. 855–857.

Baker, P., Vessey, R. and McEnery, A. (2021) The Language of Violent Jihad. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bandura, A. (1999) 'Moral Disengagement in the Perpetration of Inhumanities.' Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(3), pp. 193–209.

Beach, D. and Pedersen, R.B. (2013) Process-Tracing Methods: Foundations and Guidelines. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Benford, R.D. and Snow, D.A. (2000) 'Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment.' Annual Review of Sociology, 26, pp. 611–639.

Bennett, A. and Checkel, J.T. (eds.) (2015) Process Tracing: From Metaphor to Analytic Tool. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brubaker, R. and Cooper, F. (2000) 'Beyond "Identity".' Theory and Society, 29(1), pp. 1–47.

Burke, P. (1990) The French Historical Revolution: The Annales School, 1929–89. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Carthy, S.L. et al. (2020) 'Counter-narratives for the Prevention of Violent Radicalisation: A Systematic Review of Targeted Interventions.' Campbell Systematic Reviews, 16(3), e1106.

Chartier, R. (1988) Cultural History: Between Practices and Representations. Translated by L. Cochrane. Cambridge: Polity Press.

della Porta, D. (2013) Clandestine Political Violence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dunér, D. (2019) 'Human Mind in Space and Time: Prolegomena to a Cognitive History.' In Dunér, D. and Ahlberger, C. (eds.) Cognitive History: Mind, Space, and Time. Berlin: De Gruyter Oldenbourg, pp. 3–32.

English, R. (2024) 'Bad History: A Historian's Critique of Rapoport's Four Waves of Terrorism.' Critical Studies on Terrorism, 17(2).

Fairclough, N. (1992) Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity.

Febvre, L. (1982) The Problem of Unbelief in the Sixteenth Century: The Religion of Rabelais. Translated by B. Gottlieb. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2006) 'Five Misunderstandings about Case-Study Research.' Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), pp. 219–245.

Fomin, I. (2023) 'Strategic Culture as a Meaning-Making System: Towards a Social Semiotic Account of Multimodal Cultural Constraints in International Relations.' International Theory, 15(3), pp. 351–378.

Foucault, M. (1977) 'Nietzsche, Genealogy, History.' In Bouchard, D.F. (ed.) Language, Counter-Memory, Practice. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, pp. 139–164.

Fridman, O. (2018) Russian "Hybrid Warfare": Resurgence and Politicisation. London: Hurst.

Gartenstein-Ross, D., Hodgson, S. and Clarke, C.P. (2023) 'Composite Violent Extremism: Conceptualising Attackers Who Increasingly Challenge the Leaderless Jihad Model.' Studies in Conflict and Terrorism. doi:10.1080/1057610X.2023.2218193.

George, A.L. and Bennett, A. (2005) Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Ginzburg, C. (1980) The Cheese and the Worms. Translated by J. and A. Tedeschi. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Ginzburg, C. (1989) Clues, Myths, and the Historical Method. Translated by J. and A. Tedeschi. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Ginzburg, C. (1993) 'Microhistory: Two or Three Things That I Know about It.' Critical Inquiry, 20(1), pp. 10–35.

Halbwachs, M. (1992) On Collective Memory. Edited and translated by L.A. Coser. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hogg, M.A. (2007) 'Uncertainty-Identity Theory.' In Zanna, M.P. (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 39. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 69–126.

Koselleck, R. (2004) Futures Past: On the Semantics of Historical Time. New York: Columbia University Press.

Kress, G. and van Leeuwen, T. (2020) Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. 3rd edn. London: Routledge.

Kruglanski, A.W. et al. (2014) 'The Psychology of Radicalization and Deradicalization: How Significance Quest Impacts Violent Extremism.' Political Psychology, 35(S1), pp. 69–93.

Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980) Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G. (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.

Mahoney, J. (2012) 'The Logic of Process Tracing Tests in the Social Sciences.' Sociological Methods and Research, 41(4), pp. 570–597.

Mahoney, J. and Goertz, G. (2006) 'A Tale of Two Cultures: Contrasting Quantitative and Qualitative Research.' Political Analysis, 14(3), pp. 227–249.

Martin, J. (2012) 'Psyche.' In Martin, J. and Barresi, J. (eds.) The Making of the Modern Self. New York: Columbia University Press.

McCants, W. (2015) The ISIS Apocalypse. New York: St. Martin's Press.

Mälksoo, M. (2015) '"Memory must be defended": Beyond the Politics of Mnemonical Security.' Security Dialogue, 46(3), pp. 221–237.

Mitzen, J. (2006) 'Ontological Security in World Politics: State Identity and the Security Dilemma.' European Journal of International Relations, 12(3), pp. 341–370.

Nehring, H. (2021) 'The KGB and the Bulgarian State Security: Coordination, Influence, and Transnational Repression.' Journal of Cold War Studies, 23(2), pp. 4–44.

Nora, P. (1989) 'Between Memory and History: Les Lieux de Mémoire.' Representations, 26, pp. 7–24.

Olick, J.K. and Robbins, J. (1998) 'Social Memory Studies: From "Collective Memory" to the Historical Sociology of Mnemonic Practices.' Annual Review of Sociology, 24, pp. 105–140.

Paul, C. and Matthews, M. (2016) The Russian "Firehose of Falsehood" Propaganda Model. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

Ragin, C.C. (1987) The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Ragin, C.C. (2008) Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Rapoport, D.C. (2004) 'The Four Waves of Modern Terrorism.' In Cronin, A.K. and Ludes, J.M. (eds.) Attacking Terrorism. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 46–73.

Reisigl, M. and Wodak, R. (2009) 'The Discourse-Historical Approach.' In Wodak, R. and Meyer, M. (eds.) Methods for Critical Discourse Analysis. 2nd edn. London: SAGE, pp. 87–121.

Saldaña, J. (2021) The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. 4th edn. London: SAGE.

Schmid, U.K., Schulze, H. and Drexel, A. (2025) 'Memes, Humor, and the Far Right's Strategic Mainstreaming.' Information, Communication and Society, 28(4), pp. 537–556.

Sewell, W.H. Jr (1996) 'Historical Events as Transformations of Structures: Inventing Revolution at the Bastille.' Theory and Society, 25(6), pp. 841–881.

Skinner, Q. (1969) 'Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas.' History and Theory, 8(1), pp. 3–53.

Swann, W.B. et al. (2012) 'When Group Membership Gets Personal: A Theory of Identity Fusion.' Psychological Review, 119(3), pp. 441–456.

Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1979) 'An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict.' In Austin, W.G. and Worchel, S. (eds.) The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole, pp. 33–47.

Citation: Kuzmanov, I. (2026). Focused Genealogical Configuration Analysis: A Methodological Framework for Tracing Persistent Psychological Configurations in Political Violence and Adversarial Mobilisation. Angel Analytical Research Note GP-2026-013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19070816

Published by Angel Analytical, part of The Angel Social Group. Supported by Art Angel Foundation. All rights reserved.