The Cognitive Power of National Commemorations: How States Build Strategic Legitimacy
Summary for csr-italia.org — CSR Paper P001. Version dated 6 July 2026.
On 4 July 2026, the United States marked the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.
At first glance, this might appear to be just another major national commemoration. CSR Paper P001 asks a different question: are major national commemorations simply moments of collective remembrance, or do they also serve as instruments through which States reinforce their strategic legitimacy, shape the perceptions of citizens, institutions, allies, and adversaries, and create continuity between the past, the present, and the future?
This question provides the starting point for the first paper in the CSR Papers series, dedicated to the ongoing development of the Multi-System Tension (MST) Framework.
The paper also builds upon a concept that already lies at the heart of the CSR analytical approach: cognitive power as a strategic infrastructure—the capacity to shape what is perceived as plausible, legitimate, and technically necessary long before any decision is formally made. Major national commemorations are among the key devices through which this capacity is exercised and sustained over time.
A Commemoration Designed for the Future
The American Semiquincentennial did not originate with the current Administration.
The institutional America250 program was established by Congress in 2016 and spans different administrations and legislative terms. The speech delivered on 4 July 2026 therefore takes place within an already established institutional framework, while advancing a specific political interpretation of that framework.
This distinction runs throughout the paper.
One thing is the institutional infrastructure of the commemoration.
Another is how a political leadership chooses to use it.
The international context is also fundamentally different from that of the 1976 Bicentennial.
Fifty years ago, the United States celebrated its history within an international system still defined by the Cold War.
In 2026, the same commemoration takes place in a strategic environment shaped by great-power competition, the reconfiguration of global value chains, shifting geopolitical balances, and an increasingly contested cognitive domain.
As the strategic environment changes, so too does the meaning of the commemoration.
How States Build Strategic Legitimacy
The paper does not assess the political content of the speech's individual statements.
Instead, it examines their underlying architecture.
Language.
Symbols.
Collective memory.
Historical time.
Political community.
These elements are progressively integrated into a coherent representation of national continuity.
The past becomes the source of legitimacy for the present.
The present is portrayed as the natural continuation of the founding moment.
The future appears as the extension of the same historical trajectory.
Continuity does not simply mean repeating the past.
It is a cognitive construction through which new decisions are perceived as consistent with the founding principles of the State.
Cognitive Infrastructures of Legitimization (CIL)
From this observation, the paper introduces a first analytical category: Cognitive Infrastructures of Legitimization (CIL).
Cognitive Infrastructures of Legitimization (CIL) are defined as the organized set of symbolic, institutional, and communicative devices through which a State builds, maintains, and renews over time the legitimacy of its political and strategic action.
National commemorations.
Constitutions.
Major institutional speeches.
Monuments.
Public ceremonies.
National museums.
Foundational narratives.
Viewed individually, these elements appear heterogeneous.
Taken together, they perform a common function: building continuity.
A State's material resources—its economy, technology, military capabilities, territory, and population—do not automatically translate into capacity for strategic action.
They must also be perceived as legitimate, coherent, and credible.
This is precisely where Cognitive Infrastructures of Legitimization operate.
They do not generate power directly.
They make power recognizable, understandable, and sustainable over time.
Beyoind the American Case
he mechanism identified in this paper is not unique to the United States.
A comparison with Russia, China, and India suggests that while founding events, political narratives, and symbolic instruments differ, the strategic function of organized memory remains fundamentally the same.
Russia draws upon the memory of the Great Patriotic War as the foundation of state continuity.
China frames its national development within the vision of the "great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation," with 2049 serving as its symbolic horizon.
India increasingly presents Independence in 1947 as the starting point of its contemporary national trajectory.
The paper also highlights an essential qualification.
Cognitive Infrastructures of Legitimization (CIL) do not operate in the same way across all political systems.
Their effectiveness depends not only on the institutional devices through which they are expressed, but also on the degree of societal consensus surrounding a nation's symbolic heritage and on the level of internal pluralism.
Where collective memory is deeply contested, the very same cognitive infrastructures may reinforce fragmentation rather than cohesion.
A Working Analytical Hypothesis
The paper introduces Cognitive Infrastructures of Legitimization (CIL) as an analytical category rather than a completed theory.
Like any interpretative concept developed within the Multi-System Tension (MST) Framework, CIL should be tested and refined through the analysis of additional case studies.
The objective is not to develop a general theory of collective memory.
It is to understand how the cognitive dimension contributes to States' capacity for strategic action within the international system.
Why this paper is relevant for MST Framework
CSR Paper P001 does not revise the structure of the Multi-System Tension (MST) Framework.
It extends its analytical reach.
Contemporary strategic competition cannot be understood solely through economic resources, military capabilities, or technological superiority.
It also depends on the ability of States to make their historical trajectory intelligible, coherent, and credible over time.
Understanding how States build strategic legitimacy means examining one of the least visible—yet increasingly consequential—dimensions of strategic competition in the twenty-first century.
This is the contribution that CSR Paper P001 seeks to offer to the study of the international system and to the continued development of the Multi-System Tension (MST) Framework.
Further Readings
Cognitive Power as a Strategic Infrastructure—the article that introduces, within the CSR Framework, the concept of cognitive power as the capacity to shape the boundaries of what becomes conceivable before strategic decisions are made.
The Cognitive Infrastructures of Legitimization (CIL) proposed in this paper represent a specific application of that concept:
**Cognitive Power as a Strategic Infrastructure
Ask to receive the Paper
CSR Paper P001 – The Cognitive Power of National Commemorations: How States Build Strategic Legitimacy includes:
— a comprehensive analysis of the 4 July 2026 address;
— a comparative assessment of the United States, Russia, China, and India;
— the methodological proposal of Cognitive Infrastructures of Legitimization (CIL);
— the implications for the continued development of the Multi-System Tension (MST) Framework.
The full paper is available upon request.
For further information, please contact contatti@csr-italia.org