The Word
by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger
Originally, I drafted this article with a preface about the story Michael Hastings recently broke on BuzzFeed about an amendment to the latest defense authorization bill that would “legalize the use of propaganda on American audiences.” However, as I worked on it this morning, our very own poet laureate and research librarian extraordinaire Elaine Magliaro cut me off at the pass with her own excellent article on the subject. So instead of repeating the points she makes which illustrate why understanding propaganda is important, I will refer you to her post “How about Some Government Propaganda for the People Paid for by the People Being Propagandized?”
Now that the kid gloves have come off regarding the governmental efforts to control your mind by controlling both your information and how you receive it, let’s discuss the nature of propaganda. Now more than ever, it is important to know the basics of how propaganda works. Since words are the basic building block of the English language, we’ll start with asking what is propaganda, look at some general history of the practice, consider the importance of meaning of words, the ideas of connotation and denotation, and the process of selecting “value loaded” words.
What is propaganda? Webster’s defines the word as follows:
propaganda \ˌprä-pə-ˈgan-də, ˌprō-\, n.,
1 capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions (ed. note: Not relevant, but interesting.)
2: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one’s cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect
But that’s not exactly what people feel when they hear the word, is it? Why do most people have a negative reaction to the word “propaganda”? After all, by definition, “propaganda” is much like the verb “to persuade” in meaning.
persuade \pər-ˈswād\, v., v.t.,
1: to move by argument, entreaty, or expostulation to a belief, position, or course of action
2: to plead with : urge
Etymologically speaking, the word “propaganda” is fairly new as a political science term. “Propaganda” didn’t come into common use as a political science term until World War I. Even then it was not a pejorative in use like it is today. The word originated (some would say unsurprisingly so) as shorthand referring to the Roman Catholic Church’s Congregatio de Propaganda Fide or the “congregation for propagating the faith”. This committee of cardinals was established in 1622 by Pope Gregory XV to supervise foreign missions. The word “propaganda” is the feminine gerund of the Italian verb “propagando” which in turn is derived from the Latin verb prōpāgō, meaning “to propagate”.
propagate \ˈprä-pə-ˌgāt\, v., v.t.,
3a : to cause to spread out and affect a greater number or greater area : extend b : to foster growing knowledge of, familiarity with, or acceptance of (as an idea or belief) : publicize c : to transmit (as sound or light) through a medium
Clearly the largest distinction between persuasion and propaganda is that propaganda is a form of large scale persuasion. Persuasion isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Changing someone’s mind is a better tactic than violence. Persuasion is at the heart of society’s pillar and replacement for self-help justice and dispute resolution, the adversarial court system. Persuasion is an alternative to coercion.
So what is propaganda? It’s a tool to change people’s minds. Like any tool, it is capable of beneficial use and horrific misuse. This makes understanding how the tool works critical if you want to recognize (and possibly work to prevent) its misuse.
If that is the case the word originally had no pejorative use, then why do most people have an automatic negative reaction to the word “propaganda”? This brings us to the ideas of connotation and denotation. Plainly put, denotation is a direct specific meaning; the literal meaning of a word and nothing more. Connotation is a “something” suggested by a word or thing; an implied meaning. I suggest the negative connotation for the word “propaganda” comes from both the negative denotation built in to the word itself (part of the definition is “for the purpose of helping or injuring” and injury carries the negative notion of harm to self and/or others) and the recent historical use of propaganda to dastardly ends culminating to create an implied negative meaning beyond the definition. The denotation of a word is not the direct province of the propagandist. They have to know what the words actually mean, but that is of limited value to them. The edge of the propagandist’s knife so to speak lies in the connotation of words. More on that topic as we move along. In the 20th Century, we have seen what truly evil injury propaganda is capable of inflicting on a society. To know how we got to today, it is important to have a bit of historical perspective.
Historically, the idea of propaganda has been around as long as there have been society and governments. For example, in ancient Egypt, the Pharaoh Ramses II claimed a great victory over the Hittites in the Battles of Kadesh (possibly the largest chariot battle in history). The two most common forms of Egyptian records of the battles are known as “The Poem” and “The Bulletin”. Both are found carved into multiple sites in Egypt, all built or expanded upon by Ramses II – one of the greatest builders of ancient Egypt. “The Bulletin” is found on seven different temples or monuments and eight total sites have “The Poem”. When you add numerous other references on papyrus and in tangentially related carvings, this makes the Battles of Kadesh one of the best recorded battles of antiquity. The tale told is of an overwhelming victory for Ramses II and Egypt.
There’s only one problem with that depiction.
It is most certainly a lie at worst and an exaggeration at best.
Hittite records, although not as numerous, all tell the tale of a Hittite victory. Archaeological evidence is inconclusive. One of the two parties is lying and possibly both. Most modern historians have come to the conclusion that the battle likely ended in a draw. Given that, why did Ramses II carve his non-existent victory into stone? Propaganda is the answer. Ramses II wanted the reputation as a strong military leader even if the reality wasn’t so glorious. So he fluffed the details and spread the word that “Ramses II Kicks Ass!” Unless you were at the Battles of Kadesh, who were you to argue with a Living God? Then realizing that his chances for immediate military exploits were practically nil, Ramses II did what any respectable Pharaoh would do and a secondary exercise in propaganda: he returned to the building spree he started as a young man. Some would say the greatest building spree in the history of the ancient Egypt. Just like the Romans after him, Ramses knew that impressive buildings were a kind of psychological warfare – non-verbal propaganda geared at projecting the power of the throne to the masses, but more on this at a later date. The focus here is language and the basics of propaganda.
In the beginning, there was the word. Those with the word were limited. If they could not speak directly, they were limited by how many manual physical copies they could get out to the masses and how many of the masses could read. Then came the printing press in the 15th Century. When Guttenberg invented it, one of the early adopters of the technology was the Holy Roman Empire. By the end of the Renaissance, book making was industrialized to the point that printer/binders could produce between three and four thousand pages per day: a hundred fold increase in production compared to the most prolific of scribes. Books and written material went from rare treasures to common items. As knowledge became democratized, the use of printed propaganda grew in unison: public notices, political flyers and proto-newspapers became cheap and abundant.
The 20th Century was in some ways a Golden Age for deploying propaganda. Unlike any previous age, the 20th Century was the age of mass communications. Industrial mass printing of newspapers, radio, television, telephones and the Internet radically changed the way humans communicate. The word became King and the picture became Queen. Even illiteracy wasn’t the barrier it had posed to the ancient world as the spoken word supplemented the written and the truism that “a picture is worth a thousand words” is a truism for a reason. Even physical handicap was less of a barrier to getting the message out as those blind to the printed word and picture and deaf to the spoken word now had the channel of communication created by the 19th Century invention of Braille. As propaganda is large scale persuasion, mass media provided a natural accelerant. What had previously been a candle of propaganda became a bonfire necessarily becoming a political science term in common usage. The 20th Century saw probably the most devastating use of propaganda to date on any population. Propaganda was instrumental to both the Nazi war effort and their social engineering that allowed them to industrially murder six million Jews, Roma, homosexuals and handicapped. Propaganda was key to the crimes of the Khemer Rouge. Mao’s Cultural Revolution. Castro’s rise to power in Cuba. The wrongful, misguided and likely illegal U.S. invasion of Iraq. These are a few of many examples where propaganda has been used to either garner public support for ethically wrong actions by government or obfuscate the truth to aid the guilty from being brought to justice. This point will be addressed further in a later column, but it goes a long way to explaining how a word of neutral value became a word of negative value due to recent history.
We are still left with the word. As far as the word “propaganda” proper, we know what it means. We know where it comes from. We know the goal of propaganda in general. That leaves us with word choice and the idea of “value loaded” word and how it relates to propaganda. What are words loaded with? They are loaded with implication. This is why connotation is the edge of the propagandist’s knife. Word choice is critical. As I noted earlier, the denotation of a word is not the direct province of the propagandist. The edge of the propagandist’s knife so to speak lies in the connotation of words. However, knowing the proper denotation of words – i.e. having a large vocabulary – puts one at a tactical advantage against the propagandist. If one knows the actual meaning of words, it becomes more difficult for the propagandist to use connotation against you.
For example, consider the use of media outlets like NPR that made a public and conscious decision to refrain from reporting on “torture” – a word with extremely negative denotation and connotation – and instead choosing to use the euphemistic language “enhanced interrogation”. Everyone with a conscience thinks torture is a bad thing and torturers are ethically abhorrent people. It’s not only a Federal crime, cruel and unusual punishment is specifically barred by the 8th Amendment of the Constitution. The word choice here is designed to clearly shift public attitudes from “those guys need to be prosecuted as criminals” to “maybe they aren’t so bad after all”. NPR (aided by the Bush Administration no doubt) chose words with a neutral/positive value load compared to the word “torture”. Connotation plays to your emotional response over your rational response. When the word choice becomes more subtle, the damage of connotations can be even more insidious. Compare:
- war – limited police action
- conquest – liberation
- famine – widespread hunger
- pestilence – outbreak
- death – casualties
Be aware and suspicious of word choice, certainly. Especially when dealing with adjectives as they have by their nature a great capacity to carry connotation. However, it is equally important to consider the speaker. When evaluating something you suspect is propaganda, ask these questions:
- Who is the speaker?
- What does the speaker want from me?
- What advantage does the speaker gain from my agreement or lose from my disagreement? And vice-versa?
- Does the speaker represent other interests that may not be obvious?
- Why is the speaker giving this message now?
What is your first line of defense against propaganda?
Be aware of the meaning and choice of words. To that end, work to strengthen your vocabulary. Buy a “Word A Day” calender or download an app for your phone, use a website or download a tickler program for your computer.
Always question the message and the messenger as well as any who may have sent the messenger. Practice reading with emotional detachment and a critical eye to not only what is said, but how it is said and by whom.
Keep in mind that propaganda is a tool. It is inherently neutral. The good or evil is found in the intent of the speaker and their desired actions and/or reactions on your part.
What is your first line of defense against propaganda? You are. And that is my unhidden message to you: Wake up. Civilization calls. The world is what we make it.
The next article in this series will address methodology, strategy and tactics in deploying propaganda.
~submitted by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger
The Propaganda Series;
Propaganda 105: How to Spot a Liar
Propaganda 104 Supplemental: The Streisand Effect and the Political Question
Propaganda 104 Supplemental: The Sound of Silence
Propaganda 104: Magica Verba Est Scientia Et Ars Es
Propaganda 103: The Word Changes, The Word Remains The Same
Propaganda 102 Supplemental: Holly Would “Zero Dark Thirty”
Propaganda 102: Holly Would and the Power of Images
Propaganda 101 Supplemental: Child’s Play
Propaganda 101 Supplemental: Build It And They Will Come (Around)
Related articles of interest;
talkingbacktocspan,
The reason your comment is in moderation is that it has too many links. Normally, no one here bothers with the moderation queue. It is effectively limbo.
As to your childish threat? I don’t care if you post again or not.
Mike Spindell 1, May 21, 2012 at 12:12 pm
“The context is social Darwinism and Eugenics of the turn of the century, coupled with the works of Freud.”
Dredd,
I think you mix context with rationales. Those movements above provided the supposed scientific rationales for the Progressives. The context was the Progressive Movement, which was an “enlightened” segment of the nation’s elite, who were battling for supremacy with America’s “landed aristocracy”, which was generally opposed to internationalist expansion as typified by imperialism. Domestically, they were more or less indistinguishable in that both were for cheap labor, opposition to the union movement and the unfettered use of natural resources.
==========================================
That all comes to a head with the sainthood of Ayn Rand, fused with another religion.
ekeyra 1, May 21, 2012 at 4:13 pm
=================================
Thanks for the video. Here is another take on TV:
(Hunter S. Thompson).
I responded to Elaine at 1:43. That comment is still ‘in moderation’ (the church bell is chiming 6:00).
Upon finishing the response to Elaine, I began a response to your comment of 1:27. That is, I’ve spent >4 hours composing a compact, comprehensive response to your assertions.
I will post it only after my comment to Elaine become accessible to other participants here. Unless, of course, you seek to mimic “Goebbels” in “burning books.” h/t Otteray
Gene, what a bountiful and exposing discussion your blog has inspired, thank you. This is the greatest detailing of propaganda I have experienced. I am bookmarking this and will re-review it in the future.
My suggestion that, simply following the golden rule can be a valuable tool in detecting propaganda, did not seem to attract the interest of the posters. Propaganda is the water we swim in daily, we can not remove ourselves from it, no more then a fish can drive a car in Manhatten. Understanding it, recognizing it, will clearly elevate ones self choices.
Once I actively chose not to promote my self interest by degrading, harming, or stepping on the inherent self respect of my fellow planeteers, Life became simpler for me. I am equal because you are equal. Valuable because you are too…..My family is important and so is yours. etc. etc.
Perhaps this is too simple. Perhaps too simple is really too complicated in a world full of propaganda that is devoted to dividing and conquering. Creating the straw men of them vs. us. Join JOIN JOIN US, become us or suffer THEM. People are People my friends. That’s all we are, treating each other as equals is simple, the tough part is realizing how truly common and frail life is….. and so each of us also. Peace is a good word and goal
talkingbacktocspan,
Where to begin . . .
Let’s start with the straw man in the room.
“That Germans were the masters of propaganda, and that, as has occurred in both the essay and the comments here, Germany and/or the wars in Europe have been cited as exemplars of propaganda, are themselves tributes to the success of the real propagandists, the U.S. government and its zionist allies.
re the first point, that Germany was NOT the master propagandist; in fact, according to the Institute for Propaganda, German propaganda failed to achieve its goals:”
No one claimed the Germans were “master propagandists” (although they utilized it extensively to mixed effect – one of their notable failures being the inability to use Positive Christianity to replace more traditional forms of Christianity). “Master propagandists?” Those would be your words, not mine.
“That Turley chose to devote so much of the introduction to this topic to the Roman Catholic church and the fact that it has a ministry of propaganda is itself a biased approach to the true nature of the subject. The word ‘propaganda’ has been wrenched out of the meaning and use that the Church makes of it — “to teach, to educate & conduct ‘apologetics’ “– an (admittedly) biased defense of doctrines of Catholicism.”
First, Turley didn’t write this piece. I did.
Second, two sentences in an etymological analysis of the word “propaganda” is hardly devotion of “so much of the introduction”. The mention of the Congregatio de Propaganda Fide was the original ministry of propaganda and the origin of the usage of the word propaganda to describe the process. As noted, the word “propaganda” is the feminine gerund of the Italian verb “propagando” which in turn is derived from the Latin verb prōpāgō, meaning “to propagate”. If you wish to make up your own definition to the Italian word to be something RCC approved? The only bias showing here is yours.
“As propagandacritic.com describes, U.S. Creel commission was first to used propaganda to demonize Germany in order to stir Americans to assent to U.S. involvement in a war.”
Irrelevant to the fact Germany was using propaganda to fan nationalistic support for a war of aggression and to dehumanize the Jews, Roma, homosexuals and handicapped as to create a rallying point for their domestic consolidation of power.
“Humans are by nature averse to killing another human; they can be ‘persuaded’ to do so only if and when the Other is dehumanized; that is the primary function of propaganda, and it is the tactic that CPI carried out masterfully.”
Again, also carried out by the Germans against the Jews, Roma, homosexuals and handicapped as to create a rallying point for their domestic consolidation of power.
So what upsets you most?
That the RCC’s organization is where the modern term originated?
Or that Germany – a well-known user of propaganda from ends that are without question evil – was attacked with propaganda itself?
Either way, your outrage is disproportionate, more than slightly irrational and says far more about your agenda than it does about the nature of propaganda.
Sumerian examples of propaganda:
Don’t know about Sumer/Akkad, but Cyrus produced the first Universal Declaration of Human Rights ~530 BC.
It appears “civilization” is trending backward, perhaps begun when Esther killed off the ten sons of Cyrus’s successor/ruler and placed herself and her countryman, Mordecai, in charge.
If your looking for deep roots of ancient propaganda, Abraham, Esther’s progenitor, could provide possibilities: about half of the world’s population claims to be proud to have ‘paternal’ connections to someone who smashed the icons of other peoples; got himself kicked out of Paradise; impregnated a concubine when his own wife was barren, cast off & abandoned that woman and her son when his own wife then conceived; asked his wife to deny that she was his wife so that he could gain commercial advantage with a competitor; taught his children that it was their right to take what did not belong to them, in the name of their god (see Deut 6); inculcated in his progeny/adherents the right to kill others in pursuit of their godly ‘dream.’
THAT is effective propaganda.
Mike S.,
“The effectiveness of German propaganda wasn’t cited about it directing it towards the US. It was extremely effective in Germany and that’s the context.
How else do you explain that an ugly, itinerant, untalented artist, a bombastic speaker, foment-er of treason to the Republic, gaining only 34% of the popular vote, became Chancellor and then “Der Fuhrer”. How further did one of the most educated, sophisticated, modern and culturally diverse States in Europe go on to methodically murder 6,000,000 people with no real protest and much approval of the populace? Damned good propaganda.”
*****
I agree–but I’d add that Hitler and his gang killed a lot more than 6,000,000 people.
That Germans were the masters of propaganda, and that, as has occurred in both the essay and the comments here, Germany and/or the wars in Europe have been cited as exemplars of propaganda, are themselves tributes to the success of the real propagandists, the U.S. government and its zionist allies.
re the first point, that Germany was NOT the master propagandist; in fact, according to the Institute for Propaganda, German propaganda failed to achieve its goals:
“many analysts attribute the failure of German propaganda in America to the fact that it emphasized logic over passion. According to Count von Bernstorff, a German diplomat, “the outstanding characteristic of the average American is rather a great, though superficial, sentimentality,” and German press telegrams completely failed to grasp this fact. ” http://www.propagandacritic.com/
That Turley chose to devote so much of the introduction to this topic to the Roman Catholic church and the fact that it has a ministry of propaganda is itself a biased approach to the true nature of the subject. The word ‘propaganda’ has been wrenched out of the meaning and use that the Church makes of it — “to teach, to educate & conduct ‘apologetics’ “– an (admittedly) biased defense of doctrines of Catholicism.
The essence of propaganda as it is used today, and has been since ~1913, is the use of emotional appeal (not reason & doctrine, as employed by Germans and the Church) to **subvert** rationality in order to gain control over the masses.
As propagandacritic.com describes, U.S. Creel commission was first to used propaganda to demonize Germany in order to stir Americans to assent to U.S. involvement in a war. Humans are by nature averse to killing another human; they can be ‘persuaded’ to do so only if and when the Other is dehumanized; that is the primary function of propaganda, and it is the tactic that CPI carried out masterfully. In addition to its government functionaries, CPI partnered with the then-new Hollywood film industry, primarily Warner Brothers, to conduct the campaign of demonization of “the Hun.” According to Richard Hawkins’ bio sketch of Samuel Untermyer, Warner brothers was underwritten by Wall Street financiers, the primary proponents and beneficiaries of the wars in Europe.
Edward Bernays is the so-called father of contemporary propaganda; he based his public relations tactics on theories of his uncle, Sigmund Freud; Freud supplied the tactic to subvert rationality by appealing to emotion, primarily fear; Bernays employed the tactic to control masses. The opening graphs of Bernays’ “Propaganda:”
“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.
“We are governed, our minds molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society.” [Ch. 1, ‘Organizing Chaos’]
“according to the Institute for Propaganda, German propaganda failed to achieve its goals: “many analysts attribute the failure of German propaganda in America to the fact that it emphasized logic over passion.”
talkingbacktocspan,
The effectiveness of German propaganda wasn’t cited about it directing it towards the US. It was extremely effective in Germany and that’s the context.
How else do you explain that an ugly, itinerant, untalented artist, a bombastic speaker, foment-er of treason to the Republic, gaining only 34% of the popular vote, became Chancellor and then “Der Fuhrer”. How further did one of the most educated, sophisticated, modern and culturally diverse States in Europe go on to methodically murder 6,000,000 people with no real protest and much approval of the populace? Damned good propaganda.
Well . . . that’s not exactly true. I do know of one, but I think the Ramses example was better.
Mike,
“While Ramses II’s time was about 3,300 years ago, my suspicion which I advanced in a comment on another thread, is that propaganda developed in tandem with civilization. To govern one needs propaganda to ensure stability. ”
True enough, but the reason I didn’t go back further is I don’t know of any Sumerian examples of propaganda.
Tina,
That topic will be addressed later with methodology, strategy and tactics. As already noted, propaganda is a tool that can be used for either good (spreading truthful beneficial information to benign or beneficial ends) or evil (spreading misinformation, outright lies and other form malignant information to destructive ends). One of the most potent form of lie is the lie of omission and as such guaranteed to be included. However, thank you for the reminder. It shows that you are already aware and vigilant.
Good exposition, and not to forget (or ‘omit/censor’) the vital counterpart to propaganda – “CENSORSHIP”. As noted by multi-award winning John Pilger and other great journos now mainstream marginalised, “What corrupt powers don’t want known in reports/trials etc, they often don’t actively CENSOR, they just leave it out.”
For TRUTH about Megrahi & Pan AM 103, check: johnpilger.com/articles/lockerbie-megrahi-was-framed
One only needs to look at the origins of cannabis prohibition in this country, and the falsehoods and spin that went with it, to truly understand what good “propaganda” can do.
“The context is social Darwinism and Eugenics of the turn of the century, coupled with the works of Freud.”
Dredd,
I think you mix context with rationales. Those movements above provided the supposed scientific rationales for the Progressives. The context was the Progressive Movement, which was an “enlightened” segment of the nation’s elite, who were battling for supremacy with America’s “landed aristocracy”, which was generally opposed to internationalist expansion as typified by imperialism. Domestically, they were more or less indistinguishable in that both were for cheap labor, opposition to the union movement and the unfettered use of natural resources.
Gene,
What I think has gotten short shrift in the discussion that followed your blog was just how important it is that you made the distinction that propaganda is a concept that is quite ancient, which you illustrated by Ramses II and the Hittites. While Ramses II’s time was about 3,300 years ago, my suspicion which I advanced in a comment on another thread, is that propaganda developed in tandem with civilization. To govern one needs propaganda to ensure stability.
Violence of course has worked well to keep populations governed, but it is essentially destabilizing, since it can be used in turn to overthrow. Propaganda, however, in convincing the populace of the leadership’s legitimacy and/or invincibility, can go a long way towards keeping the masses subdued and maintaining the power of an elite over time. It works well also on those who have rise above the mass, even if slightly, since because of their success they have an interest in maintaining the status quo. As history has shown most popular revolutions arise not from those miserably languishing on the bottom of society, since they have been beaten down and remain hopeless. Revolutions generally arise among those classes who are not in leadership, but whose lot is somewhat better than that of the masses. If the propaganda spin keeps them content and seems to reasonably represent their lives, than they accept whatever privations their middling status provides. However, if those in the middle are made to feel that their own prosperity is at stake, then they can be called to action.
In America, with the promise of “The American Dream” our middle classes have been generally content because they believe that they have the opportunity to improve their lot further. This has bee the secret of America’s relative political stability vis-a-vis the rest of the world’s country’s. Now the “American Dream” represents propaganda at its most exquisite level. That it is illusory and provably untrue becomes irrelevant as long as it is widely believed.
At various points though we see cracks in that propaganda which led to instability and opportunity for substantive change. 1929 brought in Roosevelt,
certainly imperfect, but still allowed to make a huge step forward. Progressive philosophy began to transform under FDR, away from the elite knows best model, but Hitler’s rise did little to change its imperialist bent by making the notion of war perhaps more acceptable.
From my perspective one cannot govern without some use of “propaganda” to ensure widespread support for the government’s policies. That is why the distinction you made and your precise defining of propaganda is critical. In a broad sense a government trying to build support for its programs is propaganda, where the distinction between whether propaganda is good or bad lies is in its honesty, or falsehood. Necessary too, is the availability of unbiased information on a given issue, so that decisions based on facts can be made by the public. As far as US Governmental propaganda goes we can see its potential for evil in the Iraq War and the concomitant assistance given in that propaganda drive by our media to build overwhelming support for what was essentially murder for oil profit.
Mike Spindell 1, May 21, 2012 at 11:18 am
“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society.”
Dredd,
Bernays thoughts were prescient but must be placed in context.
=========================================
The context is social Darwinism and Eugenics of the turn of the century, coupled with the works of Freud.
These things combined (fused by Bernays, while on government pay, into government propaganda) to produce the first world war in the belief of, among other things, survival of the fittest.
The propaganda then, as now, is that “fittest” means the most successful bully, the greatest military.
Thus, we spend more on militant machinations in the U.S.eh? than the rest of the relevant countries of the world combined.
The religion of Darwin, which he did not begin (those who misunderstood him did), was social Darwinism, and was pure religious mythology.
Scientists today, who have overcome some of the dogma and doctrine with sound science, still struggle with its die hards.
Bernays was fundamentally antithetical to American constitutional values.
leander22 1, May 21, 2012 at 10:06 am
Dredd, I can’t resist, and no, I will not read your contribution. Last time I followed your link for one reason only, I by now respond viscerally to Bernay’s name in your or similar contexts. I didn’t want to prejudge. After I read what you published, I didn’t know were to start. Full discovery, among other things I am a trained PR adviser.
Big thank you to Gene Howington to do it for me today. It feels we share the love for words. Beyond that you solved my question. Ever heard of Karl Vienna artist and anti-journalist Karl Kraus, he struggled with media, somehow it feels, he saw it all coming. Brilliant, not that other’s here are less noteworthy.
===============================
I can’t understand your comment. My bad.
“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society.”
Dredd,
Bernays thoughts were prescient but must be placed in context. He was coming from the then “Progressive” perspective exemplified by Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. Both those Presidents believed that “Democracy” required an elite to guide it. That elite was made up of both the wealthy and the educated classes. Progressive ideology believed that Anglo-Saxons represented the most advanced of the “races”, thus that there was such a thing as “the white man’s burden”. The ideology was imperialist in nature and paternalistic in practice. Thus to them propaganda as a product of “public relations” that Bernays fathered, was essential to keeping the unwashed masses in line.