|
UNCOVERING THE MESSAGE
An essay on Propaganda
by An Dieu Pham
They tell me: “The future is friendly.” Or so Clearnet proclaims on their ads to sell wireless products. At first sight it doesn’t seem as contemptuous and repulsive as a brainwash in the true definition of the method. But propaganda today is subtle and more pervasive than one can imagine. Announcing that the “future is friendly” won’t necessarily nudge me to get to a store and buy a cell phone instantly. But what has been sold is the idea that technology is progress, that progress is the way of the future along with the underlying pre-conceived notion that progress is good, hence technology is good. This mindset prepares me to buy a cell phone, some time in the near future.
This is a combination of pre-propaganda and integration propaganda at work, as would contend Jacques Ellul, a French social critic and author of the book titled Propaganda, the formation of men’s attitude . Ellul in his analysis of modern propaganda explained that it is a sociological phenomenon, a natural outcome, perhaps even a necessity to living in the technological society. His book was published in 1965, but his views hold even truer to our present reality than they did 40 years ago.
“Propaganda is called upon to solve problems created by technology, to play on maladjusments and to integrate the individual into a technological world. In the midst of increasing mechanization and technological organization, propaganda is simply the means to prevent these from being felt as too oppressive and to persuade man to submit with good grace,” Ellul wrote.
Propaganda, according to Ellul, is manifested in various forms. There is first what he called pre-propaganda “to prepare man for a particular action, to make him sensitive to some influence, to get him into condition for the time when he will effectively and without delay…participate in an action…it does not have a precise ideological objective (Ellul, p. 31).
This behavioural conditioning is done through continuous and slow psychological manipulations to create feelings, stereotypes, in other words, myths. Once the framework is in place, propaganda can be achieved by taking such pre-conceived myths, and simplify, intensify and repeat them in order to obtain the desired action.
The only concern of propaganda is to be effective, Ellul asserted. The use of myths and feelings that emerge from a pre-propaganda process is crucial in its effectiveness. Ellul went on to describe the use of symbols and images to create myths. This is a concept that echoes war journalist Walter Lippmann’s theory of propaganda and the mass, which Lipmann had analysed in his book Public Opinion (1922).
Lippmann can be considered a part of the generation living around the turn of the century, in times of post-war pessimism and cynicism. He contended that the mass is made up of people who are irrational and therefore can be manipulated. Lippmann called this manipulation process “the manufacture of consent.” Lippmann argued that because the public is not able to understand all the facts, it is necessary for there to be leaders to make decisions about what the public should know. “When quick results are imperative, the manipulation of the masses through symbols may be the only quick way of having a critical thing done. It is often more important to act than to understand” (Lippmann, 1922).
His idea of manipulation though symbols is what Ellul categorized as a component of myth-creation to condition reflexes, or in other terms, pre-propaganda. Of course, the technique of evoking images and stereotypes is not new. This concept is similar to philosopher Hegel’s term “picture-making” in the promulgation of religion, a method that was often used by the Catholic Church in the past.
So far not much has been discussed about ideology in propaganda. In Ellul’s view, ideology is not the power that fuels the creation or modification of attitudes, nor something that prompts action. In fact, Ellul stated that a propagandist “is not and cannot be a believer. He is merely a man at service of a party, a state…” (Ellul, p. 196). To Ellul, the power is not exerted through the ideology/doctrine of the state, but through propaganda, as it is a power of its own.
Ellul wrote that different political regimes have employed different theories of psychology but that essentially the same goal of conditioning reflexes was sought.
“Stalinist propaganda was in great measure founded on Pavlov’s theory of the conditioned reflex. Hitlerian propaganda was in great measure founded on Freud’s theory of repression and libido. American propaganda is founded in great measure on Dewey’s theory of teaching (Ellul, p.5).
While the objective remains the same, there are however different ways to administer propaganda. There is vertical propaganda, which can be found in coercive political regimes such as Nazi Germany. With this method, there is a leader figure who attempts to mobilize the crowd through speeches, rallies, etc. The vertical form is efficient in producing propaganda of agitation, where immediate action and rebellion are sought.
In horizontal propaganda, the use of group dynamics in human relations is exploited. It can be political in goal such as in Mao’s propaganda, or sociological, as in the socialization process of people as members of a society (Ellul, p.80, 81). The horizontal method is efficient for integration-type of propaganda, where the result sought is an assimilation or adaptation of the individual with his environment.
Integration propaganda is what linguist/political activist Noam Chomsky and Ellul have been mainly concerned with. The concern is that under this form, propaganda is not obvious; the mass is in oblivion or may have an illusion of democracy, when in fact manipulation is pulling the strings. Democracy essentially allows the public to participate in politics and through informed choices, be involved in the decision-making process. This implies that people need to have access to all necessary information for there to be true democracy. But propaganda by nature is the manipulation and even censorship of information. Hence Ellul concludes that while one can use propaganda to promulgate democracy, democracy could never be achieved as long as it has to co-exist with propaganda (Ellul, p.245).
Chomsky adds that even if there are various opposing propagandas, that this existence of various points of view is yet another illusion of true democracy. “Both liberal and conservative wings of the media fall within the same framework of assumptions…if the system functions well, it ought to have a liberal bias. Because if it appears to have a liberal bias, that will serve to bound our thought more effectively... We would believe that ‘if the press is already adversarial, then how can I go beyond that?… The media would serve to say: ‘thus far and no further’ ”
In Susan Caldwell’s analysis of different propaganda theories, she points out that both Ellul and Chomsky share a similar paradigm of propaganda. Both deny the distinction between good and bad propaganda--the ends never justify the means. Caldwell also presents the ‘positivist attitude change’ approach from Jowett, O’Donell, and Pratkanis. The approach perceives education as persuasion for the benefit of the public subjected to it, perceives the individual as autonomous and conscious in his decision-making, and hence can influence society’s institution through their individual actions. With this approach, propaganda is simply a method that is used in power struggles between various organizations and groups within a society, but is not detrimental to the underlying democracy. The onus rests on the individual to do what is right to serve the state and this responsibility is a principle that many propagandists have attempted to instil as a raison d’être for members of a society, then as a catalyst for their action.
The Father of the documentary movement, John Grierson, for instance, exercised this belief that some propaganda are more acceptable than others. Throughout the 1930’s Grierson made films which had the sole purpose of promoting his neo-conservative ideologies. He saw the use of propaganda films as a way of protecting the state (Britain). Furthermore, Grierson’s founding of the National Film Board in Canada, which is mandated to make films that reflect Canadian culture, shows how a state can use propaganda as a defence to counter external propaganda from other countries, when military defence is ineffective or not enough a weapon to protect a country and its cultural essence.
In Ellul and Chomsky’s view, the only hope to escape the illusions created by propaganda and to find Truth, is to be aware of how propaganda operates and in whose interests it really serves.
In Chomsky’s view, there is a possibility for propaganda within democracy as long as the individual seeks for the truth in the information they receive. Ellul, however, outright denied the possibility for true democracy as long as propaganda is employed.
Perhaps what Ellul aspired to is highly idealistic and makes our condition seem almost unsalvageable. For on the one hand he acknowledged our need for propaganda in order to make sense of our world. On the other, he speaks of the effects of propaganda as almost pathological. He revealed our reality and condition under a light of absurdity Camus-style.
But awareness at the academic level, is it enough to mobilize people towards change? Will finding the Truth bring about change? If we use history as the ultimate experiment, then the answer is ‘no.’ Propagandas have never succeeded by appealing uniquely to the intellectuals in abstract manners. Yet this is how McKerrow analyses propaganda. “The principles articulate an orientation that …reconceptualizes rhetoric as doxastic, as contrasted to epistemic, and as nominalistic as contrasted to universalistic…perceives the potential for polysemic as opposed to monosemic interpretation…” (McKerrow, 1989, p.91.) What is she saying? One can hardly read that sentence without fumbling on the big words, how can such analysis create awareness of any kind among the general public? Propaganda theorists need to learn a few things from propaganda itself. Ellul is probably one of the few who convey their ideas effectively by using images and symbols, techniques that, we know, are efficient.
As for searching for Truth to bring ourselves out of the wilderness? It’s common knowledge that an academic education provides truths. There is no argument there. But if education is, as Ellul says, a form of integration propaganda, that it prepares us to accept future propaganda uncritically, then maybe we’re just living in layers of illusions. Writing essays, expressing our opinions, and getting graded for such participation… maybe it’s all just a myth to harvest a belief in our capability to show signs of intelligence, to validate our beliefs of being able to think independently, unfettered by any influence.
With despair, I have turned to the Internet… typed in keyword: ‘Truth’ on a search engine. But 944000 hits come up. Where to begin…? I won’t even ponder the question ‘what is Truth?’ because this would undoubtedly entail the question ‘what is Reality?’ And if we need to resort to virtual reality to look for truth, then shall we say, the absurdity has only begun.
Bibliography, Works cited
Propaganda, The Formation of Men’s attitudes , by Jacques Ellul, Vintage Books, 1965.
Propaganda Analysis as an Academic Concern , by Susan Caldwell, Sept. 2000.
Necessary Illusions, Thought control in Democratic Society , by Noam Chomsky, 1989.
Public Opinion , Walter Lippmann, 1922.
Manufacturing Consent, Noam Chomsky and the Media , by Mark Ashbar, Peter Wintonick.
Documentary: a history of the non-fiction film , Erik Barnouw, New York, 1993.
|
