"While propaganda influences the behavior of individuals, it is important to bear in mind that it is only one of the means by which man’s behavior is influenced. There are other forms of inducement employed in winning assent or compliance. In limited or wholesale degree, depending upon the political organization of a given country, men have used force or violence to control people. They have resorted to boycott, bribery, passive resistance, and other techniques. Bribes, bullets, and bread have been called symbols of some of the actions that men have taken to force people into particular patterns of behavior."
I enjoyed this because it addresses the bad connotations often associated with propaganda. Is propaganda really all that bad, or is just because we often associate it with historical events such as world war?
what is propaganda?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
i agree with callie on this article. It really does target the noteworthy bad side to propaganda. One thing that really interested me in the article was the idea of phrasing propaganda as "veiled" . can concealment simplify the whole definition that no one seems to come to an agreement on? how would you define propaganda in a short phrase?
noam chomsky says that "civilized" societies can no longer resort to violence to control the masses because we won't tolerate that kind of treatment, so more subtle, but just as effective, means are utilized. when you can't control the rabble through physical coercion, you control them mentally. one breaks down your body, the other, your mind. take your pick.
a quick and dirty state propaganda recipe:
1. grab land and circumscribe borders (physical coercion necessary as a first step)
2. create a symbol to unite around.
3. write speeches to teach the meaning of aforementioned symbol.
4. create enemy to galvanize the masses against.
5. use slogans and name calling to vilify the enemy.
6. use virtue words and glittering generalities to reinforce the values of the homeland.
7. use endless repetition to vigorously reinforce messages, beating the masses into submission.
8. fail to enforce "serve the public interest" condition of granting license to public airwaves, so critical and educational programming is "overlooked".
9. fail to enforce FCC regulations on media consolidation so diversity of viewpoints is controlled by a small handful of huge corporations.
10. set up electoral system discouraging diversity.
repeat steps 4-10 every four years, varying slightly the roles of "leadership" and "enemy".
encouraging people not to understand situations that affect their lives, even if you think you're doing them a favor, is manipulative and reductive.
'When you say “policeman” or “house,” everybody has a pretty clear idea of what you mean.'
really? it's funny that they picked two terms that are intertwined with concepts of rights and social order. i'm pretty sure 'policeman' and 'house' mean highly different things here and in somalia and in soviet ukraine forty years ago.
'Moreover, national propaganda in the throes of a war is aimed to bolster the security of thenonaggressor state and to assure the eventual well-being and safety of its citizens. No one would deny that this kind of propaganda, intelligently administered, benefits every man, woman, and child in the land.'
like those videos where the dudes from hamas cut off POWs' heads?
i think this article makes perfect sense if you never consider that it might apply in places where people live substantially differently than we do.
by the way, this reading is from a ww2-era "war department education manual" that also includes a section on "DEMOCRATIC VS. ENEMY PROPAGANDA" and makes several comments about "THE JAPS" that you might be wary of repeating. maybe.
during the part where they claim that events influence people more than propaganda, they use the sinking of the lusitania as an example. specifically, a propagandistic cartoon about the sinking of the lusitania.
they also make some bizarre and nonsensical claims. there's a part where they say something like "if hitler's propaganda was so effective, why did he have to resort to military force?" what? you mean nazi propaganda was a failure because it didn't persuade the jews to kill themselves? ultimately it comes down to violence. nazi propaganda worked because it incited people who thought of themselves as "normal" to participate in genocide.
an article outlining exactly what "democratic" propaganda looked like during the time this pamphlet was written.
Matt- you're such a debbie-downer, and not to mention, way to intelligent for me to understand.
from a different page in the article callie found:
"In exact opposition to the rules of Hitler, the democratic countries must present the truth in their propaganda. A free people will soon find out the truth in spite of official suppressions and distortions. And when propaganda has been revealed to be deceitful and distorted, it no longer is effective. Moreover, democratic propaganda must observe the right of the people to know the facts, however unpleasant they may be."
consider the statement above as you look at the images in matt's link above.
not to be a chomsky groupie, but he points out similar distinction that the U.S. makes regarding terrorism. he says that basically the U.S. definition of terrorism is when violence or the threat of violence is used for political aims AGAINST US. the actual definition takes no sides, of course. terrorism is terrorism, no matter who engages in it, the U.S. included.
the leadership of nearly every country will try to pass off its actions as noble and necessary, while vilifying the actions of the enemy, which if viewed objectively, are basically the same. but you can easily tell in both world wars that all sides utilized propagandistic tactics to bolster the support of citizens. and yes, this continues today.
Post a Comment