Randal Marlin Read online

  CHAPTER 2: HISToRy oF PRoPAgAnDA

  39

  BV-Propaganda-Interior-04.indd 39

  9/5/13 4:52 PM

  example. Of the three he places greatest stress on the ethos for persuading audiences, and, at least regarding general audiences, he may be right.12 What ethos amounts to is credibility, something different from facility with words. It may be, Aristotle says, that

  people ought to pay more attention to argument than they do, but he is aware that

  we must treat audiences as we find them, and the fact is that how a person projects

  herself does make a difference to her credibility. To persuade an audience, you need

  a spokesperson whom people can trust, to whom they can relate. The Nazi propa-

  ganda machine made full use of this principle, as we shall see. The Soviet Union made

  use of Vladimir Posner who, having grown up in New York, spoke English like an

  American.13 Ethos is also exploited in modern advertising, such as through the use of celebrity endorsements.

  Aristotle’s observations about pathos are as appropriate to propaganda today as

  they were to the rhetoric of his time. He recognizes that the judgments we make when

  we are pleased and friendly are not the same as those when we are pained and hostile.

  If an audience is angry with a person, it will not be receptive to even the best argu-

  ments that person may make.14 This concentration on emotional impact is used in

  modern advertising, in ads that create or exploit such things as fear of offensive body

  odour or envy of another’s more powerful car.

  Thirdly, Aristotle considers the power of argument for affecting beliefs. A rhetori-

  cian should come across as knowledgeable on the facts used in argument but should

  not assume too great a retentive power on the part of the audience. Aristotle recog-

  nizes that a crowd has a limited capacity for complicated logic and so accepts only

  two ways of arguing, either through what he calls “enthymemes” or through exam-

  ples. Enthymemes are often shortened forms of deductive arguments known as syl-

  logisms. A commonly used example of a syllogism is: “All men are mortal; Socrates

  is a man; therefore Socrates is mortal.” The conclusion follows rigorously from the

  first two premises. Rhetorically, the argument might be expressed more simply by

  saying “Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal,” it being unnecessary to spell

  out to a given audience what they likely would accept as a presupposition, that all men

  are mortal.15Aristotle’s discussion of the rhetorical power of examples has little to do

  with modern statistical analysis. He recognizes the need for experience of the past,

  through examples, for predicting the future. A vivid example can have a persuasive

  power beyond its weight in systematic statistical analysis. Experience confirms this.

  The likelihood of an individual member of a given class of offender re-offending on

  release from prison may statistically be very low, but a recent alarming case of such re-

  offence is likely to carry disproportionate weight in the minds of the general popula-

  tion when it comes to determining related policies. Policy-makers often exploit recent

  examples as a way of gaining political acceptability for measures that would otherwise

  not get public support. In World War I, the sinking of the Lusitania, a passenger ship crowded with women and children, was often used to illustrate German brutality,

  with important rhetorical effect. After the shooting down of the passenger airliner

  40 PROPAGANDA AND THE ETHICS OF PERSUASION

  BV-Propaganda-Interior-04.indd 40

  9/5/13 4:52 PM

  KAL 007 by the Soviets in 1983, it was not difficult for the US Congress to pass a huge appropriations bill in support of MX missiles.16

  Aristotle also divides rhetoric into three divisions, usefully distinguished because

  of some differences in the persuasive techniques appropriate to each. Political contexts

  aim to get some public policy accepted; the courtroom or forensic situation deals with

  proof of guilt or innocence; and ceremonial oratory eulogizes or censures some person

  or persons. In a general way, political speechmaking looks to the future, forensic speak-

  ing to the past, and ceremonial (also called “epideictic”) talks to the present. It is not

  difficult to see the likelihood of overlap between these different divisions.17

  To get a proposed public policy accepted, the orator must convince the audience

  that it is a good, and that means linking it in their minds to what they already believe

  to be good. Since everyone values happiness as a good, one strategy is to show that the

  proposed course of action will bring happiness to people.

  It is in connection with his insights into the power of emotion and the ethos of

  the speaker, that Aristotle may have the most to contribute to the modern-day theory

  of rhetoric. When he says that the character projected by the speaker “may almost be

  called the most effective means of persuasion he possesses,” he reminds us of the way

  inarticulate but sincere voices can often prevail in public meetings against verbally slick

  speakers. He also recognizes the necessity to know one’s audience. Different audiences

  will have different preconceptions and predispositions, which will affect the logos of the rhetoric, and different emotional sensibilities, which will affect the pathos of the appeal.18

  Aristotle also understands the need for the speaker to develop a rapport with

  the audience, to come across as a friend in order to receive a favourable reaction to

  his message. For this purpose, friendship is not close and personal but a relationship

  of utility or affinity. A friend is one who wishes another’s good, for their own sake,

  and wishes to bring that good about as far as possible. Friends share in each other’s

  pleasure. People tend to be friends who like and dislike the same things and who have

  similar likings regarding other people. We tend to like virtuous people. We also like

  people who would like to become our friends. We are friendly toward those who are

  pleasant, who admire us, who are affable and not cantankerous, who can make and

  take a joke. We like those who aren’t fault-finding and who praise our good qualities,

  especially when we are unsure about them. We don’t like people who nurse grudges.19

  This makes very clear what some politicians know instinctively, namely, that it is most

  unwise to “lose one’s cool” at a public meeting and to berate some opponent or ques-

  tioner. Such a response projects enmity, not friendship.

  Aristotle does not provide a short, handy list of rules of rhetoric; however, at the

  risk of giving the false impression that he did, we can summarize his main points as

  follows:

  1. Know your audience.

  2. Know your subject matter.

  CHAPTER 2: HISToRy oF PRoPAgAnDA

  41

  BV-Propaganda-Interior-04.indd 41

  9/5/13 4:52 PM

  3. Simplify, so that the message is understood.

  4. Repeat, so that the message is not forgotten.20

  5. Maintain attention. Sometimes, raising of the voice or vigorous bodily gestures

  will be needed.21

  6. Secure appropriate emotive appeal.

  7. Maintain credibility.

  8. Undermine the credibility of your opponent but without appearing mean.

  9. Stress your strong points, deflecting attention
from your weak points.

  10. Do the opposite towards your opponent, harping on his or her weak points,

  deflecting attention away from the strong ones.

  Aristotle gives some very practical debating counsel as well, although sometimes it

  seems morally questionable. (Ethical considerations in general will be dealt with in

  Chapter 5.)

  1. Don’t say something nasty about your opponent if it makes you seem abusive or

  ill-bred. Quote someone else as having said it.

  2. If a straightforward answer to an opponent’s question is likely to seem evasive, it

  may be better to respond with another question instead. Ambiguous questions

  should be met by drawing reasonable distinctions, not by a curt answer.22

  3. Always tailor the complexity of an argument to the capacity of a given audience

  to follow it.

  4. If an opponent makes a mistake on a seemingly irrelevant matter, take note of it,

  because it will hurt his credibility in other matters.

  5. Style is important. Pay attention to volume of sound, modulation of pitch, and

  rhythm of speech.

  6. If you speak after another whose arguments have been well-received, you may need

  to give a short answer to those arguments first, in order to put the audience into a

  state of mind receptive to your arguments.

  7. If good examples are not available, maxims and sayings may be of some help,

  because they at least appear to represent some long-standing truth. Sometimes

  one maxim can be set off against another. So “birds of a feather flock together”

  can be met with “opposites attract, likes repel.” Likewise “no smoke without fire”

  has as a counter “one swallow doesn’t make a summer.”

  Aristotle’s Rhetoric contains much more than has been indicated here. For instance,

  he includes valuable tips for the courtroom lawyer and witness. He knows the useful-

  ness of distracting an audience on occasion. His study of the emotion of pity helps

  explain some of the difficulties in getting people to support charities for people in

  far-off lands.

  42 PROPAGANDA AND THE ETHICS OF PERSUASION

  BV-Propaganda-Interior-04.indd 42

  9/5/13 4:52 PM

  RoME

  Quintus Cicero

  Insights into methods of persuasion during Roman elections have been handed down

  to us in a remarkable treatise purportedly drafted by Quintus Cicero, brother of the

  famous orator Marcus Tullius Cicero prior to the latter’s campaign for consulship,

  which he won in 63 BCE. Quintus’s Handbook of Electioneering 23 can be compared with methods and principles in use today. It lays down the strategy and techniques

  necessary for winning and makes the point that reticence is out of place during elec-

  tion campaigns.

  One important theme concerns what might be called the propaganda of prestige.

  When we talk about political candidates today, the expression “credibility” is invoked.

  Candidates have to show that they have important sources of support, in people or

  money, otherwise they will not be taken seriously. Quintus’s advice to his brother can

  be paraphrased as follows: Make the number and variety of your friends and powerful

  backers well-known and make sure that important people think you are worthy of the

  position. Cultivate close contacts and recruit people of influence and power. If you

  have claims on others for past favours, collect them now; at the same time, let people

  know that you are prepared to give favours. Make it clear that you know whether those

  who owe you favours are repaying them or not. Although ingratiating yourself is usu-

  ally considered a fault, in an election it is absolutely necessary. It is also a time when

  you can approach new people without losing face. Leading people will want you as a

  friend if you show you value them. So, flatter people. Smal -town people assume you

  are a friend if you simply remember their names. Let people, from the most powerful

  to the least powerful, know what you expect of them. Don’t expect too much from

  the powerless.

  Successful electioneering involves putting on a good show. The impression of a

  great deal of support must be created. Hence, the door-to-door canvass should be car-

  ried out with many escorts and attendants. Court publicity to the ful .

  A candidate should be careful not to alienate anybody. If someone calls on you,

  appear to show great interest, even though some people call on all the different can-

  didates. If you spot someone as a phoney, don’t let the person know you see through

  them; that way, you keep open the possibility that they will change their mind,

  whereas you could never make a friend out of someone who thinks you hold them in

  contempt. The same applies to opponents. Get to know them. Some you can never

  win over, but others may have come to dislike you on the basis of misinformation. You

  should try to win them over by a kindness or indication of affection.

  If you can’t deliver on a promise, decline the promise gracefully or, better, don’t

  decline. A good man will do the former, but a good candidate the latter. Of course you

  can’t agree to do something ignoble, but if your reason for declining is a commitment

  CHAPTER 2: HISToRy oF PRoPAgAnDA

  43

  BV-Propaganda-Interior-04.indd 43

  9/5/13 4:52 PM

  to a more powerful person, people will come to hate you. They would rather you lie to them. Honesty may be the best policy, but it is not always the best politics.24 A

  seasoned politician will refuse nobody, because it sometimes happens that what seems

  impossible at one time later becomes possible. If you refuse, you are certain to arouse

  antagonism. If you promise, it is uncertain whether anger will eventually be forthcom-

  ing; in any case, it is not immediate. Not all those who ask for favours will need them

  when the time comes.

  Modern-day “dirty tricks” were not unknown in the ancient world. Quintus

  advises his brother to so arrange things if he can that “there should be scandalous talk,

  in character, about the crimes, lusts, and briberies of [his] competitors.” Noticeably

  absent is any requirement that such talk be limited by rigorous concern for truth.

  Finally, Quintus urges his brother to appear upbeat by saying to himself every

  day: “I am new, I seek the consulship, and this is Rome.” He should prepare himself

  against the many snares, intrigues, and vices of all sorts in this kind of election; great

  skill is needed to escape resentment, gossip, or treacherous attack.

  Quintus’s thoughts boil down to the following: If you are aloof from the messy

  dealings of electioneering, you won’t get elected. It’s important to appear to be uncor-

  rupted, but you need to get the right support one way or another, and that will involve

  putting yourself out for people, making deals, etc. A similar understanding of election

  campaigning appears in the work of Niccolò Machiavelli, who wrote in the fifteenth

  and sixteenth centuries, and that of Max Weber in the twentieth century, especially his

  essay, “Politics as a Vocation.”25The ethical problems arising from these putative require-

  ments for successful electioneering are a matter for Chapter 4.

  Augustus

  Between Julius Caesar and his grandnephew Octavian, later renamed Augustus

&nbs
p; Caesar, Rome underwent the transformation from republic to empire. Both Caesars

  were skilled propagandists and self-advertisers, but the former’s propaganda was

  deficient in one respect at least: it failed to win the support of powerful senators,

  who assassinated him. Augustus was more cunning and was prepared to make use of

  the trappings of established power systems while gathering real power to himself.26

  He played up the connection with his grand-uncle to the hilt, helped by the fact that

  Julius had adopted him as his son in his will. Since Julius Caesar was considered to

  have been divine, Augustus encouraged the idea that he was the “son of a god.”

  Propaganda can be carried out by verbal and nonverbal means or by means that

  give extension to ordinary forms of verbal communication. Under Augustus, coins

  bearing his image and favourable things relating to him were produced. Scholars differ

  on the question of whether different minters struck these coins spontaneously or as

  the result of a direct order from the top; it could be that nominally independent peo-

  ple curried favour with what they saw as a new power source.27It would be surprising

  44 PROPAGANDA AND THE ETHICS OF PERSUASION

  BV-Propaganda-Interior-04.indd 44

  9/5/13 4:52 PM

  if the production of such coinage were without any encouragement on Augustus’s part, since the appearance of his image and his exploits on coins gave him an aura

  of money and power in the minds of the people. In this respect, it is worth recalling

  Jesus’ famous response to the question of whether Jews should pay tribute to Caesar:

  “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”28

  Augustus managed to preserve the appearance of respecting older institutions

  while increasing his own relative power. The legend “SPQR” displayed on his coinage

  stands for “The Roman Senate and People” (one still sees these letters on the sewer

  caps of modern Rome). He also made use of monuments, both for prestige on their

  own account and for the inscriptions they would carry, such as the honorific title Pater