Randal Marlin Read online

  in full pursuit of the uneatable.”8

  Negative Definitions

  The characteristics to be found in propaganda with negative import are such things

  as lack of concern for truth, failure to respect the autonomy of those with whom one

  communicates, promotion of self-serving ends, seeking control over others, etc. As

  an historical note, it may be observed that the Encyclopedia Britannica carried an

  CHAPTER 1: WHy STUDy PRoPAgAnDA?

  7

  BV-Propaganda-Interior-04.indd 7

  9/5/13 4:52 PM

  extensive treatment of the word following World War I, whereas the previous, prewar edition lacks an entry for it.

  The following are some examples of definitions with a negative import.

  1. Chalmers Mitchell, in the twelfth edition of Encyclopedia Britannica: The first characteristic of propaganda is that its objective is always “to promote the interests of those

  who contrive it, rather than to benefit those to whom it is addressed.” Those who

  engage in it “may genuinely believe that success will be an advantage to those whom

  they address, but the stimulus to their action is their own cause.” The second character-

  istic is its indifference to the truth. “Truth is valuable only so far as it is effective. The whole truth would generally be superfluous and almost always misleading.”

  2. Harold Lasswell, one of the most notable propaganda analysts of the twentieth

  century: “Propaganda is concerned with the management of opinions and attitudes

  by the direct manipulation of social suggestion rather than by altering other condi-

  tions in the environment of the organism.”9 What gives this definition its negative

  connotation are the words “manipulation” and “suggestion,” which together give the

  impression that the propagandee is being made into a tool, an unwitting servant, of

  the propagandist.

  3. Leonard Doob: “Propaganda can be called the attempt to affect the personalities

  and to control the behaviour of individuals toward ends considered unscientific or of

  doubtful value in a society at a given time.”10 Here the aspect of control over others

  signals something negative, particularly when the ends are of doubtful value or are

  “unscientific,” a bad word in modern Western culture. His definition introduces an

  element of relativity, which makes it difficult to apply with any precision. Suppose we

  deal with the advocacy of phrenology—the study of the shape of the skull as a clue to

  character and intelligence—thought to be scientific in the nineteenth century. Do we

  call this propaganda? As soon as we ask the question, we realize that the definition

  presents a problem: do we judge whether something is propaganda from our present-

  day viewpoint, regardless of how it was considered in an earlier period? Should we

  take that view, we would have to allow that people can be involved in propaganda

  without realizing it. By contrast, some might wish to restrict the term to cases where

  conscious manipulation is involved.

  4. The element of power and control is central to Jacques Ellul’s definition of pro-

  paganda as well. For him, propaganda is, somewhat loosely translated, a “means of

  gaining power by the psychological manipulation of groups or masses, or of using

  this power with the support of the masses.” (“Moyen pour conquérir le pouvoir grâce

  à l’appui de groupes ou de masses psychologiquement manipulés, ou pour utiliser ce

  pouvoir en s’appuyant sur les masses.”)11

  8

  PROPAGANDA AND THE ETHICS OF PERSUASION

  BV-Propaganda-Interior-04.indd 8

  9/5/13 4:52 PM

  5. Bertrand Russell’s definition starts out in a somewhat neutral fashion but becomes negative toward the end as he characterizes propaganda as a one-sided approach to

  truth. “Propaganda may be defined as any attempt by means of persuasion, to enlist

  human beings in the service of one party to any dispute. It is thus distinguished ...

  from instruction by its motive, which is not the dissemination of knowledge but the

  generating of some kind of party feeling.” Information given, he writes, may be accu-

  rate, but even then “it will consist of such information as tends in a given direction,

  to the exclusion of such information as has a contrary tendency.” The reference to

  “party feeling” also points to a force of divisiveness in a community.12

  6. Bruce L. Smith gives a somewhat more qualified, but more detailed negatively

  oriented definition. “Propaganda is the more or less systematic effort to manipulate

  other people’s beliefs, attitudes, or actions by means of symbols (words, gestures, ban-

  ners, monuments, music, clothing, insignia, hairstyles, designs on coins and postage

  stamps, and so forth). A relatively heavy emphasis on deliberateness and manipu-

  lativeness distinguishes propaganda from casual conversation or the free and easy

  exchange of ideas.”13

  7. The word “manipulate” in Garth Jowett and Victoria O’Donnell’s definition likewise

  tilts it in the negative camp: “Propaganda is the deliberate and systematic attempt to

  shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behaviour to achieve a response

  that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist.”14 Otherwise, the definition is

  rather neutral and would be consistent with education, given the right “desired intent.”

  8. Alex Carey, who focuses attention on corporate propaganda and its negative

  impact on individual liberty produces a definition similar to Russell’s. “By ‘propa-

  ganda’ I refer to communications where the form and content is selected with the sin-

  gle-minded purpose of bringing some target audience to adopt attitudes and beliefs

  chosen in advance by the sponsors of the communications. ‘Propaganda’ so defined

  is to be contrasted with ‘education.’ Here, at least ideally, the purpose is to encour-

  age critical enquiry and to open minds to arguments for and against any particular

  conclusion, rather than close them to the possibility of any conclusion but one.”15

  9. Interestingly in the light of Carey’s definition, Edward Bernays, who as one of

  the founders of public relations in the United States was deeply involved in promo-

  tion of corporate interests, defines propaganda relativistically, as did Doob. “The

  only difference between ‘propaganda’ and ‘education,’ really, is the point of view. The

  advocacy of what we believe in is education. The advocacy of what we do not believe

  is propaganda.”16Unless we are deliberately seeking a challenge to our opinions, most

  of us tend to view with disfavour the propagation of what we do not believe in, at

  least where important interests are concerned.

  CHAPTER 1: WHy STUDy PRoPAgAnDA?

  9

  BV-Propaganda-Interior-04.indd 9

  9/5/13 4:52 PM

  Before leaving this sampling of negatively oriented definitions of propaganda, a few comments are in order. Jacques Ellul’s definition is useful for distinguishing

  between disinterested spreading of a faith as distinct from deliberately seeking power

  through dissemination of beliefs. For El ul, Peter the Hermit and the Inquisition both

  were involved in propaganda, whereas the monks of Cluny were on the whole not.

  El ul thus makes his focus, in defining propaganda, on the end sought, namely power, rather than the means, such as deception. Th
is definition has enough plausibility to

  make it a useful tool for analysis, but it cannot be taken to capture what people gener-

  ally understand by the term, since there are clear divisions of opinion on the matter.

  Some argue that Ellul presents a persuasive definition, but without an agreed-upon

  descriptive meaning for the term, it might be argued that he presents instead a reason-

  able rational reconstruction or reforming proposal. As we can see by contrasting the

  definitions above with those of neutral definitions below, the term “propaganda” is

  subject to deeply divided understandings.

  Neutral Definitions

  These definitions are neutral in the sense of not prejudging the moral standing of

  propaganda. One who accepts a neutral definition is free to condemn propaganda

  but not simply by virtue of its being propaganda. The condemnation would have to be

  related to the ends served by the propaganda or the use of some unacceptable means.

  1. Webster’s Third International New Dictionary 1966: Propaganda is “dissemination

  of ideas, information or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution,

  a cause or person.” This definition would cover the case of a hospital’s fundraising

  board providing information about its operations in order to solicit donations or

  increased government revenues—hardly anything sinister, as so stated.

  2. Richard Taylor’s definition is clearly neutral, but it also tackles the different question of whether propaganda by definition must be successful. “Propaganda is the attempt

  to influence the public opinions of an audience through the transmission of ideas and

  values. The use of the word ‘attempt’ implies both that the purpose of the activity is

  important and that the result is not. Propaganda can fail, and be seen to have failed.”17

  3. Vernon McKenzie states that the “real sense of propaganda is the spreading of

  information whether it be true or false, good or bad—literally ‘spreading the faith.’”18

  Favourable Definitions

  Two distinguished communicators involved in shaping public opinion have expressed

  favourable views regarding propaganda. While their statements do not provide a defi-

  nition of propaganda directly, they do point in the direction of at least a neutral defi-

  nition and possibly a favourable one.

  10 PROPAGANDA AND THE ETHICS OF PERSUASION

  BV-Propaganda-Interior-04.indd 10

  9/5/13 4:52 PM

  Brendan Bracken, Minister of Information for Britain during World War II:

  “[P]ropaganda ... is a perfectly respectable name, attached to one of the most pro-

  foundly religious institutions in the world. It is really too respectable a veneer to put

  upon a thing like the Ministry of Information. I do not mind the use of the word

  ‘propaganda.’ In fact, I welcome it. There is nothing wrong with the name except that

  it connotes to certain minds something that they do not really understand.”19

  John Grierson, documentary filmmaker and founder of the National Film Board

  of Canada (NFB): “There are some of us who believe that propaganda is the part of

  democratic education which the educators forgot.... We believe that education has

  concentrated so much on people knowing things that it has not sufficiently taught

  them to feel things.... It has given them the three Rs but has not sufficiently given them

  that fourth R which is Rooted Belief.... We can, by propaganda, widen the horizons

  of the schoolroom and give to every individual each in his place and work, a living

  conception of the community which he has the privilege to serve. We can take his

  imagination beyond the boundaries of his community to discover the destiny of his

  country. We can light up his life with a sense of active citizenship. We can give him a

  sense of greater reality in the present and a vision of the future.”20

  1. Following these remarks, a possible favourable definition might be “communica-

  tions to affect deep-rooted beliefs and attitudes, such as those encouraging support

  for one’s country and democracy.” Such a definition would be misleading, because

  the “such as” part is followed only by favourable references, whereas a balanced defi-

  nition would have to include support of Fascism and other negative ideologies.

  A Proposed Definition

  The different definitions above share for the most part, explicitly or implicitly, the

  idea of an organized and deliberate attempt to influence many people, directly or

  indirectly. The root idea, from the Latin propagare, to propagate, is inseparably

  tied to the use of this word. From this it follows, given that the masses are gener-

  ally not patient enough to listen to sophisticated and complicated arguments, that

  some simplifying of a message will be necessary. The inducements of music and

  attractive visuals may be used to affect belief. It follows, then, that propaganda is

  prone to deceptions of some sort—for example, by facts selected so as to give an

  incomplete picture, one shaping the sort of belief that the propagandist desires.

  These may be harmless deceptions, and they may correspond in fact with what a

  reasonable person would conclude on being fully informed, but that judgment is

  one the propagandist makes, since the target audience is not given the fuller picture

  from which they might make such an evaluation themselves. Here we are speaking

  of well-intentioned propaganda. There is also, of course, propaganda consisting of

  lies, where anything that the propagandist can get away with will be used if it helps

  CHAPTER 1: WHy STUDy PRoPAgAnDA?

  11

  BV-Propaganda-Interior-04.indd 11

  9/5/13 4:52 PM

  the objective. Thirdly, propaganda tends to involve, by definition, psychological influences, which bypass rational determination of belief on the part of message

  receivers. (I refer to conscious or subconscious message reception, rather than some

  purely physiological mechanism, such as electroshock therapy, sometimes called

  “brainwashing.”) This does not mean avoidance of rational arguments; rather, it

  means that at some point in a chain of reasoning a hidden, misleading, or other-

  wise unexamined presupposition will affect the outcome in a way not consciously

  assessed by the propagandee. Thus, the use of repetition of emotively charged words,

  slogans, coins, monuments, and other imagery influences people through prestige

  and contagion, leading to irrational or not fully rational acceptance of another’s

  power over them. All of us are influenced by such factors. The propagandist simply

  harnesses them in a deliberate campaign to affect beliefs and attitudes.

  With these features in mind, I propose the following definition, which aims at

  simplifying the foregoing but regrettably remains somewhat cumbersome.

  PROPAGANDA = (def.) The organized attempt through communication to affect

  belief or action or inculcate attitudes in a large audience in ways that circumvent or

  suppress an individual’s adequately informed, rational, reflective judgment.

  This definition is not meant to exclude as propaganda those methods of influencing

  others which anticipate that the propagandees will make use of their own reason and

  informed judgment to act in some way the propagandist desires.21 What is crucial is

  that the propagandist sets t
he stage to provide some false or unexamined premise in

  the picture of reality affecting a propagandee’s action. The word “manipulation” would

  be convenient for this idea, but there are definitional problems arising in connection

  with that word itself.22

  The definition I have given may seem to rule out, unjustifiably, Communist pro-

  paganda organized through group discussions by social animators. However, it would

  include this kind of case if it could be shown that the agitators (as they were called)

  excluded from consideration any relevant evidence that tended toward an unwanted

  conclusion, or if rewards and punishments put constraints on the supposedly “free dis-

  cussion.” There is also the matter of “reflexology,” which is explained in Chapter 3 below.

  Our proposed definition might be criticized on the ground that it includes too

  much. Let us say that a newspaper announcement of a public land-irrigating project

  is timed to link profitably to the newspaper proprietor’s own previously purchased

  land in the area.23 Public opinion might be affected in an organized way for one

  person’s profit; thus, it qualifies as propaganda on my definition, even though it

  would not ordinarily be classified as such. We tend to think of propaganda more in

  terms of ideology or political power, but the commercial world carries with it some

  ideological baggage that can sometimes—as with the case of Amway (short for the

  American Way)—be very prominent, at other times out of sight but present in some

  12 PROPAGANDA AND THE ETHICS OF PERSUASION

  BV-Propaganda-Interior-04.indd 12

  9/5/13 4:52 PM

  degree.24 For instance, I would include the massive promotion of the McDonald’s

  fast-food chain in the United States and Canada under my definition of propa-

  ganda. An advertising executive boasted some years ago that in the United States,

  Ronald McDonald (the clown mascot for the chain) had “a recognition factor

  among children second only to Santa Claus.”25 More recently, Naomi Klein has

  shown how many items are marketed through a “branding” process, which tries

  to associate the product, through its logo, with a lifestyle or world view, so that