Randal Marlin Read online

  49 Jacques Ellul, The Political Illusion (1967; New York: Random House, Vintage Books, 1972). Originally published as L’Illusion politique (Paris: Robert Laffont, 1965).

  50 Jacques Ellul, Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes, trans. Konrad Kellen (New York: Random House, Vintage Books, 1973). Ellul gave me permission to publish a translation of this second text, which appeared as FLN Propaganda in France During the Algerian War (Ottawa: By Books, 1982).

  51 Jacques El ul, Histoire des Institutions (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1961).

  52 The issued is covered in the CAUT Bulletin On Line 48, no. 9, found at
  en_back_issues.asp>.

  53 Jacques El ul, The Technological Society (New York: Random House, Vintage Books, 1964) 14.

  54 See Neil Tudiver, Universities for Sale (Toronto: James Lorimer, 1999).

  55 Claude Steiner and Charles Rappleye, “Jacques El ul: Quirky Trailblazer of Propaganda Theory,” Propaganda Review (Summer 1988): 32. Ellul echoes here a theme developed in Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death (New York: Penguin Books, 1986).

  56 El ul,

  Propaganda 31; 31–32.

  57 El ul,

  Propaganda 40.

  58 Orwell, in Orwell and Angus, Collected Essays, Vol. 2, 29.

  59 Noam Chomsky, Chronicles of Dissent (Vancouver: New Star Books, 1992) 5.

  60 El ul, Propaganda 64.

  61 In order to preserve symmetry, I have reversed the order in which Ellul presented these two categories of propaganda.

  62 El ul, Propaganda 84.

  63 I have dealt with this question at greater length in “Jacques El ul’s Contribution to Propaganda Studies,” in The Oxford Handbook of Propaganda Studies, ed. Jonathan D. Auerbach and Russ Castronovo (New York: Oxford University Press, forthcoming).

  CHAPTER 1: WHy STUDy PRoPAgAnDA?

  33

  BV-Propaganda-Interior-04.indd 33

  9/5/13 4:52 PM

  BV-Propaganda-Interior-04.indd 34

  9/5/13 4:52 PM

  CHAPTER 2

  History of Propaganda

  CHAPTER 2:

  HISTORY OF

  PROPAGANDA

  InTRoDUCTIon

  In view of the multiplicity of definitions of propaganda we have encountered, some

  strategy is needed for treating the history of propaganda. If we include both negative

  and neutral definitions, the field of examples is very large. If, for example, we consider

  propaganda as the attempt to shape the thoughts and feelings of others in ways con-

  forming to the aims of the communicator, we find a vast array of different examples

  throughout history. For any brief summary, there are problems of selection. Which

  of the many candidates for our attention merits inclusion and why? Insofar as we

  think of propaganda as involving a relatively deliberate intention to influence a given

  public, many examples that at first present themselves for our consideration become

  problematic. Oliver Thomson’s Easily Led: A History of Propaganda 1gives a wide and

  useful range of historical examples. However, they have not been filtered to leave only

  cases where deliberate opinion-shaping was a proven guiding motive. Although the

  more inclusive approach to studies of propaganda can be justified, we will follow a

  more restricted strategy. In line with the definition we have given, we will be especially

  concerned to pick out those instances of persuasion where some element of deception,

  manipulation, or other dupery is involved. Bearing in mind El ul’s broad definition, we

  will also be especially attentive to cases where gaining or maintaining power is at stake.

  The principles of rhetoric as studied in ancient Greece and Rome command

  our attention because of some important resemblances between the way we think of

  propaganda today and the way the ancient philosophers often thought of rhetoric.

  For example, the negative attitude toward propaganda now in light of its frequent

  appeal to emotion, logical fal acies, lies, and deception has its counterpart in ancient

  35

  BV-Propaganda-Interior-04.indd 35

  9/5/13 4:52 PM

  attitudes towards deceptive and emotive rhetoric. In fact, many of the principles of ancient rhetoric are still employed in contemporary propaganda. We will learn a lot

  by studying those principles. We also have reason to look at historical events deemed

  to be especially useful as a way of illustrating forms of persuasion used today or that

  are especially relevant in some way to current controversies about opinion formation.

  Some of the major developments in political propaganda from ancient times through

  the Middle Ages and the Napoleonic Era to the wars and revolutions of the first half

  of the twentieth century will be briefly surveyed in what follows.

  ATHEnS

  Pisistratus

  The ancient Greek tyrant Pisistratus (sixth century BCE) pioneered two powerful

  techniques for influencing public opinion. The first, as described by Herodotus, was

  what today would be called “victim hegemony”—the description of oneself or one’s

  group as the victim of unjust behaviour on the part of others so as to gain public sup-

  port and, hence, power. Pisistratus wounded himself and his mules, making it seem

  as though enemies had set upon him with murderous intent. He asked the Athenian

  people for personal guards, which they gave him out of respect for his military suc-

  cesses in earlier battles. He then used this guard to take control of the Acropolis. Two

  centuries later, Aristotle noted in his Rhetoric that the use of a vivid example can be a powerful means of persuasion. As an illustration, he considered what might happen if

  a politician of his own time were to ask for a bodyguard: people would be reminded

  of what happened in the case of Pisistratus when such a request was granted.

  A similar principle has been used many times in the course of history: one coun-

  try will invent, exaggerate, or provoke an incident involving insult or violence to some

  of its citizens. The resulting wave of indignation will be used to support a pre-planned

  war effort against the offending nation. Hitler’s invasion of Poland was presented

  as a response to injustice, namely, a supposed attack by Poland, one that had in fact

  been staged. US support for the Vietnam War followed what was misleadingly pre-

  sented as two unprovoked North Vietnamese torpedo attacks on US vessels in inter-

  national waters off the coast of North Vietnam. A secret plan submitted by General

  Lyman Lemnitzer, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to Defense Secretary Robert

  McNamara in 1962 was full of suggested “false flag” operations for instigating war

  against Cuba. Known as “Operation Northwoods,” the plan was not acted on and

  became public only in the late 1990s through a freedom of information request.2

  Pisistratus’s second technique was to persuade the public to believe that he was

  under the protection of a god. Pisistratus had been expelled from Athens when his

  enemies became united against him. He took the opportunity of later divisions among

  36 PROPAGANDA AND THE ETHICS OF PERSUASION

  BV-Propaganda-Interior-04.indd 36

  9/5/13 4:52 PM

  them to make an al iance with one of his former opponents. On his return to the city, he was accompanied by a tall and beautiful woman dressed in a full set of armour

  and mounted on a chariot. He presented her to the people of Athens as the goddess

  Athena. Herodotus
observed that the city-dwellers were so taken in that they actually

  prayed to her. This, too, is a commonly used method of garnering public support. In

  one way or another, the would-be ruler in a believing society tries to indicate that

  the deity (or deities) favours him or her. It is a commonplace that in war “God is on

  our side” is met with “Gott mit uns” by the other. This continues to be true today in

  the “war against terrorism,” in which claims on one side to be engaging in a Jihad, or

  Holy War, are met by appeals to “just war” principles in what initially was dubbed a

  “crusade” in pursuit of “infinite justice.”3

  Pericles

  One of the models for oratorical persuasion down through the centuries is that used by

  Pericles at the end of the first year of the Peloponnesian War in 431 BCE. His speech

  honoured Athenians killed in battle while also strengthening the resolve of survivors

  to continue to fight. Political leaders for good and evil causes have made use of the

  techniques found in this text; for instance, Abraham Lincoln used it in his Gettysburg

  Address. They include a large component of what El ul called “propaganda of integra-

  tion,” which gives the audience a sense of belonging to a special group or nation.

  It does not much matter that the speech attributed to Pericles is partly a recon-

  struction and partly an invention of the historian Thucydides, who recorded it.4

  What matters is the reasons for its power. Beginning by praising the past and laud-

  ing the present for its superiority over the institutions of its neighbours through the

  practice of democracy in government, Pericles extols the virtues of Athenian soci-

  ety: Athenians are law-abiding, even towards unwritten laws; they enjoy recreation

  and have good taste; they are open to whatever foreign goods may benefit them; and

  the city is open to the world. They regularly fight and win battles without relying on

  allies, as the Spartans do. People are public-spirited: “[W]e do not say that a man

  who takes no interest in politics is a man who minds his own business; we say that he

  has no business here at all.”5 Athenians make friends by doing good to others, rather

  than by receiving benefits. Because Athenians are superior to the rest of the world,

  in defending Athens soldiers die for something of great value. They have a vision of

  Athens’ greatness and put the communal good above their private welfare. They are

  honourable, and their survivors must emulate their conduct to be worthy of the same

  honour. If a soldier is brave and remains alive, he will always have to contend with

  jealous people, but those who die receive sincere and unchallenged honour. And if a

  soldier leaves children behind, the state will look after them.

  Without much adaptation, the same inspiriting ideas have been used to bolster

  the war efforts of modern nations. Remembrance Day ceremonies in honour of those

  CHAPTER 2: HISToRy oF PRoPAgAnDA

  37

  BV-Propaganda-Interior-04.indd 37

  9/5/13 4:52 PM

  who died in World War I strengthened the resolve of nations fighting World War II and later wars, provoking some opposition to the ceremonies themselves. From

  a present-day perspective, Pericles’ speech is likely to be seen as a two-sided affair. It

  promotes worthwhile things such as respect for law, equality, and dignity, but it also

  exalts Athenian society over others, providing an excuse for colonization and spread-

  ing contempt for those who do not belong to it.

  Pericles’ speech presents Athens, past and present, through rose-coloured glasses.

  Oliver Thomson comments that “propaganda usually chooses to flatter—it tells its

  audience that it is racially or ethnically superior, religiously superior, militarily supe-

  rior, the master race, God’s chosen people, the invincible.”6 The Athenians could boast

  about their democracy while excluding women from exercising the civic rights of men.

  Down to the present day, the luminous image of democracy has often served as a

  pretext for the most undemocratic actions. As we learn from Jeffrey Keshen’s study

  of propaganda and censorship in Canada during World War I, the illusion of general

  equality often obscured a deeply imbedded tendency toward nativism, or the treat-

  ment as inferior of those newcomers to Canada who harboured “customs, beliefs or

  racial backgrounds preventing easy assimilation into white Anglo-Protestant society.”7

  The power of this kind of funeral oration lies with the special connection it makes

  between living and dead, time and eternity. The more the dead are honoured, the more

  the living can look forward to being honoured in similar fashion when it comes their

  turn to die. It is no surprise that Goebbels made such a showing of Nazi funerals or

  that funerals have been the occasion for political statements by established powers and

  terrorist organizations alike.

  Plato

  Plato’s distinctive contributions in relation to rhetoric and persuasion are most com-

  monly associated with his philosophical analyses of these practices rather than in his

  practice of the art itself. Three of his dialogues—the Gorgias, the Phaedrus, and the Menexenus—deal centrally with questions of rhetoric. Plato presents Socrates as a seeker after truth in opposition to the sophists, rhetoricians concerned only with appearances

  rather than reality—in other words, hucksters, who sell the ability to convince others

  of what is not the case in the way that some modern lawyers can convince a jury that

  a defendant who is guilty is not guilty. But the simple dichotomy between the truth-

  seeking Socrates and the truth-contemptuous sophists does not work. For one thing,

  Socrates transparently engages in some of the techniques he ascribes to the sophists.

  Secondly, he endorses the use of deception on very special occasions, and he quite gener-

  ally accepts the use of myth for imparting truths established on more rational grounds.

  In the Gorgias, Plato articulates one important principle of rhetoric: basing per-

  suasive arguments on the pre-existing beliefs of the audience.8 A frontal attack on

  another’s entrenched belief is likely to meet with rejection. The artful rhetorician

  38 PROPAGANDA AND THE ETHICS OF PERSUASION

  BV-Propaganda-Interior-04.indd 38

  9/5/13 4:52 PM

  packages ideas to make them palatable, like sugarcoating a bitter pill. The Phaedrus describes how persuasion can be achieved through a succession of individually barely

  perceptible conceptual shifts.9 An interlocutor accepts an idea and is made to accept

  another idea almost indiscernible from it. Having made successive concessions of this

  sort, the interlocutor is brought to a point where the final result is recognizably very

  different from the starting point and would never have been conceded at the begin-

  ning. In both cases, Socrates expresses unhappiness about the fact that persuading

  someone to believe what is false may thus be achieved, although he makes skillful use

  of such rhetoric himself.

  Plato’s most profound insight is that the ordinary rules of rhetoric may not suffice

  to have the most lasting persuasive effect on matters of the greatest moral significance.

  On the surface, Socrates contributed to his martyrdom by breaking a rule of rhetoric.

  Instead of recognizing and placating
the prejudices against him held by the juror-

  judges, which he would certainly have been capable of doing, he antagonized them

  by suggesting that he should be rewarded for his gadfly work by getting free mainte-

  nance at the state’s expense. This provoked them into calling for the death penalty.

  At a deeper level, Plato says that persuading an audience of certain fundamental and

  important truths as distinct from getting immediate assent and applause may require

  the force of personal witness, paying the price for such witness with one’s life.10

  The Menexenus, whether genuinely written by Plato or not, is clearly written with

  Pericles’ funeral oration in mind and provides analytical insights into that form of

  rhetoric. Socrates tells us how he is very moved by such speeches at the time they

  are given, how they puff up his pride, allowing him to imagine himself “a greater and

  nobler and finer man than I was before,” and how they cause him to experience a sud-

  den consciousness of triumph over foreigners.11 In this work, Plato gives us a vivid,

  detailed example of a form of discourse often exploited through history for the pur-

  pose of promoting racism or nationalism. We may choose to take the use of a funeral

  oration today for a warning, or we may see it as open to adaptations that would allow

  for spirit-building and community pride while eschewing the racial superiority mes-

  sage. We will have more to say about Plato in Chapter 4.

  Aristotle

  Aristotle’s Rhetoric, as the name suggests, goes into greater detail on principles of rhetoric than Plato’s work does. It provides us with insights so basic for an understanding

  of persuasion, whether rhetoric or propaganda, that it will be worthwhile to sum-

  marize his main contributions. These are in the form of both general observations

  and specific injunctions. Aristotle writes that persuasion is based on three things: the

  ethos, or personal character of the speaker; the pathos, or getting the audience into the right kind of emotional receptivity; and the logos, or the argument itself, carried out by abbreviated syllogisms, or something like deductive syllogisms, and by the use of