Essay - Propaganda or Persuasion

Propaganda or Persuasion: Designing Social Control By Joel Burden, 2013

‘It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind, who harness old social forces and contrive new ways to bind and guide the world.’

- Bernays, Edward. 1928.

Today, in the western civilized world, we are bombarded with endless reels of advertisements and messages. It is now believed an average mind can be exposed to as many as 5,000 adverts per day. We, as people involved in modern mass consumer society are subtly (or sometimes not so) affected on an unconscious level to buy, vote, visit, watch, listen or fight for ideals and products the men in power wanted them to. How this is achieved has become a topic of much debate and contemplation, one that has birthed the question, is that propaganda or persuasion? The notion itself has become an ethical conundrum faced by the PR, marketing, advertising and creative industries. ‘We might, for example, not wish to participate in creating desires for things that people don’t really want or need. Alternatively, we may see constant demand as a prerequisite to a successful capitalist society and argue that this is broadly for the good’ (Roberts, pg.92, 2006). To gain a better understanding this paper will look into not only what these terms embody and the arguments for both sides; but also how we as designers are affected by this and are becoming increasingly entangled in a web of socialist and capitalist ideals.

It is difficult to approach or discuss the topic without the mention of a man named Edward Bernay(1891–1995). By 1928 he has pioneered, practiced and planted ‘new’ propaganda firmly into the minds of ‘mass’ culture. During WWI Bernays worked with the American Committee on Public Communication, his influence here against Nazi propaganda earned him an

1

invite to the Paris Peace Conference in 1919. It was there that he first realized the potential of propaganda in terms of its ability to provide a means of social control in this, a new era of peace. He began to see the inter-linking relationships between those in power, the mass population and an invaluable communication tool, the media. To genuinely understand this premise and it’s ever evolving connotations we must first look at a principle understanding of ‘mass’ culture. Psychoanalysts are primarily perceived to be concerned with the psyche and isolated mind of the individual; this is not the case. Many have attempted to understand the mental workings and intricacies of a crowd; including Sigmund Freud (who coincidently is Bernays Uncle). Freud critiques an earlier theory of crowd psychology by French social psychoanalyst Gustave Le Bon in his paper ‘Mass Psychology and Analysis of the ‘I’’. Le Bon (1895) writes ‘Whoever be the individuals that compose it, however like or unlike their mode of life (…) the fact that they have been transformed into a crowd puts them in possession of a sort of collective mind which makes them feel, think and act in a manner quite different from that (…) were he in a state of isolation.’ He speaks of a collective mind, and how we as people are affected when we merge into a mass congregation. He goes onto say ‘under the influence of suggestion, he will undertake the accomplishment of certain acts with irresistible impetuosity (…) the suggestion being the same for all the individuals of the crowd, it gains strength by reciprocity’. As he theorizes here, under the influence of suggestion (in relation to this paper we will call this ‘suggestion’ the media), a crowd or collective mind will share said suggestion; and the more individual minds that reciprocate with this suggestion; the more momentum this suggestion will accumulate. Freud applauded Le Bon’s theories into the psychology of crowds but felt this subject needed further investigation and deliberation; his biggest gripe was how Le Bon spoke of a bond between individuals in a crowd yet he never explained what exactly this bond consisted of; he responded by saying ‘there must presumably be something binding them together, and that binding medium might be precisely what characterizes the mass’ (Freud, 1921). Freud’s own views of the ‘masses’

2

lend themselves well to key principles of propaganda. ‘The mass is impulsive, inconstant and excitable (…) at all events they are so imperious that no personal interest, not even that of self-preservation, is able to assert itself’ (Freud, 1921). This notion of a crowd being almost frantic and void of any personal reservations when presumably presented with an idea or suggestion means with the correct approach they would no doubt ably be malleable to the desires of the communicator. Bernay was about to introduce the corporate machine to these theories; it was by doing so that he was to make his fortune and change our world forever.

‘In theory, every citizen makes up his mind on public questions and matters of private conduct. In practice, if all men had to study for themselves the abstruse economic, political, and ethical data involved in every question, they would find it impossible to come to a conclusion about anything’ (Bernays, 1928). Crowd and social control; these things are elements of that which can now be called ‘new propaganda’ or more acceptably known as ‘Public Relations’. PR became Bernays trade; and one he became particularly skilled at. It is difficult to imagine a world without ‘spin’ doctors or PR men now.

They have become an invaluable necessity to any corporation or politician wishing to present them or their product well to the mass consumer. Before people like Bernays ideas and goods were marketed in a far more direct fashion; it was promoted for its qualities and functionality. Today they have directly tapped into our inner selves creating a ‘need’ for things on an emotional and psychological level that we as people primarily do not need. Is this wrong? It is hard to say. Creating a demand for what you are supplying is in the very heart of Capitalist society, if we are to protest too much against these methods then we are surely protesting against the structure we in the western world abide by. When speaking of the necessity of propaganda in his book ‘Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes’, French philosopher Jacques Ellul says ‘propaganda fills a need of modern man, a need that creates him in unconscious desire for propaganda. He is in the position of needing outside help to be able to face his condition. And that is

3

the aid of propaganda. Naturally he does not say “I want propaganda.” On the contrary, in line with preconceived notions, he abhors propaganda and considers himself a “free and mature” person. But in reality he calls and desires propaganda that will help him ward off certain attacks and reduce certain tensions (…) no propaganda can have any affect unless it is needed, though the need may not be expressed as such but remain unconscious’ (Ellul, pg. 138 - 39, 1965). This could be seen as an argument for capitalist propaganda and shares common views with Bernays practice; for example the view that people need this direction from others to live an effective life, even if they consider that they themselves are free-minded. This pro propaganda mentality relies on an unconscious emotional attachment, ‘although the objects material form remains constant as it undergoes the work of mass consumption, its social nature is radically altered’ (Miller, pg.192, 1987). It aims to play on the mass psychology where groups of individuals attach a social significance on objects, almost like banners they can all stand behind or a shared mentality they can all agree on. Marcuse describes it as ‘false’ needs, ‘we may distinguish both true and false needs.

"False" are those which are superimposed upon the individual by particular social interests in his repression (…) most of the prevailing needs to relax, to have fun, to behave and consume in accordance with the advertisements, to love and hate what others love and hate’ (Marcuse, 1964). The propagandist may play on matters a group finds pivotal to their moral fibre and use this in order to sell them a desired product, regardless of if they personally agree or disagree with the moral fibre in question. Again an emphasis is placed on revenue, it is a capitalist product that resides comfortably in the structure it has been conceived from, ‘the globally distributed media presence is largely founded on the supposition that ubiquity is the key to achieving not only instant celebrity, but perhaps more importantly, instant wealth’ (Helfand, 2001). Money is an essential consideration and presence for anyone involved in the marketing or goods or ideals; but where propaganda (as we have began to define it) is concerned, it begins to overshadow any concerns of the people it is involved with.

4

Persuasion on the other hand holds ideals that could be said to be increasingly socialist. The Oxford dictionary defines the verb to ‘persuade’ as being an act of inducing (someone) to do something through reasoning or argument; for example the way a democratic government is run (in theory), candidates are required to persuade the public into casting their vote with him/her. In short persuasion requires by nature an amount of power resting in the hands of the receiver, not power which is to be manipulated into the givers will but power that lies in the hands of the educated free-willed mind, ‘The communication of a point of view with the ultimate goal of having the recipient of the appeal come to “voluntarily” accept this position as if it were his or her own’ (A.R.P and E.A, 1991). Whereas propaganda lives in the realms of the unconscious buyer, persuasion requires a much more conscious effort from it’s subjects, ‘in an age of propaganda, the best thing for the survival of a democracy is the existence of communicators who know how to present their message clearly and fairly’ (A.R.P and E.A, 1991). Clearly and fairly are surely binding principles of anyone intending to persuade in an open and democratic fashion, an exact contrast to the theory earlier proposed by Ellul, that of subconscious ‘need’ to be directed in order to help ‘face his condition’. Here we can begin to see more defined barriers between propaganda and persuasion and what distinguishes two things so similar in premise from one another. Both desire the same end result but differ in the ways they will accept to reach it. It boils down to a question of ethics, and we, as Graphic Designers will sooner or later be thrown into the same pan, ‘Graphic design is a rhetorical art; it is there to persuade. To be critical of it for being persuasive is like criticizing a fisherman for catching fish’ (Roberts, pg. 92, 2006). We will be required to make products or people desirable by transmitting our ideas and concepts through media channels to a ‘crowd’ or target audience; this is inevitable. Therefore are we in turn propagandists? Or do we choose a life of persuasion.

This of course subjective to the individual and can be taken lightly or to the

5

extreme. I would like to borrow a few examples from Lucienne Roberts book ‘Good: An Introduction to Ethics in Graphic Design’ as a starting point. He asks us ‘should you act as an advocate for opinions that are not your own and that you therefore believe to be ‘wrong’?’ (Roberts, pg.90, 2006), an interesting dilemma no doubt, an advocate of moral fibre as we spoke of earlier in the paper. The propagandist would perhaps not face this dilemma as they would not bring their own personal opinions to the forefront, if the capital was there then it would be a job worth doing, and this is not to say there is anything wrong with that, this is an un-bias comparison. This is not to say someone concerned with persuasion would not do a job if they didn’t agree with the policies (again, this is subjective) but they would most definitely approach it from the standpoint of fair argument, presenting the clients case of product in a fair and earnest way. As a direct result of this that may (depending on the ethics of the company or individual) lose them the job ‘if a designer is working with a client without empathy for the issue, then I would imagine that could impede their ability to communicate effectively and creatively’ (Roberts, 2006), but they might keep their own moral dignity.

To conclude, we are and have been surrounded by ‘suggestion’ for longer than anyone still living can account. The methods this suggestion is presented to us can be varied and have in the past attempted to play on all realms of human emotion. And we as designers of this new age have an important decision to make… propaganda or persuasion? Personally I do believe we should strive to present messages clearly and fairly, perhaps we have become too susceptible to blatant consumerism fueled through an aggressive advertising regime, I am as guilty as any other to it’s charms and have as a direct result bought many things which I had no need for, then or now. Capitalism of course needs this level of unnecessary transactions to function but then maybe we should question how well capitalism works for us. ‘Can one really distinguish between the mass media as instruments of information and entertainment, and as agents of manipulation and indoctrination?’ (Marcuse, 1964).

6

Bibliography: - Roberts, Lucienne (2006) Good: An Introduction to Ethics in Graphic Design: Switzerland, AVA Publishing SA. - Le Bon, Gustave (1895) La Psychologie des Foules: Paris, Presses Universitaires de France.

- Freud, Sigmund (1921) Mass Psychology and Other Writings: London, Penguin Group.

- Bernays, L. Edward (1928) Propaganda: Brooklyn, IG Publishing.

- Ellul, Jacques (1965) Propaganda The Formation of Men’s Attitudes: New York, Random House/Vintage 1973.

- Miller, David (1987) Mass Culture and Mass Consumption: Oxford, Basil Blackwell Ltd. - Helfand, Jessica (2001) Screen: Essays on Graphic Design, New Media, and Visual Culture: New York, Princeton Architectural Press.

- Pratkanis, R. Anthony and Aronson, Elliot (1991) Age of Propaganda: The Everyday Use and Abuse of Persuasion: New York, W.H Freeman.

- Marcuse, Herbert (1964) One-dimensional Man: Boston, Beacon.

7