THE NEW PROPAGANDA
In the days when kings were kings, Louis XIV made his modest remark,
“L’Etat c’est moi.” He was nearly right.
But times have changed. The steam engine, the multiple press, and the
public school, that trio of the industrial revolution, have taken the
power away from kings and given it to the people. The people actually
gained power which the king lost. For economic power tends to draw
after it political power; and the history of the industrial revolution
shows how that power passed from the king and the aristocracy to the
bourgeoisie. Universal suffrage and universal schooling reënforced this
tendency, and at last even the bourgeoisie stood in fear of the common
people. For the masses promised to become king.
To-day, however, a reaction has set in. The minority has discovered a
powerful help in influencing majorities. It has been found possible
so to mold the mind of the masses that they will throw their newly
gained strength in the desired direction. In the present structure of
society, this practice is inevitable. Whatever of social importance is
done to-day, whether in politics, finance, manufacture, agriculture,
charity, education, or other fields, must be done with the help of
propaganda. Propaganda is the executive arm of the invisible government.
Universal literacy was supposed to educate the common man to control
his environment. Once he could read and write he would have a mind
fit to rule. So ran the democratic doctrine. But instead of a mind,
universal literacy has given him rubber stamps, rubber stamps inked
with advertising slogans, with editorials, with published scientific
data, with the trivialities of the tabloids and the platitudes of
history, but quite innocent of original thought. Each man’s rubber
stamps are the duplicates of millions of others, so that when those
millions are exposed to the same stimuli, all receive identical
imprints. It may seem an exaggeration to say that the American public
gets most of its ideas in this wholesale fashion. The mechanism by
which ideas are disseminated on a large scale is propaganda, in the
broad sense of an organized effort to spread a particular belief or
doctrine.
I am aware that the word “propaganda” carries to many minds an
unpleasant connotation. Yet whether, in any instance, propaganda
is good or bad depends upon the merit of the cause urged, and the
correctness of the information published.
In itself, the word “propaganda” has certain technical meanings
which, like most things in this world, are “neither good nor bad but
custom makes them so.” I find the word defined in Funk and Wagnalls’
Dictionary in four ways:
“1. A society of cardinals, the overseers of foreign missions; also the
College of the Propaganda at Rome founded by Pope Urban VIII in 1627
for the education of missionary priests; Sacred College _de Propaganda
Fide_.
“2. Hence, any institution or scheme for propagating a doctrine or
system.
“3. Effort directed systematically toward the gaining of public support
for an opinion or a course of action.
“4. The principles advanced by a propaganda.”
The _Scientific American_, in a recent issue, pleads for the
restoration to respectable usage of that “fine old word ‘propaganda.’”
“There is no word in the English language,” it says, “whose meaning has
been so sadly distorted as the word ‘propaganda.’ The change took place
mainly during the late war when the term took on a decidedly sinister
complexion.
“If you turn to the Standard Dictionary, you will find that the word
was applied to a congregation or society of cardinals for the care and
oversight of foreign missions which was instituted at Rome in the year
1627. It was applied also to the College of the Propaganda at Rome that
was founded by Pope Urban VIII, for the education of the missionary
priests. Hence, in later years the word came to be applied to any
institution or scheme for propagating a doctrine or system.
“Judged by this definition, we can see that in its true sense
propaganda is a perfectly legitimate form of human activity. Any
society, whether it be social, religious or political, which is
possessed of certain beliefs, and sets out to make them known, either
by the spoken or written words, is practicing propaganda.
“Truth is mighty and must prevail, and if any body of men believe that
they have discovered a valuable truth, it is not merely their privilege
but their duty to disseminate that truth. If they realize, as they
quickly must, that this spreading of the truth can be done upon a
large scale and effectively only by organized effort, they will make
use of the press and the platform as the best means to give it wide
circulation. Propaganda becomes vicious and reprehensive only when its
authors consciously and deliberately disseminate what they know to be
lies, or when they aim at effects which they know to be prejudicial to
the common good.
“‘Propaganda’ in its proper meaning is a perfectly wholesome word,
of honest parentage, and with an honorable history. The fact that it
should to-day be carrying a sinister meaning merely shows how much of
the child remains in the average adult. A group of citizens writes
and talks in favor of a certain course of action in some debatable
question, believing that it is promoting the best interest of the
community. Propaganda? Not a bit of it. Just a plain forceful statement
of truth. But let another group of citizens express opposing views, and
they are promptly labeled with the sinister name of propaganda....
“‘What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander,’ says a wise
old proverb. Let us make haste to put this fine old word back where
it belongs, and restore its dignified significance for the use of our
children and our children’s children.”
The extent to which propaganda shapes the progress of affairs about
us may surprise even well informed persons. Nevertheless, it is only
necessary to look under the surface of the newspaper for a hint as
to propaganda’s authority over public opinion. Page one of the New
York _Times_ on the day these paragraphs are written contains eight
important news stories. Four of them, or one-half, are propaganda. The
casual reader accepts them as accounts of spontaneous happenings. But
are they? Here are the headlines which announce them: “TWELVE NATIONS
WARN CHINA REAL REFORM MUST COME BEFORE THEY GIVE RELIEF,” “PRITCHETT
REPORTS ZIONISM WILL FAIL,” “REALTY MEN DEMAND A TRANSIT INQUIRY,” and
“OUR LIVING STANDARD HIGHEST IN HISTORY, SAYS HOOVER REPORT.”
Take them in order: the article on China explains the joint report
of the Commission on Extraterritoriality in China, presenting an
exposition of the Powers’ Stand in the Chinese muddle. What it says
is less important than what it is. It was “made public by the State
Department to-day” with the purpose of presenting to the American
public a picture of the State Department’s position. Its source gives
it authority, and the American public tends to accept and support the
State Department view.
The report of Dr. Pritchett, a trustee of the Carnegie Foundation for
International Peace, is an attempt to find the facts about this Jewish
colony in the midst of a restless Arab world. When Dr. Pritchett’s
survey convinced him that in the long run Zionism would “bring more
bitterness and more unhappiness both for the Jew and for the Arab,”
this point of view was broadcast with all the authority of the Carnegie
Foundation, so that the public would hear and believe. The statement
by the president of the Real Estate Board of New York, and Secretary
Hoover’s report, are similar attempts to influence the public toward an
opinion.
These examples are not given to create the impression that there
is anything sinister about propaganda. They are set down rather to
illustrate how conscious direction is given to events, and how the
men behind these events influence public opinion. As such they are
examples of modern propaganda. At this point we may attempt to define
propaganda.
Modern propaganda is a consistent, enduring effort to create or shape
events to influence the relations of the public to an enterprise, idea
or group.
This practice of creating circumstances and of creating pictures
in the minds of millions of persons is very common. Virtually no
important undertaking is now carried on without it, whether that
enterprise be building a cathedral, endowing a university, marketing a
moving picture, floating a large bond issue, or electing a president.
Sometimes the effect on the public is created by a professional
propagandist, sometimes by an amateur deputed for the job. The
important thing is that it is universal and continuous; and in its sum
total it is regimenting the public mind every bit as much as an army
regiments the bodies of its soldiers.
So vast are the numbers of minds which can be regimented, and so
tenacious are they when regimented, that a group at times offers an
irresistible pressure before which legislators, editors, and teachers
are helpless. The group will cling to its stereotype, as Walter
Lippmann calls it, making of those supposedly powerful beings, the
leaders of public opinion, mere bits of driftwood in the surf. When an
Imperial Wizard, sensing what is perhaps hunger for an ideal, offers
a picture of a nation all Nordic and nationalistic, the common man of
the older American stock, feeling himself elbowed out of his rightful
position and prosperity by the newer immigrant stocks, grasps the
picture which fits in so neatly with his prejudices, and makes it his
own. He buys the sheet and pillow-case costume, and bands with his
fellows by the thousand into a huge group powerful enough to swing
state elections and to throw a ponderous monkey wrench into a national
convention.
In our present social organization approval of the public is essential
to any large undertaking. Hence a laudable movement may be lost unless
it impresses itself on the public mind. Charity, as well as business,
and politics and literature, for that matter, have had to adopt
propaganda, for the public must be regimented into giving money just
as it must be regimented into tuberculosis prophylaxis. The Near East
Relief, the Association for the Improvement of the Condition of the
Poor of New York, and all the rest, have to work on public opinion just
as though they had tubes of tooth paste to sell. We are proud of our
diminishing infant death rate—and that too is the work of propaganda.
Propaganda does exist on all sides of us, and it does change our
mental pictures of the world. Even if this be unduly pessimistic—and
that remains to be proved—the opinion reflects a tendency that is
undoubtedly real. In fact, its use is growing as its efficiency in
gaining public support is recognized.
This then, evidently indicates the fact that any one with sufficient
influence can lead sections of the public at least for a time and for
a given purpose. Formerly the rulers were the leaders. They laid out
the course of history, by the simple process of doing what they wanted.
And if nowadays the successors of the rulers, those whose position
or ability gives them power, can no longer do what they want without
the approval of the masses, they find in propaganda a tool which is
increasingly powerful in gaining that approval. Therefore, propaganda
is here to stay.
It was, of course, the astounding success of propaganda during the
war that opened the eyes of the intelligent few in all departments
of life to the possibilities of regimenting the public mind. The
American government and numerous patriotic agencies developed a
technique which, to most persons accustomed to bidding for public
acceptance, was new. They not only appealed to the individual by
means of every approach—visual, graphic, and auditory—to support
the national endeavor, but they also secured the coöperation of the
key men in every group—persons whose mere word carried authority to
hundreds or thousands or hundreds of thousands of followers. They thus
automatically gained the support of fraternal, religious, commercial,
patriotic, social and local groups whose members took their opinions
from their accustomed leaders and spokesmen, or from the periodical
publications which they were accustomed to read and believe. At the
same time, the manipulators of patriotic opinion made use of the
mental clichés and the emotional habits of the public to produce mass
reactions against the alleged atrocities, the terror and the tyranny of
the enemy. It was only natural, after the war ended, that intelligent
persons should ask themselves whether it was not possible to apply a
similar technique to the problems of peace.
As a matter of fact, the practice of propaganda since the war has
assumed very different forms from those prevalent twenty years ago.
This new technique may fairly be called the new propaganda.
It takes account not merely of the individual, nor even of the mass
mind alone, but also and especially of the anatomy of society, with its
interlocking group formations and loyalties. It sees the individual not
only as a cell in the social organism but as a cell organized into the
social unit. Touch a nerve at a sensitive spot and you get an automatic
response from certain specific members of the organism.
Business offers graphic examples of the effect that may be produced
upon the public by interested groups, such as textile manufacturers
losing their markets. This problem arose, not long ago, when the
velvet manufacturers were facing ruin because their product had long
been out of fashion. Analysis showed that it was impossible to revive
a velvet fashion within America. Anatomical hunt for the vital spot!
Paris! Obviously! But yes and no. Paris is the home of fashion.
Lyons is the home of silk. The attack had to be made at the source.
It was determined to substitute purpose for chance and to utilize the
regular sources for fashion distribution and to influence the public
from these sources. A velvet fashion service, openly supported by the
manufacturers, was organized. Its first function was to establish
contact with the Lyons manufactories and the Paris couturiers to
discover what they were doing, to encourage them to act on behalf of
velvet, and to help in the proper exploitation of their wares. An
intelligent Parisian was enlisted in the work. He visited Lanvin and
Worth, Agnès and Patou, and others and induced them to use velvet in
their gowns and hats. It was he who arranged for the distinguished
Countess This or Duchess That to wear the hat or the gown. And as for
the presentation of the idea to the public, the American buyer or the
American woman of fashion was simply shown the velvet creations in
the atelier of the dressmaker or the milliner. She bought the velvet
because she liked it and because it was in fashion.
The editors of the American magazines and fashion reporters of the
American newspapers, likewise subjected to the actual (although
created) circumstance, reflected it in their news, which, in turn,
subjected the buyer and the consumer here to the same influences. The
result was that what was at first a trickle of velvet became a flood.
A demand was slowly, but deliberately, created in Paris and America.
A big department store, aiming to be a style leader, advertised velvet
gowns and hats on the authority of the French couturiers, and quoted
original cables received from them. The echo of the new style note was
heard from hundreds of department stores throughout the country which
wanted to be style leaders too. Bulletins followed despatches. The mail
followed the cables. And the American woman traveler appeared before
the ship news photographers in velvet gown and hat.
The created circumstances had their effect. “Fickle fashion has veered
to velvet,” was one newspaper comment. And the industry in the United
States again kept thousands busy.
The new propaganda, having regard to the constitution of society as a
whole, not infrequently serves to focus and realize the desires of the
masses. A desire for a specific reform, however widespread, cannot be
translated into action until it is made articulate, and until it has
exerted sufficient pressure upon the proper law-making bodies. Millions
of housewives may feel that manufactured foods deleterious to health
should be prohibited. But there is little chance that their individual
desires will be translated into effective legal form unless their
half-expressed demand can be organized, made vocal, and concentrated
upon the state legislature or upon the Federal Congress in some mode
which will produce the results they desire. Whether they realize it or
not, they call upon propaganda to organize and effectuate their demand.
But clearly it is the intelligent minorities which need to make use of
propaganda continuously and systematically. In the active proselytizing
minorities in whom selfish interests and public interests coincide lie
the progress and development of America. Only through the active energy
of the intelligent few can the public at large become aware of and act
upon new ideas.
Small groups of persons can, and do, make the rest of us think what
they please about a given subject. But there are usually proponents
and opponents of every propaganda, both of whom are equally eager to
convince the majority.