DOWNLOAD PDF PROPAGANDA AS A FUNCTION OF DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT, BY G. E. G. CATLIN.

Transcription

1 Chapter 1 : Propaganda by Edward Bernays () Catlin, George Edward Gordon Sir Propaganda and dictatorship: a by H.D. LasswellPropaganda as a function of democratic government, by G.E.G. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. Our invisible governors are, in many cases, unaware of the identity of their fellow members in the inner cabinet. They govern us by their qualities of natural leadership, their ability to supply needed ideas and by their key position in the social structure. Whatever attitude one chooses to take toward this condition, it remains a fact that in almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of personsâ a trifling fraction of our hundred and twenty millionâ who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. 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. It is not usually realized how necessary these invisible governors are to the orderly functioning of our group life. In theory, every citizen may vote for whom he pleases. Our Constitution does not envisage political parties as part of the mechanism of government, and its framers seem not to have pictured to themselves the existence in our national politics of anything like the modern political machine. But the American voters soon found that without organization and direction their individual votes, cast, perhaps, for dozens or hundreds of candidates, would produce nothing but confusion. Invisible government, in the shape of rudimentary political parties, arose almost overnight. Ever since then we have agreed, for the sake of simplicity and practicality, that party machines should narrow down the field of choice to two candidates, or at most three or four. 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. We have voluntarily agreed to let an invisible government sift the data and high-spot the outstanding issues so that our field of choice shall be narrowed to practical proportions. From our leaders and the media they use to reach the public, we accept the evidence and the demarcation of issues bearing upon public questions; from some ethical teacher, be it a minister, a favorite essayist, or merely prevailing opinion, we accept a standardized code of social conduct to which we conform most of the time. In theory, everybody buys the best and cheapest commodities offered him on the market. In practice, if every one went around pricing, and chemically testing before purchasing, the dozens of soaps or fabrics or brands of bread which are for sale, economic life would become hopelessly jammed. To avoid such confusion, society consents to have its choice narrowed to ideas and objects brought to its attention through propaganda of all kinds. There is consequently a vast and continuous effort going on to capture our minds in the interest of some policy or commodity or idea. It might be better to have, instead of propaganda and special pleading, committees of wise men who would choose our rulers, dictate our conduct, private and public, and decide upon the best types of clothes for us to wear and the best kinds of food for us to eat. But we have chosen the opposite method, that of open competition. We must find a way to make free competition function with reasonable smoothness. To achieve this society has consented to permit free competition to be organized by leadership and propaganda. Some of the phenomena of this process are criticizedâ the manipulation of news, the inflation of personality, and the general ballyhoo by which politicians and commercial products and social ideas are brought to the consciousness of the masses. The instruments by which public opinion is organized and focused may be misused. But such organization and focusing are necessary to orderly life. As civilization has become more complex, and as the need for invisible government has been increas ingly demonstrated, the Page 1

2 technical means have been invented and developed by which opinion may be regimented. With the printing press and the newspaper, the railroad, the telephone, telegraph, radio and airplanes, ideas can be spread rapidly and even instantaneously over the whole of America. Wells senses the vast potentialities of these inventions when he writes in the New York Times: Ideas and phrases can now be given an effectiveness greater than the effectiveness of any personality and stronger than any sectional interest. The common design can be documented and sustained against perversion and betrayal. It can be elaborated and developed steadily and widely without personal, local and sectional misunderstanding. Wells says of political processes is equally true of commercial and social processes and all manifestations of mass activity. The groupings and affiliations of society to-day are no longer subject to "local and sectional" limitations. When the Constitution was adopted, the unit of organization was the village community, which produced the greater part of its own necessary commodities and generated its group ideas and opinions by personal contact and discussion directly among its citizens. But to-day, because ideas can be instantaneously transmitted to any distance and to any number of people, this geographical integration has been supplemented by many other kinds of grouping, so that persons having the same ideas and interests may be associated and regimented for common action even though they live thousands of miles apart. It is extremely difficult to realize how many and diverse are these cleavages in our society. They may be social, political, economic, racial, religious or ethical, with hundreds of subdivisions of each. There are many more under the "A" section of this very limited list. The American Newspaper Annual and Directory for lists 22, periodical publications in America. The circulation of some of these publications is astonishing. The greater number of the periodicals listedâ chosen at random from among 22,â have a circulation in excess of 10, The diversity of these publications is evident at a glance. Yet they can only faintly suggest the multitude of cleavages which exist in our society, and along which flow information and opinion carrying authority to the individual groups. Here are the conventions scheduled for Cleveland, Ohio, recorded in a single recent issue of "World Convention Dates"â a fraction of the 5, conventions and rallies scheduled. Other conventions to be held in were those of: If all these thousands of formal organizations and institutions could be listed and no complete list has ever been made, they would still represent but a part of those existing less formally but leading vigorous lives. Ideas are sifted and opinions stereotyped in the neighborhood bridge club. Leaders assert their authority through community drives and amateur theatricals. Thousands of women may unconsciously belong to a sorority which follows the fashions set by a single society leader. John Jones, besides being a Rotarian, is member of a church, of a fraternal order, of a political party, of a charitable organization, of a professional association, of a local chamber of commerce, of a league for or against prohibition or of a society for or against lowering the tariff, and of a golf club. The opinions which he receives as a Rotarian, he will tend to disseminate in the other groups in which he may have influence. This invisible, intertwining structure of groupings and associations is the mechanism by which democracy has organized its group mind and simplified its mass thinking. To deplore the existence of such a mechanism is to ask for a society such as never was and never will be. To admit that it easts, but expect that it shall not be used, is unreasonable. Emil Ludwig represents Napoleon as "ever on the watch for indications of public opinion; always listening to the voice of the people, a voice which defies calculation. The impotence of force to organize anything. It will attempt at the same time to find the due place in the modern democratic scheme for this new propaganda and to suggest its gradually evolving code of ethics and practice. 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 reinforced 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 Page 2

3 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. 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. Hence, in later years the word came to be applied to any institution or scheme for propagating a doctrine or system. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Here are the headlines which announce them: What it says is less important than what it is. 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. 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. Page 3

4 Chapter 2 : Project MUSE - The Crisis of Democratic Theory As Jacques Ellul (, ) observes, propaganda is a fact of life in all democratic societies, largely because government officials rely on it to direct public opinion. According to Ellul, democratic governments do not follow popular will; they use propaganda to create popular will. Democracy, with all its problems, also has its paradoxes. Regular elections lead to short government life-time. This seems to result in more emphasis on short term goals and safer issues that appeal to populist issues. It also diverts precious time toward re-election campaigns Anti-democratic forces may use the democratic process to get voted in or get policies enacted in their favor. Communism economic preferences, and liberal vs authoritarian political preferences may allow for non-democratic policies under the guise of democracy Democracies may, ironically perhaps, create a more effective military as people chose to willingly support their democratic ideals and are not forced to fight. Some of these are discussed further, here: Voting in non-democratic forces Two examples of this paradox are the following: Hitler and his party were voted in. He then got rid of democracy and started his gross human rights violations and genocidal campaigns as a dictator. Hamas was also recently voted in by Palestinians. The lack of aid, upon which the Palestinians have been quite dependent contributed to friction amongst Palestinians who support Hamas and those that do not and this has been amplified by the worsening economic situation there. The Hitler example highlights the importance media and propaganda play and the need for continued open self-criticism to guard against these tendencies. Minorities losing out to majorities Another criticism of democracy is that sometimes what the majority votes for or prefers, may not necessarily be good for everyone. A common example plaguing many countries which have diversity in race and religion is that a dominant group may prefer policies that undermine others. Some quick examples include Nigeria which has large Christian and Muslim populations; some Muslims there, and in other countries, want Sharia Law, which not all Muslim necessarily want, let alone people of other faiths. If only a very slight majority can override a very large minority on such an important issue as how one should live, then there is a real chance for tension and conflict. Another example is India, often help us an example of pluralism throughput the ages, despite all manner of challenges. Yet, unfortunately an Indian government report finds that its claims to religious integration and harmony are on far shakier grounds than previously believed. This can come through various outlets, including, a diverse mainstream media, institutions such as religious and legal ones, schooling, family upbringings, etc Equally important are the underlying economic conditions and situations of a country. Generally, it seems, where economically people are generally doing well, where the inequality gap is not excessive, people have less of a reason to opt for more defensive, reactionary or aggressive policies that undermine others. The fear of the public and disdain of democracy from elites while publicly claiming to supporting it People often see democracy as an equalizing factor that should not allow the elite or wealthy in a society to rule in an autocratic, despotic, unaccountable manner. Instead they have to respond to the will of the people, and ultimately be accountable to them. Furthermore and ideally, it should not only be the wealthy or elite that hold the power. There should be some form of equality when representing the nation. However, this has also meant at least two accompanying phenomena: Interestingly, leading up to the US mid-term elections, amidst all sorts of allegations of corruption coming to light, in an interview by Democracy Now! Karl Rove, the influential, but controversial, advisor and strategist for President George W. What people do not realize about [Karl Rove] is that everything about him is political utility. When he looked at what was going on with the megachurches Karl decided he was going to take these gigantic churches on the Christian right and to turn them into a gigantic vote delivery system. This is not a man who has deeply held religious faith. This is just one example, where parties have simply targeted people to get votes for power. And yet, many in the religious right believe that Bush represents them and some even see him as an instrument of God, showing just how effective political utility and manipulation has been. Noting that different people refer to, and think of democracy in different ways, even some despots have called Page 4

5 themselves democratic! For such volatile ingredients can at times be unstable unless in carefully measured and monitored combinations. John Stuart Mill whose Essay on Liberty and Considerations on Representative Government are two of the great books of the modern world, came to believe that every adult yes, women too should have the vote, but only after compulsory secondary education had been instituted and had time to take effect. In some countries, healthy cynicism has given way to outright contempt or excessive cynicism at anything a government official promises! What this does mean, however, is that those with ambitions of power and ulterior agendas have to therefore resort to even more propaganda and media savvy manipulation, as Crick notes: For both autocrats and despots depend in the main on a passive population; they had no need to mobilize en masse Napoleon was to say: Long before the Soviet Union broke up, a group of Russian writers touring the United States were astonished to find, after reading the newspapers and watching television, that almost all the opinions on all the vital issues were the same. We tear out their fingernails. Here you have none of that. How do you do it? The buildup to the Iraq invasion is also an example of the lengths that governments of two democracies, the US and UK, would go to to gain support for their cause. Limited time in power means going for short term policies Many democracies have rules that elections must be held regularly, say every 4 or 5 years. The short life span of governments is there for an important reason: Yet, at the same time, the short-termism that results has its problems too. Today, the politics of the United States and Great Britain become more and more populist: Some governments find this opposition has foreign support, or, because of their own failures has created a vacuum either a power vacuum, participation vacuum or some other failure that has allowed people to consider alternatives seriously. When a legitimate government is then deliberating, or taking, stronger actions, that government can easily be criticized for rolling back democracy, acting dictatorially or in some way undermining the rights of their people. This can then strengthen the non-democratic opposition further. There are unfortunately countless examples of such foreign and domestic interference with potential and actual democracies to be listed here. It is common for example, to hear of say the former Soviet Union doing this. Unfortunately, while less common to hear about it in the mainstream, western governments have also been complicit in overthrowing and undermining democracies in other parts of the world in favor of puppet regimes, be they dictatorships or pseudo democracies. Two useful resources to read more about these include J. One recent example worth highlighting here is Venezuela, where Hugo Chavez managed to reverse a coup against him. This coup was aggressively supported by many in the Venezuelan elite media and also by the US. After the coup, news channels that actively supported the coup in to oust Chavez, were still allowed to remain in operation which many democracies would not usually tolerate. The main media outlet, RCTV, aggressively anti Chavez, was denied a renewal license in, not because it was critical of Chavez policies, but because a pre-chavez government law did not look too kindly on broadcasters encouraging coups after all, what government would! RCTV and their supporters tried to insist otherwise; that this was an issue of free speech. The US mainstream media has generally been hostile to Chavez as has been the Bush administration itself, and this was therefore added to the other mis-characterizations often presented, lending credence to the view that Chavez is a dictator. In essence a law enacted during the previous dictatorial regime backed by the US and others is now being turned around and used against Chavez as another example of power-grabbing. Chavez is not helping his own cause by his often vocal and inflammatory antics, but it should not be forgotten how much foreign influence may be contributing to the undermining of democracy tendencies. Venezuela has been through a succession of dictatorships and many supporters of the previous regimes are in the anti-chavez groups. Regardless of whether one is pro- or anti- Chavez, it certainly seems that democratic participation has increased during his tenure, given all the increased political activity, both pro- and anti-chavez. On this particular issue, the point is not to ban stories on Creationism; they are better taught in religious classes, not science classes. Yet, often missed from that is that scientific theories are usually based on a well-substantiated explanation that gets tested whenever possible, whereas religious ideas usually are required to be accepted on faith. More generally in the United States, there is however, a growing concern at the rise in an extreme religious right that wants to replace the democratic system with a Christian Page 5

6 State. Although we are accustomed to hear about Muslim extremists pushing for relgious-based states in various Middle East countries, this example is one in a democracy where despite the principle of a separation of Church and State, Christian religious extremists push forward with their agenda, anyway. Those with money are more likely to be candidates It is a common concern in many democratic countries that those with sufficient funds, or fund-raising capability are the ones who will become the final candidates that voters choose from. Others, who may be more democratic, but are either poor, or lack the finances of the leading contenders, or will not likely support policies that influential mega donors support, will often lose out. Yet, one would think in a democracy, time should be afforded to make all popular voices hear, not just the leading four from the two main parties, as that just results in the leading four becoming unfairly popular at the expense of the rest, and makes the concern they raise into a self-serving argument. Understandably, finding time for all candidates might not be practical if there are many, but always limiting it to the four from the two leading parties results in the same choices people have to chose from each time, limiting diversity especially when many feel the two leading parties are quite similar on many issues. Attempts to suggest caps on finances of any sort to address this undue influence are met with support from those who have little, but ferocious resistance from those who stand to lose out. Newspapers and other media outlets are often less than impartial in election campaigns. The high concentrated ownership of major media outlets does not always bode well for democracies as it puts a lot of influence into a handful of owners. In the US, it can be argued that the differences between some Democrats and Republicans are quite small in the larger context, and the media owners come from the same elite pool, thus reinforcing the impression of vast differences and debate on major issues. The result is that many get put off and the remaining who do want to vote have access to just a few voices from which to make any notion of informed decisions. In summary, democracy does not automatically require free markets and free markets does not automatically require democracy. Leading up to World War II, a number of European nations saw their power determined by fascists, often via a democratic process. Today, many European democracies attempt a social model of economic development ranging from socialist to somewhat managed markets. In the Indian state of Kerala, for example, a party was voted in that has put communist practices in place with some reasonable success. Of course, many communist regimes in reality have also been accompanied by dictatorships and despots in an attempt to enforce that economic ideology. And during the beginnings of free markets, the major European powers promoting it were themselves hardly democratic. Instead they were dominated by imperialist, racist, colonialist and aristocratic views and systems. The point here is that by not making this distinction, policies can often be highlighted that appear democratic, or even could undermine democracy depending on how it is carried out as many African countries have experienced, for example. As a recent example, as South Africa came out of apartheid, it was praised for its move to democracy, its truth and reconciliation approach and other political moves. Less discussed however, were the economic policies and conditions that followed. A report describing a conference celebrating 10 years of South African independence from Apartheid noted how difficult a democratic system is to establish when combined with factors like regional and international economics i. The question of how the international world relates to and indeed is responsible for some of the problems was also deliberated at the conference. While the consensus was on Africans Indeed, some of the economic problems of the countries in the region can be traced back to their relationships with former colonial masters. More recently, the structural adjustment programmes of the s continue to affect the economic stability of SADC countries The link between globalisation and democratisation was further debated in the economic session of the conference. Suffice to say, democracy is threatened when a state cannot determine its own budget. The conditionality cripples the development of a socially transformative democracy. A number of the debt rescheduling agreements have fostered cutbacks on social spending, and have created conditions of further economic marginalisation and social exclusion of the poor. In the long term, the consolidation of democracy is threatened because the conditions have the effect of fostering social unrest. Page 6

7 Chapter 3 : Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not - Wikipedia Introduction, by H. L. Childs. State propaganda in Germany, by F. Morstein Marx. State propaganda in Italy, by A. J. Zurcher. Political propaganda in Soviet Russia, by B. W. Maxwell. The ideologic foundations of the Danubian dictatorships, by O. JÃ szi. The scope of research on propaganda and. By the time he entered Harvard in the fall of, Lippmann had been exposed to a wide array of ideas and had been well prepared for the challenging work that lay ahead of him at school. Lippmann was influenced by the social thinkers of the time such as George Santayana, William James, and Graham Wallas. He was influenced by the move toward an American pragmatic approach, as well as socialist thinkers of the time. Predecessors of Walter Lippmann[ edit ] William James [ edit ] Many consider William James to be one of the most prominent influences on Lippmann while at Harvard Weingast, ; Steel, The two scholars first met when Lippmann published an article in the Illustrated, a Harvard campus magazine. William James is perhaps best known for his theories of pragmatism. He showed how pragmatism is related to truth, and truth is that which can be verified. In this way, James suggested that the understanding of the world is based on enduring, significant perceptions of the effects of the objects that surround individuals. Steel claims that one of these ideas was that of meliorism, or the idea that "things could be improved, but never perfected" p. Another is practicality, or the idea that "men had to make decisions without worrying about whether they were perfect" Steel,, p. For example, according to Weingast, Lippmann initially supported the idea that government intervention in the economy was necessary, specifically through the provision of public projects to support employment during times of economic hardship. However, when Franklin D. Roosevelt presented his New Deal, which included more government intervention in the public arena, Lippmann did not support the program Weingast, Lippmann wavered in his views on socialism as well. By accepting the ideas of meliorism and practicality, it could potentially mean that one is always striving to find the next best solution; that when one theory fails, another can be developed to take its place. By questioning himself and his beliefs, Lippmann was advancing his own theories and finding new ways of understanding his surroundings. George Santayana [ edit ] Santayana was a philosopher at Harvard who also influenced the work of Lippmann. Santayana was interested in uncovering the various essences that made up human life: This outlook is a sharp contrast to the theories of James, which Lippmann had already been exposed to. Steel explained that while James focused on the idea of moral relativism, or the ability to create truth from observation, Santayana was focusing on the "search for absolute moral values that could be reconciled with human experience" p. Phantom Public examines the American public within a democratic system. Lippmann expresses his ideas that the majority of the American public is uneducated in public issues, easily manipulated into siding with the majority, and therefore, plays a very limited role in the democratic process. In relation to democracy, Lippmann states, "Thus the voter identified himself with the officials. He tried to think that their thoughts were his thoughts, that their deeds were his deeds, and even in some mysterious way they were a part of himâ. It prevented democracy from arriving at a clear idea of its own limits and attainable ends" p. Lippmann shows that within a democratic system the majority is actually suppressed by the minority opinion. If Santanyana argued that democracy would result in a tyranny of the majority, Lippmann supported this idea by showing that public opinion caused little influence on a democratic system that was actually controlled by the educated elite. Wallas is perhaps best known for his work Human Nature in Politics He states that the universe presents the public with, "an unending stream of sensations and memories, every one of which is different from every other, and before which, unless we can select and recognize and simplify, we must stand helpless and unable to either act or think. Man has therefore to create entities that shall be the material of his reasoning" p. In this way, Wallas was showing that the public is incapable of understanding their environment; the stimuli that they are presented with are too numerous to gain a well-versed understanding. Aside from inspiring Lippmann to examine the relationship between the public and the environment, Wallas can also be credited with influencing Page 7

8 Lippmann to break his ties with the Socialist school of thought Steel, Until his interactions with Wallas, Lippmann had held strong socialist beliefs, based not only upon his experiences at school, but also upon the writings of Karl Marx. Karl Marx [ edit ] Karl Marx was particularly concerned with explaining the class struggles that existed in society Rogers, Through these works, Marx explained his theories about the struggle of the working class, their alienation from their work, and their need to rebel against the elite in order to take ownership for their actions and gain power Rogers, Marxism explained the way that economic forces create changes in society, and the need for the creation of a communist system to restore equality to that system Rogers, Lippmann also joined the Fabians while at school. They were a group which urged for the empowering of the middle-classes, rather than the over-throwing of the elite, in order to create social equality Steel, Unlike Marxists, however, the Fabians still believed in the presence of an intellectual elite Steel, In this piece of literature, Lippmann explains that society is truly dominated by an intellectual elite, even when they might think that they are following a system of majority rule. Marx also claimed that mass media is used as a tool by the elite social classes to control society Rogers, By, Lippmann was no longer a supporter of the implementation of socialism on a large scale Steel, With his publication of Drift and Mastery, Lippmann denounced the use of socialism Steel, Furthermore, his publication of Good Society was essentially a criticism of the very theories of socialism that he had once supported. By this point, Lippmann recognized the error in the socialist theories; the fact that even by putting an end to private ownership and developing collective property, people still may not know how to properly distribute resources without exploitation. Lippman claims "This is the crucial point in the socialist argument: They clearly affect how Lippmann sees the relation between man, his environment, and his government. Sigmund Freud [ edit ] Aside from his reading of Karl Marx, Lippmann was also influenced by the readings of other academics. Sigmund Freud was initially trained as a medical doctor and later founded psychoanalytic theory Rogers, According to Rogers, Freud was able to divide the human consciousness into three states; the conscious, preconscious, and unconscious. The conscious consists of those things which we know about ourselves, the preconscious consists of those things which we could pay conscious attention to if we so desired, and the unconscious consists of those things which we do not understand or know about ourselves Rogers, From these three levels of individual analysis, Freud attempted to understand human behavior. The Interpretation of Dreams dealt with the idea that dreams are a form of wish fulfillment; they represent a desire of the unconscious that can be achieved during sleep through the creation of a dream to fulfill a need Levin, Lippmann applied this idea to his work in Public Opinion Bernays had a special interest in adopting psychoanalytic theory into his public relations work, and this influenced his thinking in relation to public opinion. Bernays goes on to show that propagandists cannot merely accept the reasons that men give for their behavior. If they are truly hiding their real motives, as Freud suggests, then "the successful propagandist must understand the true motives and not be content to accept the reasons which men give for what they do" Bernays,, p. By helping theorists such as Lasswell, Lippmann, Bernays, and Ellul to understand individuals, Freud was also helping them to understand the public that they aimed to manipulate. He had also read the works of Sigmund Freud and Karl Marx. Following his time at Harvard, Lippmann decided to pursue a career in journalism. He had focused on the study of philosophy at Harvard. By he had dropped out of their graduate program and was ready to pursue a career Steel, Lippmann started his career by working for Lincoln Steffens, writing primarily about socialism and issues on Wall Street Rogers, Following his time with Steffens, Lippmann began work on an elite intellectual magazine known as the New Republic Rogers, Lippmann worked on New Republic for nine years, and as his time there came to an end, he began to publish his most prominent pieces of literature Rogers, It was in this piece that Lippmann first began to develop and explain his theories on the formation of public opinion. Lippmann begins this book by describing a situation in, where a number of Germans, Frenchmen, and Englishmen were trapped on an island. They have no access to media of any kind, except for once every sixty days when the mail comes, alerting them to situations in the real world. Lippmann explains that these people lived in peace on the island, treating each other as friends, when in actuality the war had Page 8

9 broken out and they were enemies Lippmann, Throughout Public Opinion, Lippmann explains the way that our individual opinions can differ from those that are expressed in the outside world. He develops the idea of propaganda, claiming that "In order to conduct propaganda, there must be some barrier between the public and the event" Lippmann,, p. With this separation, there is the ability of the media to manipulate events or present limited information to the public. Lippmann showed how individuals use tools such as stereotypes to form their opinions. Lippmann shows that the public is left with these stereotypical judgments until the media presents limited information to change their perception of an event. Rogers claims that in this way, Lippmann was showing us that " Lippmann recognized that the media was altering the flow of information, by limiting the media content that was presented to the public. Furthermore, Lippmann presents the idea of agenda-setting, as he recognizes that the mass media is the link between individual perceptions of a world, and the world that actually exists Rogers, Phantom Public[ edit ] Phantom Public focused on describing the characteristics of the public itself. Lippmann gives a harsh view of the general public, stating, "The individual man does not have opinions on public affairs I cannot imagine how he could know, and there is not the least reason for thinking, as mystical democrats have thought, that the compounding of individual ignorances in masses of people can produce a continuous directing force in public affairs" p. This book seemed to show that democracy was not truly run by the public, but rather, was being controlled by an educated elite. The public could not be truly well informed, so they were easily convinced to side with an educated minority, while convincing themselves that they were actually in a system of majority rule. Lippmann claims that the book aimed to " It has seemed to me that the public had a function and must have methods of its own in controversies, qualitatively different from those of the executive men" p. Other Writings[ edit ] Lippmann also published a number of other books that dealt primarily with his political thoughts regarding the public. Future Career Path[ edit ] Aside from his major works of literature, Lippmann was perhaps best known for his "Today and Tomorrow" column, which he began publishing in in the New York Herald Tribune Weingast, This column gave Lippmann complete freedom of expression, and the ability to write about such topics as history, government, economics, and philosophy Weingast, Although the column tended to appeal to a limited American audience, it dealt with a wide variety of important issues. Of more importance to communication studies, Lippmann was also given the opportunity to publish and present propaganda in Europe to support the acceptance of the Fourteen Points on an international scale Steel, Other Propaganda Theorists[ edit ] Harold Lasswell [ edit ] As Lippmann was writing propaganda, Harold Lasswell was undertaking empirical analyses of propaganda. In fact, much of the propaganda that Lasswell was examining was actually being written by Lippmann himself Rogers, Harold Lasswell â was a prominent scholar in the area of propaganda research. He focused on conducting both quantitative and qualitative analyses of propaganda, understanding the content of propaganda, and discovering the effect of propaganda on the mass audience Rogers, Lasswell is credited with creating the mass communication procedure of content analysis Rogers, Generally, content analysis can be defined as, " By understanding the content of the message, Lasswell aims to achieve the goal of understanding the "stream of influence that runs from control to content and from content to audience" p. In Propaganda Technique in the World War, Lasswell examined propaganda techniques through a content analysis, and came to some striking conclusions. Furthermore, Lasswell showed that as more people were reached by this propaganda, the war effort would become more effective. The more of these sub-groups he can fire for the War, the more powerful will be the united devotion of the people to the cause of the country, and to the humiliation of the enemy" Lasswell,, p. Page 9

10 Chapter 4 : Propaganda and dictatorship ( edition) Open Library Propaganda and dictatorship: a collection of papers,. as a function of democratic government, by G.E.G a function of democratic government, by G.E.G. Catlin. The Roman Republic At about the same time that popular government was introduced in Greece, it also appeared on the Italian Peninsula in the city of Rome. Like Athens, Rome was originally a city-state. Although it expanded rapidly by conquest and annexation far beyond its original borders to encompass all the Mediterranean world and much of western Europe, its government remained, in its basic features, that of a moderately large city-state. Indeed, throughout the republican era until roughly the end of the first century bc, Roman assemblies were held in the very small Forum at the centre of the city. Although Roman citizenship was conferred by birth, it was also granted by naturalization and by manumission of slaves. As the Roman Republic expanded, it conferred citizenship in varying degrees to many of those within its enlarged boundaries. Despite their reputation for practicality and creativity, and notwithstanding many changes in the structure of Roman government over the course of centuries, the Romans never solved this problem. Two millennia later, the solutionâ electing representatives to a Roman legislature â would seem obvious see below A democratic dilemma. As they adapted to the special features of their society, including its rapidly increasing size, the Romans created a political structure so complex and idiosyncratic that later democratic leaders chose not to emulate it. The Comitia Curiata was composed of 30 curiae, or local groups, drawn from three ancient tribus, or tribes; the Comitia Centuriata consisted of centuries, or military units; the Concilium Plebis was drawn from the ranks of the plebes, or plebeians common people ; and the Comitia Tributa, like the Athenian Assembly, was open to all citizens. In all the assemblies, votes were counted by units centuries or tribes rather than by individuals; thus, insofar as a majority prevailed in voting, it would have been a majority of units, not of citizens. Although they collectively represented all Roman citizens, the assemblies were not sovereign. Throughout the entire period of the republic, the Senate â an institution inherited from the earlier era of the Roman monarchyâ continued to exercise great power. Senators were chosen indirectly by the Comitia Centuriata; during the monarchy, they were drawn exclusively from the privileged patrician class, though later, during the republic, members of certain plebeian families were also admitted. About six centuries later, in northern Italy, some of these entities developed into more or less independent city-states and inaugurated systems of government based on widerâ though not fully popularâ participation and on the election of leaders for limited periods of time. In this respect, their governments may be viewed as small-scale precursors of later representative systems. Such governments flourished for two centuries or more in a number of cities, including Venice, Florence, Siena, and Pisa. Drawing on Latin rather than Greek, the Italians called their city-states republics, not democracies. Because they were more numerous than the upper classes and because they threatened and sometimes carried out violent uprisings, some of these groups were successful. Thus, whether judged by the standards of Classical Greece or those of Europe and the United States in the 18th century and later, the Italian republics were not democracies. Economic decline, corruption, factional disputes, civil wars, and wars with other states led to the weakening of some republican governments and their eventual replacement by authoritarian rulers, whether monarchs, princes, or soldiers. A democratic dilemma The Greeks, the Romans, and the leaders of the Italian republics were pioneers in creating popular governments, and their philosophers and commentators exercised enormous influence on later political thought. Yet their political institutions were not emulated by the later founders of democratic governments in the nation-states of northern Europe and North America. As the expansion of Rome had already demonstrated, these institutions were simply not suited to political associations significantly larger than the city-state. The enormous difference in size between a city-state and a nation-state points to a fundamental dilemma. By limiting the size of a city-state, citizens can in principle, if not always in practice, directly influence the conduct of their governmentâ e. But limiting size comes at a cost: Alternatively, by increasing the size of the Page 10

11 city-stateâ i. Many city-states responded to this dilemma by forming alliances or confederations with other city-states and with larger political associations. But the problem would not finally be solved until the development of representative government, which first appeared in northern Europe in the 18th century. Europe and North America to the 19th century Until the 17th century, democratic theorists and political leaders largely ignored the possibility that a legislature might consist neither of the entire body of citizens, as in Greece and Rome, nor of representatives chosen by and from a tiny oligarchy or hereditary aristocracy, as in the Italian republics. As with many political innovations, representative government resulted less from philosophical speculation than from a search for practical solutions to a fairly self-evident problem. Nevertheless, the complete assimilation of representation into the theory and practice of democracy was still more than a century away. Regional developments Continental Europe About ce, freemen and nobles in various parts of northern continental Europe began to participate directly in local assemblies, to which were later added regional and national assemblies consisting of representatives, some or all of whom came to be elected. In the mountain valleys of the Alps, such assemblies developed into self-governing cantons, leading eventually to the founding of the Swiss Confederation in the 13th century. By, local assemblies of Vikings were meeting in many areas of Scandinavia. Eventually the Vikings realized that to deal with certain larger problems they needed more-inclusive associations, and in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark regional assemblies developed. In Viking descendants in Iceland created the first example of what today would be called a national assembly, legislature, or parliamentâ the Althing see thing. In later centuries, representative institutions also were established in the emerging nation-states of Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland, and the Netherlands. England Among the assemblies created in Europe during the Middle Ages, the one that most profoundly influenced the development of representative government was the English Parliament. Less a product of design than an unintended consequence of opportunistic innovations, Parliament grew out of councils that were called by kings for the purpose of redressing grievances and for exercising judicial functions. In time, Parliament began to deal with important matters of state, notably the raising of revenues needed to support the policies and decisions of the monarch. As its judicial functions were increasingly delegated to courts, it gradually evolved into a legislative body. By the end of the 15th century, the English system displayed some of the basic features of modern parliamentary government: Other important features had yet to be established, however. During the English Civil Wars, led on one side by radical Puritans, the monarchy was abolished and a republic â the Commonwealth â was established, though the monarchy was restored in By about, significant powers, notably including powers related to the appointment and tenure of the prime minister, had shifted to Parliament. This development was strongly influenced by the emergence of political factions in Parliament during the early years of the 18th century. These factions, known as Whigs and Tories, later became full-fledged parties. To king and Parliament alike it became increasingly apparent that laws could not be passed nor taxes raised without the support of a Whig or Tory leader who could muster a majority of votes in the House of Commons. Parliamentary government in Britain was not yet a democratic system, however. Mainly because of property requirements, the franchise was held by only about 5 percent of the British population over 20 years of age. The Reform Act of, which is generally viewed as a historic threshold in the development of parliamentary democracy in Britain, extended the suffrage to about 7 percent of the adult population see Reform Bill. It would require further acts of Parliament in,, and to achieve universal male suffrage and one more law, enacted in, to secure the right to vote for all adult women. The United States Whereas the feasibility of representative government was demonstrated by the development of Parliament, the possibility of joining representation with democracy first became fully evident in the governments of the British colonies of North America and later in the founding of the United States of America. Conditions in colonial America favoured the limited development of a system of representation more broadly based than the one in use in Great Britain. In colonial newspapers there was also a sharp increase in the use of the term Americans to refer to the colonial population. Other factors that helped to create a distinct American identity were the outbreak of war with Britain in and the shared hardships and suffering of Page 11