This begins our comprehensive deep dive into Jacques Ellul's "Propaganda: the Formation of Men's Attitudes," endeavouring to give you back your own actions and thoughts.
Oh, this is good! I am especially intrigued by the orthopraxis over orthodoxy element. Fascinating and makes so much sense in hindsight. Look forward to learning more. Thank you.
I stumbled upon this site recently, via your brilliant "Managerial Christianity," and have been very impressed. Some great content here and I've only just begun to dig into it. It's a drink of fresh water in a salty sea of banality.
I found this episode very interesting but I have questions. Before I ask them, I want to establish that I am a conservative Christian and have never voted Democrat in my life. That said, you seem to be saying that propaganda, in the context of American politics, is something Democrats do and that voting Democrat is evidence that one has been influenced by propaganda. Well and good, but did you intend the implication that Republicans do NOT use propaganda and that voting Republican is not evidence of the same? If so, I struggle to square this with the reality I experience. It seems to me that R and D are two sides of the same coin and that voting at all, at least at the state and national levels, is evidence one is under the influence of propaganda. What do you say?
A further question: how is your own content not also open to the charge of propaganda, especially if you are, in fact, a partisan? Here we are listening, i.e. participating, and feeling like we're a part of something larger than ourselves. But this experience is being curated by you, the host, and the discussion in the comments is not an organic discussion but has been framed and set by the show. It would be easy for us to feel like you, the host, are speaking directly to us. So how does my participation in this particular medium not weaken me and put me in a receptive state, ready to be manipulated, like any other radio show? Or would you accept the charge and argue that propaganda, deriving from the Latin _propagare_ meaning "set forward, extend, spread, increase," is not intrinsically bad but merely a tool and, like any other tool, only becomes good or bad in the way it's used?
I am glad you are being inspired by my writing and it is making you think.
I think you have the gist of propaganda. We should properly think of it not so much as primarily a political phenomenon, but as an integral part of the technological society. The goal is not so much to elect democrats or republicans but to keep people aligned and integrated into the technological society. Propaganda really works at its best when it is aligned with the foundational myths of the technological society. It is this alignment that makes all politics seem the same. To work as mass movements they all have to share its fundamental mythology. Since the idea of "human progress" is one of these core myths, all of these political movements in some way project themselves as the real guardian of progress. Either they are trying to achieve social progress, economic progress, technological or scientific progress. The "meritocracy" is a progressive movement, as is "diversity, equity and inclusion." MAGA is, at its core, about restarting American progress. Even the Nazis were a progressive movement. They were a product of the technological society, moving towards the greatness of the German people but using its older myths as material.
And your observation about using media of mass communication are spot on. I feel the tension constantly. Its a conundrum. Ideally, I would just pull the plug. But that puts us at the mercy of the regime who feels no such problems. We call this the "tank problem." You may think tanks are an evil of the technological society and so are the assembly lines on which they are made, but your neighbouring rival power has not such problems. So you must find a way to stop his tanks and at the same time mitigate the societal trade offs that come from making tanks or whatever will stop them. It is similar with propaganda. As we continue the look through propaganda, Ellul raises the problems that Christians face in regards to propaganda. It is a real dilemma. I could be much more popular and reach a much wider audience saying technological society friendly things. But conscious of its core myths, I try to reach people with a message that runs counter to that which makes the technological society hum, using the tools of that same society. But it is a real conundrum, one not easily resolved, if it is possible at all. This is why I do look at the problem of technology once it gets past a certain inflection point as very similar to the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I spent the day splitting wood and took the opportunity to listen to episodes 18 - 21 of your Christian Ghetto series, which I enjoyed and often found myself in hearty agreement with, so I recognize some of these points. As I continue to think about it, it seems that everything on any screen that isn’t a direct communication to me from someone I know is propaganda of some kind. And not just what’s on the screen but every kind of pseudo-event, as Daniel Boorstin defined it, is someone’s propaganda. It begins to be a question of what _isn’t_ propaganda.
Oh, this is good! I am especially intrigued by the orthopraxis over orthodoxy element. Fascinating and makes so much sense in hindsight. Look forward to learning more. Thank you.
You're welcome! I am looking forward to sharing more from this book in coming pieces.
I stumbled upon this site recently, via your brilliant "Managerial Christianity," and have been very impressed. Some great content here and I've only just begun to dig into it. It's a drink of fresh water in a salty sea of banality.
I found this episode very interesting but I have questions. Before I ask them, I want to establish that I am a conservative Christian and have never voted Democrat in my life. That said, you seem to be saying that propaganda, in the context of American politics, is something Democrats do and that voting Democrat is evidence that one has been influenced by propaganda. Well and good, but did you intend the implication that Republicans do NOT use propaganda and that voting Republican is not evidence of the same? If so, I struggle to square this with the reality I experience. It seems to me that R and D are two sides of the same coin and that voting at all, at least at the state and national levels, is evidence one is under the influence of propaganda. What do you say?
A further question: how is your own content not also open to the charge of propaganda, especially if you are, in fact, a partisan? Here we are listening, i.e. participating, and feeling like we're a part of something larger than ourselves. But this experience is being curated by you, the host, and the discussion in the comments is not an organic discussion but has been framed and set by the show. It would be easy for us to feel like you, the host, are speaking directly to us. So how does my participation in this particular medium not weaken me and put me in a receptive state, ready to be manipulated, like any other radio show? Or would you accept the charge and argue that propaganda, deriving from the Latin _propagare_ meaning "set forward, extend, spread, increase," is not intrinsically bad but merely a tool and, like any other tool, only becomes good or bad in the way it's used?
Keep up the great work! I'll keep tuning in.
I am glad you are being inspired by my writing and it is making you think.
I think you have the gist of propaganda. We should properly think of it not so much as primarily a political phenomenon, but as an integral part of the technological society. The goal is not so much to elect democrats or republicans but to keep people aligned and integrated into the technological society. Propaganda really works at its best when it is aligned with the foundational myths of the technological society. It is this alignment that makes all politics seem the same. To work as mass movements they all have to share its fundamental mythology. Since the idea of "human progress" is one of these core myths, all of these political movements in some way project themselves as the real guardian of progress. Either they are trying to achieve social progress, economic progress, technological or scientific progress. The "meritocracy" is a progressive movement, as is "diversity, equity and inclusion." MAGA is, at its core, about restarting American progress. Even the Nazis were a progressive movement. They were a product of the technological society, moving towards the greatness of the German people but using its older myths as material.
And your observation about using media of mass communication are spot on. I feel the tension constantly. Its a conundrum. Ideally, I would just pull the plug. But that puts us at the mercy of the regime who feels no such problems. We call this the "tank problem." You may think tanks are an evil of the technological society and so are the assembly lines on which they are made, but your neighbouring rival power has not such problems. So you must find a way to stop his tanks and at the same time mitigate the societal trade offs that come from making tanks or whatever will stop them. It is similar with propaganda. As we continue the look through propaganda, Ellul raises the problems that Christians face in regards to propaganda. It is a real dilemma. I could be much more popular and reach a much wider audience saying technological society friendly things. But conscious of its core myths, I try to reach people with a message that runs counter to that which makes the technological society hum, using the tools of that same society. But it is a real conundrum, one not easily resolved, if it is possible at all. This is why I do look at the problem of technology once it gets past a certain inflection point as very similar to the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Hopefully that helps.
Again, thank you for the kind words!
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I spent the day splitting wood and took the opportunity to listen to episodes 18 - 21 of your Christian Ghetto series, which I enjoyed and often found myself in hearty agreement with, so I recognize some of these points. As I continue to think about it, it seems that everything on any screen that isn’t a direct communication to me from someone I know is propaganda of some kind. And not just what’s on the screen but every kind of pseudo-event, as Daniel Boorstin defined it, is someone’s propaganda. It begins to be a question of what _isn’t_ propaganda.
Again, I am glad you are enjoying. There is close to three years worth of content up now, so lots there.
What a beautiful piece! Can't wait for the next one.
Thanks!