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.
Great summary of a great book. "Propaganda" is a life-changing read. It was written based on his experiences in WW2, and was thus based on propaganda using pre-computer technology. Now with social media, smartphones, learning machines, smartwatches, internet profiles and all the rest, take anything Ellul says about the effectiveness of propaganda and multiply it by 100.
Covid stands as the ultimate testament to its power. A virus that killed few, a vaccine that saved none, masks that helped nothing, lockdowns that harmed more than helped, yet all was executed without trouble by a compliant populace - Worldwide.
Here's my propagandized brain talking, perhaps trying to subconsciously justify past actions: is propoganda always bad? Granted, it's usually bad, but the idea that people need to share common beliefs to create a functional society seems almost like a tautology. I guess I'm trying to draw a distinction between the medium (propaganda) and the message (secular consumerism/covidian nonsense/hyper-patriotism). Can propoganda ever be used for good? And to get religious about it: could Christ's teachings be considered propaganda?
We are going to get to some of those questions. It really comes down to the question of whether the message is shared on human levels and emerges organically or is it something artificial, abstracted, rationalized and technologized. Ellul would argue that propaganda is a form of violence against the spirit. It might be "necessary" in regards to the technological society, but that does not make it a good. Ellul specifically says that the use of propaganda destroys the Christian faith. We will get more into that in later pieces.
The medium is the message, or rather, as a technology, and a violent one at that, propaganda carries with it it's own effects and biases for lack of a better term. You can certainly do, and it may be neccesarry to in this current juncture, but you do not foster the good life among the people with it,.certainly not the trie Christian life, the way of the Cross. This is because propaganda functions on the promise of an easier,.more prosperous life. Just do this one little thing and you'll do well, that type of deal.
Christianity for Propaganda already exists, it's called the Prosperity Gospel.
This series has been very eye-opening! Thank you for sharing it. I am especially thankful to gain some understanding of the dynamics behind, otherwise rational, peoples' support of ideas that are totally ridiculous. Drawing on the ancient voices of wisdom, my working theory has been that this sort of behavior starts with some prior moral failure. Like going against one's better judgment or knowingly choosing an action, something others in a group one desires to be a part of do, even though it bothers one's conscience. Then, without repentance, one finds himself on a slippery slope where a series of similar actions make “...propaganda’s effects irreversible."
Yes, that is pretty much how it works. You generally act first and then justify your actions. So, yes, repentance would be an integral part of breaking free from propaganda. That is an excellent insight.
I got chased up and down grocery store isles for not wearing a mask; some wouldn’t check me out at the register, one woman said I was killing her grandma . I almost hated all who wore a mask, even those who said they only did it to keep people off their backs. But if propaganda is this replete then I feel a little more sorry for them….but not that much.
I just stated the technical society. Fascinating, thank you!
We will get into this in subsequent pieces. Good propaganda is about selection and framing. Or if you are going to actually lie, use lots of statistics.
Thanks, and I look forward to reading more. But taking your comment to its logical conclusion, you're calling for a complete dissolution of our society. If propoganda is necessary to maintain our society and propoganda is bad, then our society is bad. Which is true, of course: our society is bad. And it is dissolving. I guess I'm just wishing there was a way to bring society back from the brink without the suffering inherent in everything falling apart. To "use propaganda for good!" And yes, I know that's what every propagandist has thought they were doing, at least at the beginning. Perhaps it isn't possible, or if it is possible whatever is used wouldn't fit under the heading of propaganda. As always, I suppose it's best to trust the Lord and hope.
The key to understanding technology, and with it propaganda, is that it is ambivalent. It does not care. It will have good effects and bad effects and they come together. Every gain comes with a trade off. One of the tradeoffs to the benefits we receive from the technological society is we are subjected to all encompassing -- totalizing -- propaganda. The proper question is, are the benefits worth the costs. And since often we see that benefits are front loaded and the negative trade offs are experienced later, we are experiencing the negative effects of benefits that were likely already realized a generation or more ago.
I am so pleased that you have set out to address this crucial subject of propaganda. I look forward to a better understanding in the fullness of your future writing on this topic. That said, I want to ask some basic what, when and who questions:
What distinguishes propaganda in a technological society from stories that pre-modern people had about the nature of their world?
When can we say technological society began? (Industrial revolution? Mass communication from the printing press?)
Who is the propagandist?
You say that a propagandist is separated from the propagandee, always on the other side of the machine, protected by this knowledge that he is the operator.
I can think of few examples of self-aware propagandists outside of advertisers, agents of national intelligence conducting active measures, possibly certain journalists. If the one on the side of the machine fully believes his exhortation to action has the separation collapsed?
Pervious societies have done propaganda, but not to the extent that it is done today. They used it is some ways in Roman society, but not with level of technical sophistication that we do today, nor was it all encompassing. But in some sense the same social intent was there. Think of the circuses. Also the way that emperors would be projected in statuary.
The propagandist is akin to the social engineer who believes himself above society and not subject to the forces that shape society. They believe they are in a privileged position to fix society. It is similar to the way that white liberals don't really see themselves as "white." But yet, because he has hidden this from himself, the propagandist, by doing propaganda, has made himself part of the machine. He loses his humanity, even if aware that he is making propaganda. Perhaps more so if he realizes what he is and continues.
What separates propaganda from normal enculturation is its artificiality. It takes normal, organic, embedded knowledge, the kind shared person to person as in say an apprenticeship, and abstracts it, rationalizes and systematizes it. It takes the material of a living culture and uses it as a means of social manipulation and control. Ellul would place the transition somewhere in the 1700's, but we could probably go back to the introduction of the printing press as the real catalyst that begins the process. Certainly by the time of the revolutionary period, the industrial revolution and the introduction of the newspaper you are now within the context of a society that is massifying and well on its way to becoming the technological society. Propaganda is an integral part of making that transition happen.
Hope that helps! Glad you are looking forward to subsequent pieces.
Great summary of a great book. "Propaganda" is a life-changing read. It was written based on his experiences in WW2, and was thus based on propaganda using pre-computer technology. Now with social media, smartphones, learning machines, smartwatches, internet profiles and all the rest, take anything Ellul says about the effectiveness of propaganda and multiply it by 100.
Covid stands as the ultimate testament to its power. A virus that killed few, a vaccine that saved none, masks that helped nothing, lockdowns that harmed more than helped, yet all was executed without trouble by a compliant populace - Worldwide.
Exactly. And there is a lot more to come in our look into this work.
Here's my propagandized brain talking, perhaps trying to subconsciously justify past actions: is propoganda always bad? Granted, it's usually bad, but the idea that people need to share common beliefs to create a functional society seems almost like a tautology. I guess I'm trying to draw a distinction between the medium (propaganda) and the message (secular consumerism/covidian nonsense/hyper-patriotism). Can propoganda ever be used for good? And to get religious about it: could Christ's teachings be considered propaganda?
We are going to get to some of those questions. It really comes down to the question of whether the message is shared on human levels and emerges organically or is it something artificial, abstracted, rationalized and technologized. Ellul would argue that propaganda is a form of violence against the spirit. It might be "necessary" in regards to the technological society, but that does not make it a good. Ellul specifically says that the use of propaganda destroys the Christian faith. We will get more into that in later pieces.
The medium is the message, or rather, as a technology, and a violent one at that, propaganda carries with it it's own effects and biases for lack of a better term. You can certainly do, and it may be neccesarry to in this current juncture, but you do not foster the good life among the people with it,.certainly not the trie Christian life, the way of the Cross. This is because propaganda functions on the promise of an easier,.more prosperous life. Just do this one little thing and you'll do well, that type of deal.
Christianity for Propaganda already exists, it's called the Prosperity Gospel.
Good call on the prosperity gospel.
This series has been very eye-opening! Thank you for sharing it. I am especially thankful to gain some understanding of the dynamics behind, otherwise rational, peoples' support of ideas that are totally ridiculous. Drawing on the ancient voices of wisdom, my working theory has been that this sort of behavior starts with some prior moral failure. Like going against one's better judgment or knowingly choosing an action, something others in a group one desires to be a part of do, even though it bothers one's conscience. Then, without repentance, one finds himself on a slippery slope where a series of similar actions make “...propaganda’s effects irreversible."
Really good stuff. Thank you!
Yes, that is pretty much how it works. You generally act first and then justify your actions. So, yes, repentance would be an integral part of breaking free from propaganda. That is an excellent insight.
I got chased up and down grocery store isles for not wearing a mask; some wouldn’t check me out at the register, one woman said I was killing her grandma . I almost hated all who wore a mask, even those who said they only did it to keep people off their backs. But if propaganda is this replete then I feel a little more sorry for them….but not that much.
I just stated the technical society. Fascinating, thank you!
Your welcome!
Reminds me of an old Moldbug comment that people falsely believe propaganda is not true. But the bulk of it IS true, and manipulates thusly.
We will get into this in subsequent pieces. Good propaganda is about selection and framing. Or if you are going to actually lie, use lots of statistics.
♥️☀️☮️🌈🏁🥳🏆🐛🦋
Time for me to get back to reading Propaganda and then come and read this.
There is more coming!
Thanks, and I look forward to reading more. But taking your comment to its logical conclusion, you're calling for a complete dissolution of our society. If propoganda is necessary to maintain our society and propoganda is bad, then our society is bad. Which is true, of course: our society is bad. And it is dissolving. I guess I'm just wishing there was a way to bring society back from the brink without the suffering inherent in everything falling apart. To "use propaganda for good!" And yes, I know that's what every propagandist has thought they were doing, at least at the beginning. Perhaps it isn't possible, or if it is possible whatever is used wouldn't fit under the heading of propaganda. As always, I suppose it's best to trust the Lord and hope.
The key to understanding technology, and with it propaganda, is that it is ambivalent. It does not care. It will have good effects and bad effects and they come together. Every gain comes with a trade off. One of the tradeoffs to the benefits we receive from the technological society is we are subjected to all encompassing -- totalizing -- propaganda. The proper question is, are the benefits worth the costs. And since often we see that benefits are front loaded and the negative trade offs are experienced later, we are experiencing the negative effects of benefits that were likely already realized a generation or more ago.
I am so pleased that you have set out to address this crucial subject of propaganda. I look forward to a better understanding in the fullness of your future writing on this topic. That said, I want to ask some basic what, when and who questions:
What distinguishes propaganda in a technological society from stories that pre-modern people had about the nature of their world?
When can we say technological society began? (Industrial revolution? Mass communication from the printing press?)
Who is the propagandist?
You say that a propagandist is separated from the propagandee, always on the other side of the machine, protected by this knowledge that he is the operator.
I can think of few examples of self-aware propagandists outside of advertisers, agents of national intelligence conducting active measures, possibly certain journalists. If the one on the side of the machine fully believes his exhortation to action has the separation collapsed?
Pervious societies have done propaganda, but not to the extent that it is done today. They used it is some ways in Roman society, but not with level of technical sophistication that we do today, nor was it all encompassing. But in some sense the same social intent was there. Think of the circuses. Also the way that emperors would be projected in statuary.
The propagandist is akin to the social engineer who believes himself above society and not subject to the forces that shape society. They believe they are in a privileged position to fix society. It is similar to the way that white liberals don't really see themselves as "white." But yet, because he has hidden this from himself, the propagandist, by doing propaganda, has made himself part of the machine. He loses his humanity, even if aware that he is making propaganda. Perhaps more so if he realizes what he is and continues.
What separates propaganda from normal enculturation is its artificiality. It takes normal, organic, embedded knowledge, the kind shared person to person as in say an apprenticeship, and abstracts it, rationalizes and systematizes it. It takes the material of a living culture and uses it as a means of social manipulation and control. Ellul would place the transition somewhere in the 1700's, but we could probably go back to the introduction of the printing press as the real catalyst that begins the process. Certainly by the time of the revolutionary period, the industrial revolution and the introduction of the newspaper you are now within the context of a society that is massifying and well on its way to becoming the technological society. Propaganda is an integral part of making that transition happen.
Hope that helps! Glad you are looking forward to subsequent pieces.
Your response was enlightening and clarifying for me. Greatly appreciated!
You’re welcome!
Thanks!