Authors: Mickey Huff
by Randal Marlin
Propaganda is in some ways a very modern phenomenon, linked to a highly mediated, technology-dominated environment. But there are enough similarities to past persuasive practices so as to make a historical review valuable in order to understand the phenomenon. Though a universalist perspective incorporating Asian, African, and other historical dimensions would be ideal, we will here be limiting this historical treatment mainly to the development of propaganda, both theory and practice, in the European tradition, starting with ancient Athens and Rome. The goal here is to provide insight into propaganda, not history of propaganda for the sake of such a history. The aim is not to provide a comprehensive catalog of propaganda occurrences through history, but to choose some salient examples that will illustrate the development of the practice through the millennia.
A specialized historical treatment of anything must start by defining its subject matter. The term “propaganda,” as the gerundive of the Latin word
propagare
, meaning “to propagate,” etymologically means things that are to be propagated. The idea is linked to that of dissemination, or “spreading the word.” In that sense, propaganda is morally neutral, since one can disseminate good or bad ideas or messages. However, anyone attuned to customary speech practices in the English language will recognize that the word carries negative connotations. This may reach back to the time the Roman Catholic Church instituted a committee of cardinals and others to form the counter-reformation body known as the
Congregatio de Propaganda Fide, or
Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith. For Catholics such “propaganda” would appear good, for Protestants the reverse. Widespread use of propaganda in World War I, followed by revelations about the deceptions used to support the war, gave the word “propaganda” a very bad connotation. People are likely to think of propaganda in negative terms—as lies, deceptions, evasions, false suggestions, and other
means of bamboozling audiences. In this history, we will be focusing on “propaganda” as a negative term, but the existence of a positive or neutral connotation should be borne in mind, as the etymological meaning still plays a role in contemporary discourse.
Propaganda, negatively construed, involves the conscious use of communication to manipulate audiences. Lying is one way of doing this, but lies are risky because exposure will discredit the liar. To avoid this unwanted outcome, a propagandist will employ many other ways of deceiving audiences. A time-tested one has the Latin labels
suppressio veri
and
suggestio falsi:
here you say things that are true, but you select your truths while suppressing other truths in such a way that a false impression is created. Back in 1909, the British writer G. K. Chesterton put the matter in a rhetorically emphatic way when he wrote that the blackest of all lies is that which is an entire truth, but so selected as to give a false impression.
1
Suppression of key facts, and of historical background, has been the basis of a great deal of propaganda through the ages. In this way, propaganda is very closely related to censorship. Thus, exposure of censorship can tell us a lot about the propaganda motives of the censors.
Suppression of truth is but one among a number of different propaganda strategies, and in the following historical account we will be encountering others, including use of distraction, emotional manipulation, and other means of persuasion. For convenience, we will adopt this working definition of propaganda: “The attempt to shape the thoughts, beliefs, and actions of target audiences in ways that fit ulterior goals of the communicator and can be seen as manipulative because the means used violate proper standards of truthful communication.” Besides lies, unsupported statements recklessly publicized, innuendo, deceptive imagery, a sinister and misleading soundtrack, and many other devices can all fit this definition. The noted French propaganda theorist Jacques Ellul has given a somewhat different, but useful, definition of propaganda as manipulative communication used for the purpose of gaining or maintaining power over others.
2
One of the earliest reported uses of propaganda technique was by Pisistratus
(sixth century BCE), who faked an attack on himself and convinced Athenians to provide him with bodyguards whom he then used to acquire power, eventually becoming tyrant of Athens. The use of staged attacks to support aggression has been repeated in modern times. Before Adolf Hitler attacked Poland in 1939, he staged an attack on Germany, supposedly by Polish soldiers, and claimed his attack was merely a response to Polish aggression. The United States went to war against Vietnam with the adoption of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1964, in response to alleged unprovoked attacks on two US naval vessels in the area, though the evidence in support of this claim was later discredited. In 2000, a document known as “Operation Northwoods” came to light. Submitted to US Secretary of Defense Robert Macnamara, on March 13, 1962, by the US chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Lyman Lemnitzer, it proposed different, sometimes elaborate, false flag scenarios, such as sinking a ship with “real or simulated passengers,” blaming Cuba, and using the incident as a reason to go to war.
3
The term “victim hegemony” has been used to describe the parlaying of sympathy for one’s status as victim into a power grab, though it can apply to genuine as well as simulated victimization.
Pisistratus was expelled from Athens when his enemies united against him, but he later returned with a beautiful, tall woman, dressed in armor, who he presented as the goddess Athena. He successfully regained power while pioneering a long-standing device for gaining allegiance: namely, the suggestion that the leader has support from a deity. During the First and Second World Wars, each side claimed to have the Christian God on its side, with expressions such as
“Gott mit uns,” “Dieu est avec nous,”
or “God is on our side.”
Oratory played was influential in the ancient world, and Pericles had a reputation as an outstanding speaker. His funeral oration on the occasion of the Peloponnesian War in 431 BCE was a model of civic fervor, celebrating the superiority of Athenians over its rivals. In honoring those who gave their lives for Athens, he encouraged others to take up their cause. Funerals, as occasions of great emotion, have continued to be harnessed by political leaders for persuasive effect: in much the same spirit as Pericles, Abraham Lincoln proclaimed, in his Gettysburg Address, that the living should be dedicated to the unfinished
work left behind by the noble people who died for their cause. Honoring the dead tells the living that they too will be greatly honored if they follow a similar path of noble self-sacrifice.
Ancient Greek philosophers thought deeply about techniques of persuasion found mainly in rhetoric, and about the ethical implications of using some of these techniques. Plato understood two important things about rhetorical persuasion. One is that the speaker needs to appeal to preexisting beliefs among a targeted audience. All too often this meant pandering to prejudice, something that Plato decried when it was practiced by the Sophists, who were successful at winning over crowds, but at the cost of reinforcing the ignorance fostered by prejudices. By contrast, Plato’s model Socrates engaged in challenging the prejudices of his interlocutors, and at his trial provoked his juror-judges into calling for his execution. Plato’s description of the trial famously casts Socrates in the role of a martyr for speaking truth to power.
4
Plato’s second observation about rhetoric is that one can deceive people by leading them to accept slightly different wordings for the same thing, and, through a succession of different ostensible equivalences, bring them to a point where they appear to accept the opposite of what they initially believed.
Aristotle’s
Rhetoric
includes a valuable statement of principles of persuasion, as well as some particular tricks to use in debate. Though his observations are transferable to other forms of persuasion besides speech making, given his time—fourth century BCE—his focus was mainly on the verbal. Persuasion, he said, is based on three different things:
ethos
, the character of the speaker;
pathos
, the emotional impact of the speech; and
logos
, the cogency of the argument. As a philosopher, he might have been expected to emphasize the third, but in fact he places greater stress on
ethos
. The speaker wants to be believed, but audiences need to have confidence that the speaker is trustworthy, honest, and knowledgeable. At election time, audiences want to know that the candidate shares their interests and values. The speaker needs to come across as a friend, not as someone aloof and arrogant. In today’s world, efforts are made to discredit opponents by bringing up some misdeed or unpopular vote from the past, or by publicizing pictures suggestive of shadiness or frivolity. Aristotle counseled that
negative character observations should come from someone other than the candidate, who needs to avoid appearing mean.
Aristotle realized that moving people to action requires more than a theoretical statement of things that would be desirable. A speaker needs to engage an audience, and this means paying attention to
pathos
, appealing to appropriate emotions. Among the powerful emotions he cited, fear and anger are at the top of the list. To make people fearful you have to do more than provoke generalized worry; you must persuade them that a particular worrisome thing will happen at a particular time in a particular way. Persuading some group that others are likely to use weapons of mass destruction against them is one way of exciting fear, as was seen in 2002–2003 with the buildup of support for the US-led war against Iraq in 2003. People tend to hate those who show contempt for them, so the orator who wants to harness and instill hate needs merely to portray the targeted person or group as showing such contempt, perhaps with historical reminders of harms they have inflicted in the past. George Orwell’s book
1984
satirically illustrates the use of hatred by political rulers to manipulate subjects with the institution of “Two Minutes Hate,” during which time some object of scorn is presented to the people on a big telescreen.
Finally, in the matter of
logos
, Aristotle advised the rhetorician to tailor the arguments to the audience’s capacity to receive and understand them, counseling against the use of lengthy syllogisms, suggesting simplification and repetition, and, importantly, emphasizing the use of example, especially when it grips the imagination—a tip still true to a large extent today. A recent vivid crime or accident can be exploited rhetorically in order to strengthen police forces or enact safety measures, or to elect politicians whose platforms support those things. Though statistics are more rationally relevant, they may often be defeated in rhetorical force by a well-chosen example. Aristotle also cautioned the speaker to be thoroughly versed in the facts of the matter under discussion. To be exposed as ignorant on some matter, even a minor one, could undermine credibility and cast doubt in an audience’s mind about all the other claims one has made. Conversely, if an opponent makes a factual error, even a minor one, it may be worth calling attention to it to undermine the opponent’s credibility. In today’s world, the stakes are higher in some ways because errors
can be recorded digitally and replayed to the discredit of the speaker long after the mistake was made. In keeping with these principles, Aristotle offered the following practical advice to orators: know your audience; know your subject matter; simplify, to ensure understanding; repeat, so people will remember; maintain attention, maybe by raising one’s voice or gesturing appropriately; get people in the right emotive frame of mind; maintain credibility; emphasize one’s own strong points and downplay one’s weak points, while doing the opposite to the opponent.
Today’s communicative environment is replete with opportunities to illustrate Aristotle’s principles by applying them to media not available in his time. Where Aristotle could talk about the inflection of a speaker’s voice for emotive effect, today video productions can include background music affecting an audience’s mood, sometimes without the latter being conscious of this effect. One can evoke hatred by having eerie or discordant music to accompany portrayal of an enemy. Photographs can be taken out of context for good or bad effect. Facebook users who post silly pictures of themselves to entertain friends may need to consider possible adverse use of such imagery by opponents.
Rhetoric was not the only means of winning people over in the ancient world, nor is it today. Political power could also be enhanced by prestige, or by the demonstrated ability to get things of value done in the people’s interest. Quintus Cicero, brother of the famous orator Marcus Tullius Cicero, successfully advised the latter on how to win the consulship in 63 BCE. Apart from dirty tricks, such as spreading rumors (true or false) about opponents’ vices, he emphasized cultivating some powerful people to give his campaign credibility. He stressed the importance of never giving out-and-out refusals when asked to promise to do something, even though it may seem impossible. The good person will be upfront about such matters, but the good politician will not want to burn bridges to potential supporters, he said. In the spirit of “one never knows” it is better to equivocate than to definitely refuse a request for help.
Augustus Caesar, formerly known as Octavian, had a kind of genius for propaganda. Like his great-uncle, Julius Caesar, he understood the power of victory and spoils for winning Roman allegiance. But he also knew how to avoid antagonizing senators and how to reward poets, who
burnished his image in their writings. Coins with his portrait on the obverse proclaimed his victories on the reverse side, thus disseminating important messages at a time when the means of communication were much more limited than today. In addition to supplying spectacular games, he gained respect with his construction of monuments to deities. Julius Caesar had adopted Augustus as his son in his will, so that when Julius came to be regarded as divine, it allowed Augustus to promote himself as “son of a God.” Augustus ensured that knowledge of his many benefactions would survive his death by constructing elaborate monuments around the Roman Empire, with extensive inscriptions proclaiming his good deeds. He proclaimed himself
Pater Patriae
(“Father of his Country”), having brought unity to Rome following the divisiveness that occurred in the wake of Julius’s assassination. These no doubt contributed to the durability of the Roman Empire itself, with this constant reminder of the benefits of empire.