![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
On The Nature of Propaganda
What is the true essence of what’s called propaganda? From where does the term originate? What is it’s history? Perhaps most importantly, what differentiates it from what we think of as “information”?
Why is information good and propaganda bad? Propaganda can be disguised as information, but can information be disguised in propaganda? What kinds of information can’t be transmitted effectively in propaganda?
I’m wagering the difference has to do with the nature of persuasive speech. Persuasive speech seems designed to compel another person into taking some action. Changing a behavioral pattern, whether it’s on the level of thought, emotion or action. Triggering some set of unexamined assumptions in the viewer and netting them in an implied causal sequence to modulate their behavioral patterns. Something like that, if that’s a little vague maybe. What do you think?
November 13th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
In my interpretation, speech is by nature persuasive. By speaking, you are trying to elicit a certain response from the other person. Every act of communication is an attempt at changing someone’s current understanding of reality to better align with your own. If you thought their understanding was completely the same as yours, you wouldn’t have anything to talk about.
So persuasion is more of a neutral thing, while it is the intent behind the persuasion is what is either good or bad.
On the other hand, the difference between propaganda and information is definitely a good/bad type of thing, so I don’t think that the amount of persuasiveness in the communication is the issue, since persuasiveness itself is inherently a part of both.
I think the difference between the two is their openness to change (death + reformation). Information is presented as truth or the closest possible approximation to truth. If something comes along which contradicts the information, the information is happily revised. It’s an attempt at a description of reality, but reality is of primary importance, not the description.
Propaganda, on the other hand, is an attempt to shape reality, and propagandists can become quite anxious in the face of contradictory evidence. In propaganda, the information is of primary importance, and reality is forced into the constraints of the propaganda system Anything contradictory is discarded.
This is why any system of propaganda will eventually falls apart; by its very existence, it loses touch with the ever-changing nature of reality.
November 13th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
This is my all-time favorite response to that, that the purpose of communication is simply to get the other to respond. Originally put into my mind by a reader of my site
http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2005/08/18/the-purpose-of-communication/
November 13th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
I actually remember reading that one at some point, probably from your random posts widget-thing on the side. I wasn’t much into the blog-o-sphere back in ‘05. That was probably where my comment here sprang from.
What really hit home for me though was the realization that ALL communication is simply a way to try and align someone’s view of reality with your own. With propaganda, this is a one way street, you accept no feedback as far as your own view in concerned. With information, you are just as happy to revise your own view if the situation warrants it. It’s open-source vs closed-source communication-as-programming.
November 13th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
I don’t really agree with that. You can also use communication to celebrate reality with others!
November 13th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
As an example of a form of communication that is probably the least “propagandistic” consider a scientific paper, where it’s traditional to point out the shortcomings of your methodology, conclusion, etc. and call for more research into areas where information is lacking. The stance being taken is tentative and provisional, like saying, “Here’s the relevant information, and here’s my take on it, but I could be wrong, so what do you think?”. In contrast, propaganda presents only one side of the issue, omitting or misrepresenting dissenting views, and discouraging critical thought - in effect saying, “This is the way it is.”
I agree with ian that all forms of communication contain a persuasive element, but there are important differences between the various goals of persuasion. I’d suggest that propaganda seeks to convince someone of a particular view, whereas mere information-presentation implicitly enjoins the target to form their own conclusion.
I’m a bit puzzled, however, by a couple of ian’s statements. On one hand, he says:
If I understand correctly, this seems to imply that information presents a description, or picture, of something called “reality”. To the degree that the information is an accurate picture of reality, it is considered truth. However, it’s possible that our information about reality does not match up to reality itself, and we can notice such a discrepancy, in which case we can revise our information to be more truthful - to more accurately represent “reality”.
But then he goes on to say:
If propaganda is information, then how can it shape reality? I was under the impression, from what you said earlier, that information represents reality, but not vice-versa. Otherwise, if information is shaping reality, then how would we know that our information is incorrect? Information would, in some sense, determine reality. If a propagandist has the ability to shape reality through information, then what do they have to fear from contradictory evidence? Couldn’t they just shape away the contradictions? I’m having trouble understanding how you reconcile the two views - that information determines reality, and yet information is also somehow subservient to reality, in the sense that it can present a false picture of reality.
November 13th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Of related interest to your 3-or-4 part question on marketing is the OODA loop.
Perhaps you’ve heard of it, but I find it’s a really useful tool for understanding how to quickly make a plan and then adjust it just as quickly, utilizing the same process for both. If done repeatedly, I think it’s one of the simplest systems for achieving as accurate a map of reality as possible.
Funny thing is, I just noticed that the OODA loop was created by John Boyd, who was name dropped by Justin Boland on Brainsturbator as the primary inspiration for his stuff on 5GW. John Boyd, and then John Robb, which brings it right back to our other conversation here with Ted… weird.
November 13th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
First of all, Tim:
In that case, what I think you are communicating is: “I feel happy about this, and I want you to know that I feel happy about this, and also that I think you are happy about this to. Does your view of reality align with mine? It does? Let’s share that for a while!” And then each form of communication becomes a reconfirmation of that shared celebration about reality, until the celebration ends or you get sleepy.
It’s the recognition of the alignment between the two views of reality (and the fact that this alignment makes everyone involved happy) that becomes cause for celebration. Even if what you’re celebrating is your mutual acknowledgment of the wondrous unpredictability of reality! =)
And Alec:
Got a little sloppy with my use of the word “information”. Sorry about that.
What I should have said is something more like propaganda is more concerned with the content of the communication, rather than that content’s accuracy in describing reality.
Within the confines of this discussion at least, “Information” places reality before content, whereas “Propaganda” places content before reality. “Propaganda” therefore seeks to cut away any part of reality that does not fit it’s views, while “Information” seeks to include as much of reality as possible.
As far as what I mean by “reality”, that’s totally open to interpretation… =)
November 13th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
ian, thanks for clarifying. I thought we were verging off into “The Secret” land, in which case I’d ask why nobody has created propaganda to directly shape away the reality of say, starvation or HIV.
November 13th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Yeah, but my way of describing it is more concise, poetic and to the point!
November 14th, 2008 at 9:58 am
Oh no doubt.
I just don’t think that your way of describing disagrees with my original way of describing it. I wanted to explain that when I said:
I definitely didn’t want to imply that the simply celebration of reality wasn’t included in this.
November 14th, 2008 at 10:07 am
I don’t think it’s really included. Celebration isn’t really coercive. You *can* look at it that way, but you shouldn’t because it does a disservice to the heart which propels it.
November 14th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Propaganda is lying.
In a given situation people might be acting as dupes and repeat lies they were told as if it were true, but anyway Propaganda being lying, I would say is the easiest way to cut through all the bullshit.
Like for example making up a fake terrorist and making him enemy number One. That would be lying. George Orwell’s 1984
The purpose of these lies are to stay in power and to manipulate the public to do various things.
November 14th, 2008 at 10:42 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_the_Propagation_of_the_Faith
November 14th, 2008 at 11:16 am
No, I agree with you Tim.
What I was trying to point out was that “trying to align someone’s view of reality with your own” does not need to be a coercive act, if your purpose for doing so is to communicate to the other person how you feel and to see how they feel in response. I could just as easily have said “trying to align your own view of reality with someone else’”. There’s no difference in open communication. Of course, this is all based on the acceptance that no one can really already know reality, that everyone needs to constantly recheck what is going on around them.
But maybe that’s not exactly true, or at least, maybe I should say that’s not true-to-life. Constantly feeling that you don’t know what’s going on and having to recheck things sounds like a really paranoid existence to me. We both do and do not understand what’s going on all the time, or we sort of half-understand.
So strike all that. Especially given that link you posted, Tim. What it boils down to is that propaganda is active communication, while information is passive communication. One presents you with drawn conclusions, and the other one forces you to draw your own conclusions. Is that more what you’re trying to get at here?
November 14th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Propaganda is lying. What’s wrong with that?
Too unsophisticated sounding?
November 14th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Nothing wrong with that. It’s a short simple little catch phrase. But it does very little to explain how to differentiate between the two.
You could think I’m 8 feet tall. You could say that. That would be a lie, since I’m only 5′10″, but you don’t know that. If someone unknowingly tells a lie, is it propaganda?
What about if someone makes a statement about something unprovable? I say that there are angels living on Saturn, and that we should worship them. That they talk to me personally and that you should all give me money so that I can continue to tell you what they say. Perhaps I believe that to be entirely true. But the more I try and convince people of that, the more propaganda I am putting out there. But to me, it’s the complete truth, I do not think I am lying at all.
November 14th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Lies that are told by people in authority to cover up crimes.
How’s that?
I mean the Saturn thing, is like meaningless. Propaganda serves a purpose.
November 14th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
But propaganda is so much more than this. What if the people who tell them do not believe that they are lies? What if they think they are telling truths?
Also, can propaganda (as lies) ever be used to reveal a greater truth (i’m think of something along the lines of Zen koans here)?
guess the main problem I have with this is that truth and lies are sort of relative terms. In actual daily life, it’s not so hard, since we all have our truths that we use to weigh outside things act accordingly.
But as far as coming up with working definitions of “information” and “propaganda” that take into account multiple scenarios, I do not think that “propanga is lies” or even “Propaganda is lies that are told by people in authority to cover up crimes” are particularly useful definitions, as they so much left unsaid.
Anyway, I don’t want to argue the point any more, as it really depends on the reasons for trying to define these words. If you are looking for one result, one definition will seem right, if you are looking for another result, a different definition will. I guess it’s all propaganda (from my way of looking at it), in the end…