Rebecca's Thoughts

Propaganda is a tool that members in a society can use to sway an audience to act and believe in a specific way. For the purpose of this paper, propaganda is anything used to influence people towards a particular belief, ideology, or idea. Due to the broad nature of propaganda, and the idea that it could literally be everywhere, different types of propaganda can be used to fit a particular need that individuals (or groups) may have. This idea leads to the two types of propaganda that will be discussed in this paper: traditional and sociological.

In the Jowett and O’Donnell reading we see that their definition of propaganda is much more traditional and reliant on communication as a focus. “Propaganda is the deliberate and systematic attempt to shape perception, manipulate cognitions, and direct behaviour to achieve a response that furthers desired intent of the propagandist.[1]” This definition is inherently top-down in nature, as it is deliberate in its actions. The reading further discusses the implications of this as being methodical and precise actions carried out by a government department or institution[2]. This department or institutions job would then be to affect the behaviour of a population by changing or re-affirming their actions in a formal setting. The reading goes on to regard propaganda as a means of “shaping perception” through language and images[3]. This makes traditional propaganda more tangible as people can look at something physical and see that this thing is clearly trying to influence me and my beliefs. This differs from sociological propaganda, to be further discussed, as it is more concerned and focused on influencing people’s feelings, attitudes, and beliefs on a more metaphysical level and often through unintentional means. Jowett and O’Donnell see the idea of “shaping perception” as being unambiguous in its intent. The government wants people to believe in x, y, and z, so they will tell people to believe in those things. The reading goes onto say that one way institutions get people to believe in things is through cognitive actions. People believe in their senses and their perception is influenced by what they see and hear. If people are told that something is good (the reading uses the example of the Persian Gulf War) than people are more likely to believe that it is good.[4]

Sociological propaganda, on the other hand, is explored more through the Ellul reading and the more abstract influences people experience in society. Ellul discusses this as being an “influence [that] aims much more at an entire style of life or even one particular course of behaviour[5].” The definition provided by Ellul, much like this style or propaganda, is much more subtle and broad then the one provided for traditional propaganda. In the reading Ellul goes onto say that this style of propaganda isn’t expressed through catch words or even provided by institutions, rather is it based on the societal climate of a given place and can influence people unknowingly and through “unconscious habits[6].” This makes sociological propaganda more abstract and expansive, often to its determent, as there is no guarantee that it will work. This also means that everyday people can act as propagandists without the backing of formal institutions. Additionally, people often aren’t aware that they are acting as propagandists in a given situation. There is also a degree of spontaneity attached to this type of propaganda. The intent of a piece of media may not be to spread propaganda, but as it is formed from “unconscious habits” a message, theme, or ideology may present itself to a group and act like propaganda. This may not be done deliberately or with the intent of making propaganda, but Ellul sees this as being able to modify political, phycological, and sociological climates by introducing new attitudes and ideas in society, in turn, making these groups/people more susceptible to more traditional forms of propaganda[7].

Traditional propaganda is something that is more historically prevalent and probably one of the most recognizable forms of propaganda. This category covers things like posters and movies and are things that people would see and recognize as propaganda.  Due to its more ‘traditional’ nature, this type of propaganda was used during more analogue times as it was easy to make and share physical propaganda like posters or pamphlets. With the rise of the internet and social media, sociological propaganda has been easier to make, share, and see. People have more access to things like pictures, videos, and text that could be conducive to sociological propaganda. The internet and social media have also brought different thoughts and ideas to the forefront that people are able to learn and adopt whatever they please. On the other hand, the internet isn’t the most nuanced place, especially social media where nuance doesn’t seem to exist, and debates are just shouting matches. Because of this problem it would seem like this could hinder sociological propaganda in favour of the more striking, in-your-face nature of traditional propaganda.   

Both traditional and sociological propaganda have their deficiencies. Something that can be experienced in both forms of propaganda is the idea that people have to “buy into” it. If people don’t believe what someone is selling, then the propaganda isn’t going to work. Therefore, people in positions of authority are often the propagandists as they have some degree of credibility and people are more likely to believe what they say or make. If the leader of a country says something, than people are more likely to believe them over some random person on a street corner. This is something often attributed to traditional propaganda, as it has the intention to tell a message, but it can also apply to sociological propaganda in much the same way. If there are two movies with the same message but one of them has a hundred million dollar budget and the other is some movie a guy made in his garage, then one will have more “authority” than the other. People are more likely to see the large budget and its message is more likely to spread. This could be because the large budget movie is more readily available to see, making it more accessible, or because its more appealing to the masses. People are also more likely to take that movie more seriously, and take away more of the messaging away from it. This is often the difference between horizontal and vertical propaganda, two things Ellul talks about, but even horizontal propaganda requires some kind of “in group” that makes decisions or has the beliefs/ideology to be instilled.  

Traditional propaganda runs into issues when trying to figure out what is considered propaganda and what isn’t. Things like education and advertising can appear to be propagandistic with out the intension of being propaganda. This blurs the lines between intent and outcome. This only get more complicated when things like education and advertising are being used for propagandic purposes. This also sparks conversations around when is it alright for propaganda to occur, and what should be propaganda. Somethings are inherently propagandic in nature, like education. In education systems, curriculum is curated, and things are deemed important to learn. The selectiveness of education makes it so some things are learned and discussed over others essentially telling people that this thing is the most important. Additionally, the people who write the curriculum also have biases and may choose some issues over others. Other things like advertising can also be propaganda and convince people of issues and beliefs. Something like Coke v. Pepsi, or Apple v. Microsoft commercials can convince an individual that one product is inferior to another, propagating a set of beliefs that get shared and instilled within society. This example is pretty much harmless, no nefarious ideas are being shared and its not to the determent of one group, but it can still be considered propaganda or at least very compelling marketing. Things like advertising and education, although at time may seem like propaganda, can still be distinguished from traditional (or sociological) propaganda but the line is definitely blurred. 

Sociological propaganda runs into the opposite issue. If people don’t know that something is propaganda or if it is too vague then people may not react or interact with it in a substantial manner. Additionally, sociological propaganda can run into problems if the idea, feeling, or belief is too expansive, as it may lose its message or warp into something different and possibly contradictory. Something that both forms of propaganda struggle with is messaging. Both of these forms require the message to be easy to understand, and summarized in a way where there is little room for interpretation. Despite being a commonly shared issue, it impacts both in different ways. For traditional propaganda the message has to be easy enough to understand and function at the lowest common denominator, but also support often complex ideas that may become oversimplified. Sociological propaganda, on the other hand, may mean nothing in the long run as it is “unconscious” and often unintentional. If something is unintentionally propaganda, it may not have a cohesive or an easy-to-understand message. This can make it difficult to follow as it may become convoluted in nature and evolve in its meaning. Additionally, it may also affect people differently and attach itself to different beliefs and ideas.  An example of this could be people reacting to a piece of sociological propaganda negatively (i.e., acting opposite to the meaning, counter-culture), or by adopting it to support what it is satirizing, opposing, or critiquing (i.e., movies that make fun of, or critiquing a group of people getting adopted by them).   Defining propaganda is a difficult task that requires nuance and an understanding of social happenings, government positions, and communication. This is largely due to the idea that propaganda reflects the beliefs and furthers ideas perpetuated by the government, social groups, or individuals. This is usually done to further an agenda or ideology that a group wants to instill in another group of people. This isn’t necessary always a bad thing, but rather is a tool groups can use to further messaging towards a receptive or targeted audience. This also effects the way propaganda is delivered and who it is delivered to, as anyone can be a propagandist and the act isn’t confined to formal institutions.

[1] Jowett, Garth and Victoria O’Donnell. “What is Propaganda and How Does it Differ From Persuasion.” In Propaganda and Persuasion, 2nd Edition, 1-35. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1992.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ellul, Jacques. “Categories of Propaganda.” In Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes, trans. Konrad Kellen and Jean Lerner, 61 – 87. New York, Knopf, 1965.

[6] Ellul, Jacques. “Categories of Propaganda.” In Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes, trans. Konrad Kellen and Jean Lerner, 61 – 87. New York, Knopf, 1965.

[7] Ibid.