Edited by Samuel George Gaze, Monday, 19 Jun 2023, 08:08
In 1928, public relations counsel Edward Bernays believed so. And his book, Propaganda, is just as relevant today...
A few months ago, I was forced to
become aware of PRIME. Astonishingly, primary school children in the UK are obsessed
with a coconut water energy drink that can cost up to £12.00 per bottle. Their
parents and teachers are bemused and frustrated, how can children be using a whole
week’s pocket money on a drink? It kind of took my breath away to be reminded how defenceless kids can be in the face of the simplest marketing ploy. But though we might feel confident
we would never part with so much money for such a fleeting pleasure, or even
the status boost that comes from owning one of the “rare” flavours, if we’re honest,
are we any different?
“In making up its mind, [the people’s]
first impulse is usually to follow the example of a trusted leader… [and if
one] is not at hand, it does so by means of clichés…”
It's no secret that kids are unaware of
the value of money – but when it comes to establishing what they want, their
brains are simply following a pattern they will continue to follow into
adulthood, the same path our brains make for us. They are just following their
leaders; streamers that the TikTok algorithm presents them with. And when we
want answers to make up our mind, we turn similarly to people and media sources
we like and trust. We like to think that we are better at recognizing who to
trust, but the reality according to Edward Bernays is that our minds have been
made up by the forces of propaganda for so long, we do not even recognise it.
Bernays’ Propaganda was written in
1928, but even so, it feels absolutely fresh. Though he describes pre-war American
society and its cast of characters from hyped-up businessmen, dishonest
politicos, media moguls, and herds of voter/consumers, desperate for new products
and fashions, it feels like its our world. This is because the forces of
mediatized mass culture and hyper-productive capitalism that he recognized, and
helped to develop, form our world in the same way as his.
“In theory, every citizen makes
up his mind on public questions… in practice, if everyone had to study for
themselves the abstruse economic, political, and ethical data involved… they would
find it impossible to come to a conclusion. We have voluntarily agreed to let
an invisible government sift the data… so that our field of choice shall be
narrowed to practical proportions.”
In Bernays’ view, allowing
propaganda to mould our minds is no bad thing. He makes a psychological
argument; the modern world is just too complex, too chaotic for anyone to truly
understand it, so we let trusted people make sense of it for us and make our choices
simpler. Apple or Android. Coke or Pepsi. Left wing or right. In fact, he
argues that propaganda is essential to preserving the social order in
democracies.
I found the fact he is so outspoken
about this “invisible government” shaping our societies both refreshing aland uncomfortable, especially since he apparently thought about himself as one of
those invisible governors. But is it really true?
Perhaps an example might be useful.
Back in about 2010, I remember reading an article in some newspaper glossy
magazine by a technology editor about how much better Apple operating systems
and computers were than Microsoft. Microsoft had been the biggest tech company for
more than a decade at the time; Windows was on everyone’s computer. However, by
the end of 2010, Apple had released the iPad and taken the title.
How did so many people, so quickly,
become aware of Apple’s products, take a positive view of them, and start using
them? The answer is of course propaganda; not just the classic advertising
campaigns comparing Mac and PC users, but also puff pieces by “independent”
technology editors in glossy magazines, and whoever sold iPads and their apps
to businesses and state organizations. That is to say, the invisible governors.
“Only through the wise use of
propaganda will our government… be able to maintain that intimate relationship
with the public which is necessary in a democracy. The function of the propagandist
is… [to] interpret the people to the government, and the government to the
people.”
Few people would argue that the rebirth
of Apple was a truly bad thing. And that is Bernays’ main argument – the invisible
governors are, for the most part, benign. This is because in Bernays’ mind, the
practice of propaganda is not a one-way street. When it comes to products and
politics, the public relations experts are looking out for the good of the greater
number, because that’s what butters their bread. They are useful to business
and politics only if the PR expert can keep the customers buying and the voters
on their side. The job of PR experts is essentially to make people feel good,
or at least provide the hope of something better.
Even Bernays admits this is a patronising picture. But is there any other option? People will not willingly return to the
days before mass media and mass politics, limiting the scope of their
information diet to a few local friends, the parish priest, and whatever the
stall owners say is in fashion. And in the century leading up to Bernays,
ordinary people had just fought a battle to gain some say in national political
affairs, even if it was just a binary choice of parties. They weren’t going to give
up that sense of control.
If our world comes to us through media,
through newspapers, radio, television, and now the internet, then our beliefs
and opinions about it also conform to how these sources present it. And we may have
good instincts about who to trust – but we shouldn’t fool ourselves that what
we believe is our “personal” or “authentic” opinion.
“…today, because ideas can be
transmitted instantly to any distance or number of people, persons having the
same ideas and interests may be associated and regimented for common action
even though they live thousands of miles apart.”
In fact, I think one of Bernays’
most important arguments is that propaganda allows co-operation. If we all had
unique, individual opinions on what must be done, then we would all inevitably
be at odds with each other, a battle royale of decision making in which no-one
is happy. Co-operation means having some kind of consensus, and that means
ignoring a great deal of minority opinions. This image of propaganda is not one of a
shouting loudspeaker, or even a slimy salesman, but a magnet that attracts us
towards a common social order.
If indeed, propaganda is
inevitable, then question to ask about any statement of fact or opinion is,
whose interests does it serve? In this Bernays continues to argue that the
interests of business, politics, and the people can align; in fact, a good
propagandist is someone who attempts to align them.
The most obvious critique of this
is that propaganda isn’t cheap. If you want to buy campaign ads, run a
profitable media outlet, or promote your products, you are going to need cash –
and since money is a competitive resource, there will always be someone with
more cash to reach more people, and employ better PR experts to run their
publicity. In short, money talks; and if 1% of people in the country have 50%
of the wealth, then that is a lot more free speech than the average person is
entitled to. The interests of the less-than-wealthy are then likely to be ignored.
“Furthermore… the utilities are
always fair game for public discontent… these and other corporations of
semi-public character will always face demands for government or municipal ownership.
The public relations counsel should anticipate such trends of public opinion
and advise on how to avert them…”
Bernays doesn’t really admit this.
He is actually bemused by how politicians seem to miss easy opportunities to
gain mass support by adopting and then delivering on popular policies. Whether
he is naïve to this or not is difficult to tell, but he never seems to question
why a politician might make a promise and then not deliver it because it
did not align with the interests of his richest and most charitable constituents.
Reading Propaganda in its historic
context gives us the most troubling perspective. He lived in a confident new America that was pushing
the boundaries of human luxury and comfort on a mass scale. But just the year
after its publication, it went through the worst economic crisis in our
historical memory, the Great Depression. After that, the new masters of
propaganda and mass psychology, the Fascists and Nazis, rose to power and led
the world into the abyss. With Goebbels, the term propaganda could not have had
a worse public relations representative, and now the term is associated with the most
abhorrent kind of dishonest, hateful rhetoric; completely undermining Bernays' claim that propaganda was in service of a mostly benign authority.
Bernays had already tried to rehabilitate
the term after its questionable use in fomenting the first world war. It
certainly couldn’t survive a second. However, that does not mean propaganda has
gone away – appropriately, it simply became called something else. As Bernays
called it, public relations – or as it is academically known, under the stale euphemism: “mass communication.”
No-one would argue that we don’t live
in a mass communication society, now, would they?
Do we live in a propaganda society?
In 1928, public relations counsel Edward Bernays believed so. And his book, Propaganda, is just as relevant today...
A few months ago, I was forced to become aware of PRIME. Astonishingly, primary school children in the UK are obsessed with a coconut water energy drink that can cost up to £12.00 per bottle. Their parents and teachers are bemused and frustrated, how can children be using a whole week’s pocket money on a drink? It kind of took my breath away to be reminded how defenceless kids can be in the face of the simplest marketing ploy. But though we might feel confident we would never part with so much money for such a fleeting pleasure, or even the status boost that comes from owning one of the “rare” flavours, if we’re honest, are we any different?
“In making up its mind, [the people’s] first impulse is usually to follow the example of a trusted leader… [and if one] is not at hand, it does so by means of clichés…”
It's no secret that kids are unaware of the value of money – but when it comes to establishing what they want, their brains are simply following a pattern they will continue to follow into adulthood, the same path our brains make for us. They are just following their leaders; streamers that the TikTok algorithm presents them with. And when we want answers to make up our mind, we turn similarly to people and media sources we like and trust. We like to think that we are better at recognizing who to trust, but the reality according to Edward Bernays is that our minds have been made up by the forces of propaganda for so long, we do not even recognise it.
Bernays’ Propaganda was written in 1928, but even so, it feels absolutely fresh. Though he describes pre-war American society and its cast of characters from hyped-up businessmen, dishonest politicos, media moguls, and herds of voter/consumers, desperate for new products and fashions, it feels like its our world. This is because the forces of mediatized mass culture and hyper-productive capitalism that he recognized, and helped to develop, form our world in the same way as his.
“In theory, every citizen makes up his mind on public questions… in practice, if everyone had to study for themselves the abstruse economic, political, and ethical data involved… they would find it impossible to come to a conclusion. We have voluntarily agreed to let an invisible government sift the data… so that our field of choice shall be narrowed to practical proportions.”
In Bernays’ view, allowing propaganda to mould our minds is no bad thing. He makes a psychological argument; the modern world is just too complex, too chaotic for anyone to truly understand it, so we let trusted people make sense of it for us and make our choices simpler. Apple or Android. Coke or Pepsi. Left wing or right. In fact, he argues that propaganda is essential to preserving the social order in democracies.
I found the fact he is so outspoken about this “invisible government” shaping our societies both refreshing aland uncomfortable, especially since he apparently thought about himself as one of those invisible governors. But is it really true?
Perhaps an example might be useful. Back in about 2010, I remember reading an article in some newspaper glossy magazine by a technology editor about how much better Apple operating systems and computers were than Microsoft. Microsoft had been the biggest tech company for more than a decade at the time; Windows was on everyone’s computer. However, by the end of 2010, Apple had released the iPad and taken the title.
How did so many people, so quickly, become aware of Apple’s products, take a positive view of them, and start using them? The answer is of course propaganda; not just the classic advertising campaigns comparing Mac and PC users, but also puff pieces by “independent” technology editors in glossy magazines, and whoever sold iPads and their apps to businesses and state organizations. That is to say, the invisible governors.
“Only through the wise use of propaganda will our government… be able to maintain that intimate relationship with the public which is necessary in a democracy. The function of the propagandist is… [to] interpret the people to the government, and the government to the people.”
Few people would argue that the rebirth of Apple was a truly bad thing. And that is Bernays’ main argument – the invisible governors are, for the most part, benign. This is because in Bernays’ mind, the practice of propaganda is not a one-way street. When it comes to products and politics, the public relations experts are looking out for the good of the greater number, because that’s what butters their bread. They are useful to business and politics only if the PR expert can keep the customers buying and the voters on their side. The job of PR experts is essentially to make people feel good, or at least provide the hope of something better.
Even Bernays admits this is a patronising picture. But is there any other option? People will not willingly return to the days before mass media and mass politics, limiting the scope of their information diet to a few local friends, the parish priest, and whatever the stall owners say is in fashion. And in the century leading up to Bernays, ordinary people had just fought a battle to gain some say in national political affairs, even if it was just a binary choice of parties. They weren’t going to give up that sense of control.
If our world comes to us through media, through newspapers, radio, television, and now the internet, then our beliefs and opinions about it also conform to how these sources present it. And we may have good instincts about who to trust – but we shouldn’t fool ourselves that what we believe is our “personal” or “authentic” opinion.
“…today, because ideas can be transmitted instantly to any distance or number of people, persons having the same ideas and interests may be associated and regimented for common action even though they live thousands of miles apart.”
In fact, I think one of Bernays’ most important arguments is that propaganda allows co-operation. If we all had unique, individual opinions on what must be done, then we would all inevitably be at odds with each other, a battle royale of decision making in which no-one is happy. Co-operation means having some kind of consensus, and that means ignoring a great deal of minority opinions. This image of propaganda is not one of a shouting loudspeaker, or even a slimy salesman, but a magnet that attracts us towards a common social order.
If indeed, propaganda is inevitable, then question to ask about any statement of fact or opinion is, whose interests does it serve? In this Bernays continues to argue that the interests of business, politics, and the people can align; in fact, a good propagandist is someone who attempts to align them.
The most obvious critique of this is that propaganda isn’t cheap. If you want to buy campaign ads, run a profitable media outlet, or promote your products, you are going to need cash – and since money is a competitive resource, there will always be someone with more cash to reach more people, and employ better PR experts to run their publicity. In short, money talks; and if 1% of people in the country have 50% of the wealth, then that is a lot more free speech than the average person is entitled to. The interests of the less-than-wealthy are then likely to be ignored.
“Furthermore… the utilities are always fair game for public discontent… these and other corporations of semi-public character will always face demands for government or municipal ownership. The public relations counsel should anticipate such trends of public opinion and advise on how to avert them…”
Bernays doesn’t really admit this. He is actually bemused by how politicians seem to miss easy opportunities to gain mass support by adopting and then delivering on popular policies. Whether he is naïve to this or not is difficult to tell, but he never seems to question why a politician might make a promise and then not deliver it because it did not align with the interests of his richest and most charitable constituents.
Reading Propaganda in its historic context gives us the most troubling perspective. He lived in a confident new America that was pushing the boundaries of human luxury and comfort on a mass scale. But just the year after its publication, it went through the worst economic crisis in our historical memory, the Great Depression. After that, the new masters of propaganda and mass psychology, the Fascists and Nazis, rose to power and led the world into the abyss. With Goebbels, the term propaganda could not have had a worse public relations representative, and now the term is associated with the most abhorrent kind of dishonest, hateful rhetoric; completely undermining Bernays' claim that propaganda was in service of a mostly benign authority.
Bernays had already tried to rehabilitate the term after its questionable use in fomenting the first world war. It certainly couldn’t survive a second. However, that does not mean propaganda has gone away – appropriately, it simply became called something else. As Bernays called it, public relations – or as it is academically known, under the stale euphemism: “mass communication.”
No-one would argue that we don’t live in a mass communication society, now, would they?