ARTicles vol. 7 i.2a: Not a Matter of What, But Why

At first glance The Communist Dracula Pageant may seem like a criticism of propaganda and with it the photo opportunity and media manipulation. The staging of events referred to in the play seems to suggest that those in charge of government can easily indoctrinate us into accepting their leadership and ideas. Appearances can be deceiving. It is just too simple an observation.

The perception is that propaganda allows those in charge or seeking to be in charge to manipulate the argument, adapt the issues and concerns to those they desire, and engender the masses to fall lock step into supporting those views. That perception may be the result of centuries of propaganda against propaganda.

By examining the term propaganda one readily sees that the definition will reflect the bias of the definer. Jaques Ellul, the French philosopher, viewed it negatively, as a “means of gaining power by the psychological manipulation of groups or masses.” He identified propaganda in terms of the ends sought by the senders. At the other end of the spectrum, Canadian documentary filmmaker John Grierson saw it as “part of the democratic education which the educators forgot.” The public’s definition tends to be more simplistic. All too often we lean toward Ellul’s view. Most of us understand it to be the efforts utilized to mislead by those who are opposed to the views we hold. A more valid definition would include elements of both extremes.

We are surrounded by propaganda daily. Commercials exhort us to enjoy the good life being presented visually and orally by the multiple media we experience. Candidates urge us to support them because they represent “us,” and not “them.” Each claims in our economic downturn and the waning moments of the Bush administration to be the agent of “change.”

Government constantly sends out messages via their spokespeople and their media surrogates informing the public what our civic responsibilities are. When these viewpoints coincide with ours, we view it as public information, advertising and education. When it doesn’t, the label propaganda is attached.

Considering the constant exposure, one would think that we have all been subject to massive mind control. Yet, we don’t all buy those products. We don’t all support those candidates. Most certainly, we seem to have developed a reluctance to accept anything government says. Why?

Edward Bernays, considered by many to be the father of modern public relations, claimed that his work was “properganda,” rather than “improperganda.” The people can only be lead, he explained, where they want to go. In his explanation, he assumed Jefferson’s viewpoint that the role of government and those in a democracy was to “engineer consent.” Develop public opinions and attitudes based on the free exchange of ideas. Educate the public, rather than manipulate it. The Communist Dracula Pageant suggests something totally different.

The Romania that Ceausescu creates is one of oppression. It is the same methodology we associate with the Third Reich of Germany or Stalin’s Soviet Union. The society that Ceausescu maintained was inadequate to foster the discussion that we in America can have or, depending on how you interpret Washburn’s viewpoint, should be having. Propaganda is a tool used by those in power and those seeking it. Its effectiveness is less dependent on the words and methods than the views of the audiences they are trying to reach.

While the positioning of a mother’s body and her child may create emotion, in reality the emotion and concern has to exist in the receiver for the message to be understood.

Propaganda is “neutral.” We all use it. The media may manipulate, but only for those that seek out that form of manipulation.

Tony Schwartz, self-acclaimed “media guru,” said that persuasive efforts through the media needed to resonate and connect to real life experiences. He felt that persuasion was effective when it struck the “responsive chord.”

George Lakoff suggests that politicians “frame” or “reframe” the issues to develop their core support. Thus, Boston once had to decide between “integrating” its schools or “forced busing.” Today, the arguments have shifted slightly as we now contemplate the positioning of those against “illegal aliens” and those that are concerned about the rights of “undocumented workers.”

The pundits frequently highlight the use of “dog-whistle politics” by the campaigns. References to the Dred Scott case, crime in the streets, or welfare queens reverberate to those who accept the values they suggest. For example, the use of “family values” in reality translates to being anti-gay or opposed to secularism.

Political campaigns are becoming extremely adept at finding wedge issues. Terrorism, gay rights, and gun control are used to gain support for candidates or a party from swing voters. The emphasis on those issues dominates over others that would be less beneficial to those seeking office.

With all these techniques being employed the question still remains, why do some work and others fail. Why do we go into war? Why do we elect and defeat our leaders? Is it the propaganda or is it more accurately explained by Shakespeare when he wrote, “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves”?

What was it that allowed the Romanians to accept the Ceausescus’ half truths? Could it have been the times, the culture or the trusting nature of the people? Are we not subject to some of the same forces? That is the real challenge and those questions reflect more on us, the receivers, than on the propagandists or the media.

Kay Israel, PhD
Assoc. Prof. of Communications
Rhode Island College
July 15, 2008