Critique of Dialectical Reason (French: Critique de la raison dialectique) is a 1960 book by the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, in which the author further develops the existentialistMarxism he first expounded in his essay Search for a Method (1957). Critique of Dialectical Reason and Search for a Method were written as a common manuscript, with Sartre intending the former to logically precede the latter. Critique of Dialectical Reason was Sartre's second large-scale philosophical treatise, Being and Nothingness (1943) having been the first. The book has been seen by some as an abandonment of Sartre's original existentialism, while others have seen it as a continuation and elaboration of his earlier work. It was translated into English by Alan Sheridan-Smith.
The first volume, "Theory of Practical Ensembles", was first
published in English in 1976; a corrected English translation was
published in 1991, based on the revised French edition of 1985.
The second volume, "The Intelligibility of History", was published
posthumously in French in 1985 with an English translation by Quintin Hoare appearing in 1991.
Sartre is quoted as having said this was the principal of his two philosophical works for which he wished to be remembered.
Background
In the wake of Being and Nothingness,
Sartre became concerned to reconcile his concept of freedom with
concrete social subjects and was strongly influenced in this regard by
his friend and associate Maurice Merleau-Ponty, whose writings in the late 1940s and early 1950s (such as Sense and Non-Sense) were pioneering a path towards a synthesis of existentialism and Marxism. Merleau-Ponty, however, then became increasingly skeptical of Marxism, culminating in his Adventures of the Dialectic
(1955), while Sartre continued to grow more engaged with Marxist
thought. Though Sartre had, by 1957, decisively broken with the Soviet Union and "official" Marxism in the wake of the Soviet suppression of the Hungarian uprising, he nonetheless declared Marxism "the philosophy of our time"
and stated the need to resuscitate it from the moribund state that
Soviet dogma had left it in, a need he attempted to answer by writing Critique of Dialectical Reason.
The conflict between Sartre and Merleau-Ponty on this issue ended their
long-standing friendship, though Ronald Aronson states that, in part, Critique of Dialectical Reason was Sartre's answer to his former friend and political mentor's attack on Marxism.
More generally, Critique of Dialectical Reason was written
following the rejection of Communism by leftist French intellectuals
sympathetic to Marxism, a process that not only ended Sartre's
friendship with Merleau-Ponty but with Albert Camus
as well. The work was part of Sartre's attempt to learn "the lessons of
history" from these events, and to try to create an adequate Marxist
history and sociology.
Summary
Critique of Dialectical Reason is the product of a later stage
in Sartre's thinking, during which he no longer identified Marxism with
the Soviet Union or French Communism but came closer to identifying as a
Marxist. In it, Sartre puts forward a revision of existentialism, and
an interpretation of Marxism as a contemporary philosophy par excellence, one that can be criticized only from a reactionary pre-Marxist standpoint.
Sartre argues that while the free fusion of many human projects
may possibly constitute a Communist society, there is no guarantee of
this. Conscious human acts are not projections of freedom that produce
human 'temporality', but movements toward 'totalization', their sense
being co-determined by existing social conditions. People are thus
neither absolutely free to determine the meaning of their acts nor
slaves to the circumstances in which they find themselves. Social life
does not consist only of individual acts rooted in freedom since it is
also a sedimentation of history by which we are limited and a fight with
nature, which imposes further obstacles and causes social relationships
to be dominated by scarcity.
Every satisfaction of a need can cause antagonism and make it more
difficult for people to accept each other as human beings. Scarcity
deprives people of the ability to make particular choices and diminishes
their humanity. Communism will restore the freedom of the individual and his/her ability to recognize the freedom of others.
Reception
From the time the Critique of Dialectical Reason was published in 1960, there has been much discussion about where it stands in relation to Sartre's earlier, seminal work, Being and Nothingness.
Some Sartre scholars and critics, like George Kline, see the work as
essentially a repudiation of Sartre's existentialist stance. Marjorie
Grene thinks that the Critique of Dialectical Reason can be readily translated into the categories of Being and Nothingness. Hazel Barnes and Peter Caws see a shift in emphasis between the two works but not a difference of kind. Barnes observes that the title Critique of Dialectical Reason "suggests both Kant and Hegel." According to Barnes, the Critique of Dialectical Reason resembles Kant's Critique of Pure Reason
in that it is concerned "with the nature, possibilities, and
limitations of human reason." She sees this as the only similarity,
however, since Sartre's interests are not primarily epistemological or
metaphysical and he is more indebted to Hegel than to Kant. Josef Catalano argues that the Critique of Dialectical Reason gives a historical and social dimension to the being-for-itself described in Being and Nothingness. Finally, Fredric Jameson believes that a reading of the Critique forever alters our view of what Sartre meant in Being and Nothingness, that the label "existentialist" as applied to Sartre can no longer have its previous meaning.
Sartre's analysis of "groups-in-fusion" (people brought together by common cause) resonated with the events of the May–June 1968 uprising in France and allowed him to sideline for a while the competing influence of Louis Althusser'sstructuralist interpretation of Marxism. Situating the Critique of Dialectical Reason in the context of May–June 1968, the psychoanalyst Didier Anzieu
stated that "Sartre first described in his book the passive and
anonymous forms of individual alienation--this is what he calls the
'practico-inert'--and then he showed how a group introduces negation
into history and shapes itself (instead of being shaped), invents itself
by breaking with this passive and anonymous society that an American
sociologist called 'the lonely crowd.' The students who sparked the
outbreak of the revolution of the spring of 1968 were shaped by, if not
this second Sartrean philosophy, at least a dialectical philosophy of
history. May of 1968 is the historical upsurge of a 'wild-flowering'
force of negation. It is the inroad of a 'Sartrean' freedom, not that of
the isolated individual but the creative freedom of groups."
The philosopher Sidney Hook
described the work as a philosophical justification for widespread
human rights abuses by Communist leadership of the Soviet Union. The psychiatrists R. D. Laing and David Cooper consider the Critique of Dialectical Reason
an attempt to provide a dialectical basis for a structural
anthropology, and to establish through a dialectical approach the limits
of dialectical reason. Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari endorsed Sartre's view that there is no "class spontaneity" but only "group spontaneity".
Leszek Kołakowski argues that the Critique of Dialectical Reason
represents an abandonment of Sartre's original existentialism and that
it absurdly depicts Marxism as "invincible". Kołakowski nevertheless
considers the book an interesting attempt to find room for creativity
and spontaneity within Marxism, noting that Sartre rejects the dialectic
of nature and historical determinism
while preserving the social significance of human behavior. Kołakowski
criticizes Sartre for failing to explain how Communism could restore
freedom. In his view, Sartre gives such a generalized account of
revolutionary organization that he ignores the real difficulties of
groups engaging in common action without infringing the freedom of their
individual members. Kołakowski criticizes Sartre for introducing many
superfluous neologisms, writing that aside from these he does not
provide a genuinely new interpretation of Marxism; he sees Sartre's view
of the historical character of perception and knowledge and its
rejection of the dialectic of nature as stemming from the work of György Lukács.
In his view, neither Sartre's view that freedom must be safeguarded in
revolutionary organization nor his view that there will be perfect
freedom when Communism has abolished shortages is new in a Marxist
context, and Sartre fails to explain how either could have been brought
about.
The conservative philosopher Roger Scruton writes that the Critique of Dialectical Reason
"shows a total rejection of the rules of intellectual enquiry - a
determined flight from the rule of truth. To suppose that the book might
actually fulfill the promise offered by its title is in fact a gross
impertinence."
In Karl Marx's critique of political economy and subsequent Marxian analyses, the capitalist mode of production refers to the systems of organizing production and distribution within capitalistsocieties. Private money-making in various forms (renting, banking, merchant trade, production for profit and so on) preceded the development of the capitalist mode of production as such. The capitalist mode of production
proper, based on wage-labour and private ownership of the means of
production and on industrial technology, began to grow rapidly in
Western Europe from the Industrial Revolution, later extending to most of the world.
A "mode of production" (German: Produktionsweise)
means simply "the distinctive way of producing", which could be defined
in terms of how it is socially organized and what kinds of technologies
and tools are used. Under the capitalist mode of production:
Both the inputs and outputs of production are mainly privately owned, priced goods and services purchased in the market.
Production is carried out for exchange and circulation in the market, aiming to obtain a net profit income from it.
The owners of the means of production (capitalists) are the dominant class (bourgeoisie) who derive their income from the surplus product produced by the workers and appropriated freely by the capitalists.
A defining feature of capitalism is the dependency on wage-labor for
a large segment of the population; specifically, the working class (proletariat) do not own capital and must live by selling their labour power in exchange for a wage.
The capitalist mode of production may exist within societies with differing political systems (e.g. liberal democracy, social democracy, fascism, Communist state and Czarism) and alongside different social structures such as tribalism, the caste system, an agrarian-based peasant society, urban industrial society and post-industrialism.
Although capitalism has existed in the form of merchant activity,
banking, renting land and small-scale manufactures in previous stages of
history, it was usually a relatively minor activity and secondary to
the dominant forms of social organization and production with the
prevailing property system keeping commerce within clear limits.
Distinguishing characteristics
Capitalist society
is epitomized by the so-called circuit of commodity production, M-C-M'
and by renting money for that purpose where the aggregate of market
actors determine the money price M, of the input labor and commodities
and M' the struck price of C, the produced market commodity. It is centered on the process M → M', "making money" and the exchange of value that occurs at that point. M' > M
is the condition of rationality in the capitalist system and a
necessary condition for the next cycle of accumulation/production. For
this reason, Capitalism is "production for exchange" driven by the
desire for personal accumulation of money receipts in such exchanges,
mediated by free markets. The markets themselves are driven by the needs
and wants of consumers and those of society as a whole in the form of
the bourgeois state. These wants and needs would (in the socialist or
communist society envisioned by Marx, Engels and others) be the driving
force, it would be "production for use". Contemporary mainstream (bourgeois) economics, particularly that associated with the right, holds that an "invisible hand", through little more than the freedom of the market, is able to match social production to these needs and desires.
"Capitalism" as this money-making activity has existed in the
shape of merchants and money-lenders who acted as intermediaries between
consumers and producers engaging in simple commodity production (hence the reference to "merchant capitalism")
since the beginnings of civilization. What is specific about the
“capitalist mode of production” is that most of the inputs and outputs
of production
are supplied through the market (i.e. they are commodities) and
essentially all production is in this mode. For example, in flourishing
feudalism most or all of the factors of production including labor are
owned by the feudal ruling class outright and the products may also be
consumed without a market of any kind, it is production for use within
the feudal social unit and for limited trade.
This has the important consequence that the whole organization of
the production process is reshaped and reorganized to conform with
economic rationality as bounded
by capitalism, which is expressed in price relationships between inputs
and outputs (wages, non-labor factor costs, sales, profits) rather than
the larger rational context faced by society overall. That is, the
whole process is organized and reshaped in order to conform to
"commercial logic". Another way of saying this is that capital
accumulation defines economic rationality in capitalist production. In
the flourishing period of capitalism, these are not operating at cross
purposes and thus capitalism acts as a progressive force (e.g. against
feudalism). In the final stages,
capitalism as a mode of production achieves complete domination on a
planetary basis and has nothing to overcome but itself, the final (for
it, capitalism, viewed as a Hegelian process, not for historical development per se) negating of the negation posited by orthodox Marxism.
In this context, Marx refers to a transition from the “formal subsumption”
of production under the power of capital to the “real subsumption” of
production under the power of capital. In what he calls the
"specifically capitalist mode of production", both the technology worked with and the social organization of labour have been completely refashioned and reshaped in a commercial (profit and market-oriented) way—the "old ways of producing" (for example, crafts and cottage industries) had been completely displaced by the then new industrialism. Some historians, such as Jairus Banaji and Nicholas Vrousalis have argued that capitalist relations of production predate the capitalist mode of production.
Summary of basic distinctions
In general, capitalism as an economic system and mode of production can be summarized by the following:
Capital accumulation:
production for profit and accumulation as the implicit purpose of all
or most of production, constriction or elimination of production
formerly carried out on a common social or private household basis.
Private ownership
of the means of production: ownership of the means of production by a
class of capital owners, either individually, collectively (see corporation) or through a state that serves the interests of the capitalist class (see state capitalism).
Primacy of wage labor: near universality of wage labor, whether so-called or not, with coerced work for the masses in excess of what they would need to sustain themselves and a complete saturation of bourgeois values at all levels of society from the base reshaping and reorganization described above .
Origins
Marx argued that capital
existed incipiently on a small scale for centuries in the form of
merchant, renting and lending activities and occasionally also as
small-scale industry with some wage labour (Marx was also well aware
that wage labour existed for centuries on a modest scale before the
advent of capitalist industry). Simple commodity
exchange and consequently simple commodity production, which form the
initial basis for the growth of capital from trade, have a very long
history. The "capitalistic era" according to Marx dates from the 16th
century, i.e. it began with merchant capitalism and relatively small
urban workshops.
For the capitalist mode of production to emerge as a distinctive
mode of production dominating the whole production process of society,
many different social, economic, cultural, technical and legal-political
conditions had to come together.
For most of human history, these did not come together. Capital existed and commercial trade existed, but it
did not lead to industrialisation and large-scale capitalist industry.
That required a whole series of new conditions, namely specific
technologies of mass production, the ability to independently and
privately own and trade in means of production, a class of workers
compelled to sell their labor power for a living, a legal
framework promoting commerce, a physical infrastructure making the
circulation of goods on a large scale possible, security for private
accumulation and so on. In many Third World
countries, many of these conditions do not exist even today even though
there is plenty of capital and labour available—the obstacles for the
development of capitalist markets are less a technical matter and more a
social, cultural and political problem.
A society, a region or nation
is “capitalist” if the predominant source of incomes and products being
distributed is capitalist activity—even so, this does not yet mean
necessarily that the capitalist mode of production is dominant in that
society.
Defining structural criteria
Marx
never provided a complete definition of the capitalist mode of
production as a short summary, although in his manuscripts he sometimes
attempted one.
In a sense, it is Marx's three-volume work Capital (1867–1894; sometimes known by its German title, Das Kapital),
as a whole that provides his "definition" of the capitalist mode of
production. Nevertheless, it is possible to summarise the essential
defining characteristics of the capitalist mode of production as
follows:
The means of production (or capital goods) and the means of
consumption (or consumer goods) are mainly produced for market sale;
output is produced with the intention of sale in an open market; and
only through sale of output can the owner of capital claim part of the
surplus-product of human labour and realize profits. Equally, the inputs
of production are supplied through the market as commodities. The
prices of both inputs and outputs are mainly governed by the market laws
of supply and demand (and ultimately by the law of value).
In short, a capitalist must use money to fuel both the means of
production and labor in order to make commodities. These commodities are
then sold to the market for a profit. The profit once again becomes
part of a larger amount of capital which the capitalist reinvests to
make more commodities and ultimately more and more capital.
Private ownership of the means of production ("private enterprise")
as effective private control and/or legally enforced ownership, with the
consequence that investment and management decisions are made by
private owners of capital who act autonomously from each other
and—because of business secrecy and the constraints of competition—do
not co-ordinate their activities according to collective, conscious
planning. Enterprises are able to set their own output prices within the
framework of the forces of supply and demand manifested through the
market and the development of production technology is guided by
profitability criteria.
The corollary of that is wage labour
("employment") by the direct producers, who are compelled to sell their
labour power because they lack access to alternative means of
subsistence (other than being self-employed or employers of labour, if
only they could acquire sufficient funds) and can obtain means of
consumption only through market transactions. These wage earners are
mostly "free" in a double sense: they are “freed” from ownership of
productive assets and they are free to choose their employer.
Being carried out for market on the basis of a proliferation of
fragmented decision-making processes by owners and managers of private
capital, social production is mediated by competition for
asset-ownership, political or economic influence, costs, sales, prices
and profits. Competition
occurs between owners of capital for profits, assets and markets;
between owners of capital and workers over wages and conditions; and
between workers themselves over employment opportunities and civil
rights.
The overall aim of capitalist production under competitive pressure is (a) to maximise net profit income (or realise a net superprofit) as much as possible through cutting production costs, increasing sales
and monopolisation of markets and supply; (b) capital accumulation, to
acquire productive and non-productive assets; and (c) to privatize both the supply of goods and services and their consumption. The larger portion of the surplus product
of labor must usually be reinvested in production since output growth
and accumulation of capital mutually depend on each other.
Out of preceding characteristics of the capitalist mode of
production, the basic class structure of this mode of production society
emerges: a class of owners and managers of private capital assets in
industries and on the land, a class of wage and salary earners, a
permanent reserve army of labour
consisting of unemployed people and various intermediate classes such
as the self-employed (small business and farmers) and the “new middle
classes” (educated or skilled professionals on higher salaries).
The finance of the capitalist state
is heavily dependent on levying taxes from the population and on
credit—that is, the capitalist state normally lacks any autonomous
economic basis (such as state-owned industries or landholdings) that
would guarantee sufficient income to sustain state activities. The
capitalist state defines a legal framework for commerce, civil society
and politics, which specifies public and private rights and duties as
well as legitimate property relations.
Capitalist development, occurring on private initiative in a
socially unco-ordinated and unplanned way, features periodic crises of
over-production (or excess capacity). This means that a critical
fraction of output cannot be sold at all, or cannot be sold at prices
realising the previously ruling rate of profit. The other side of
over-production is the over-accumulation of productive capital: more
capital is invested in production than can obtain a normal profit. The
consequence is a recession (a reduced economic growth rate) or in severe
cases, a depression (negative real growth, i.e. an absolute decline in output). As a corollary, mass unemployment
occurs. In the history of capitalist development since 1820, there have
been more than 20 of such crises—nowadays the under-utilisation of
installed productive capacity is a permanent characteristic of
capitalist production (average capacity utilisation rates nowadays
normally range from about 60% to 85%).
In examining particular manifestations of the capitalist mode of
production in particular regions and epochs, it is possible to find
exceptions to these main defining criteria, but the exceptions prove the
rule in the sense that over time the exceptional circumstances tend to
disappear.
State capitalist interpretation
As mentioned, Marx never explicitly summarised his definition of
capitalism, beyond some suggestive comments in manuscripts which he did
not publish himself. This has led to controversies among Marxists about
how to evaluate the "capitalist" nature of society in particular
countries. Supporters of theories of state capitalism such as the International Socialists
reject the definition of the capitalist mode of production given above.
In their view, claimed to be more revolutionary (in that true
liberation from capitalism must be the self-emancipation of the working
class—"socialism from below"), what really defines the capitalist mode
of production is:
Means of production which dominate the direct producers as an alien power.
Generalized commodity production
The existence of a wage-earning working class which does not hold or have power.
The existence of an elite or ruling class which controls the
country, exploiting the working population in the technical Marxist
sense.
This idea is based on passages from Marx, where Marx emphasized that
capital cannot exist except within a power-relationship between social classes which governs the extraction of surplus-labour.
Heterodox views and polemics
Orthodox
Marxist debate after 1917 has often been in Russian, other East
European languages, Vietnamese, Korean or Chinese and dissidents seeking
to analyze their own country independently were typically silenced in
one way or another by the regime, therefore the political debate has
been mainly from a Western point of view and based on secondary sources,
rather than being based directly on the experiences of people living in
"actually existing socialist countries". That debate has typically
counterposed a socialist ideal to a poorly understood reality, i.e.
using analysis which due to such party stultification and shortcomings
of the various parties fails to apply the full rigor of the dialectical
method to a well informed understanding of such actual conditions in
situ and falls back on trite party approved formulae. In turn, this has
led to the accusation that Marxists cannot satisfactorily specify what
capitalism and socialism really are, nor how to get from one to the
other—quite apart from failing to explain satisfactorily why socialist
revolutions failed to produce the desirable kind of socialism. Behind
this problem, it is argued the following:
A kind of historicism
according to which Marxists have a privileged insight into the "march
of history"—the doctrine is thought to provide the truth, in advance of
real research and experience. Evidence contrary to the doctrine is
rejected or overlooked.
A uni-linear view of history, according to which feudalism leads to capitalism and capitalism to socialism.
An attempt to fit the histories of different societies into this
schema of history on the basis that if they are not socialist, they must
be capitalist (or vice versa), or if they are neither, that they must
be in transition from one to the other.
None of these stratagems, it is argued, are either warranted by the
facts or scientifically sound and the result is that many socialists
have abandoned the rigid constraints of Marxist orthodoxy in order to
analyse capitalist and non-capitalist societies in a new way.
From an orthodox Marxist perspective, the former is simple ignorance and or purposeful obfuscation of works such as Jean-Paul Sartre's Critique of Dialectical Reason
and a broader literature which does in fact supply such specifications.
The latter are partly superficial complaints which can easily be
refuted as they are diametrically opposite of well known statements by
Marx, Lenin, Trotsky and others, part pettifogging and redundant
restatement of the same thing and partly true observations of inferior
and simplistic presentations of Marxist thought (by those espousing some
brand of Marxism). Neither historical or dialectical materialism
assert or imply a "uni-linear" view of human development, although
Marxism does claim a general and indeed accelerating secular trend of
advancement, driven in the modern period by capitalism. Similarly,
Marxists, especially in the period after 1917, have on the contrary been
especially mindful of the so-called unequal and uneven development
and its importance in the struggle to achieve socialism. Finally, in
the wake of the disasters of socialism in the previous century most
modern Marxists are at great pains to stipulate that only the
independently acting working class can determine the nature of the
society it creates for itself so the call for a prescriptive description
of exactly what that society would be like and how it is to emerge from
the existing class-ridden one, other than by the conscious struggle of
the masses, is an unwitting expression of precisely the problem that is
supposed to be being addressed (the imposition of social structure by
elites).
Propaganda is communication that is primarily used to influence an audience and further an agenda, which may not be objective and may be selectively presenting facts to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is being presented. Propaganda is often associated with material which is prepared by governments as part of war efforts, political campaigns, revolutionaries, corporates, ultra-religious organizations, the media, and certain individuals such as soapboxers etc.
In the 20th century, the term propaganda was often associated with a manipulative approach, but historically, propaganda has been a neutral descriptive term.
A wide range of materials and media are used for conveying
propaganda messages, which changed as new technologies were invented,
including paintings, cartoons, posters, pamphlets, films, radio shows,
TV shows, and websites. More recently, the digital age has given rise to
new ways of disseminating propaganda, for example, bots and algorithms
are currently being used to create computational propaganda and fake or biased news and spread it on social media.
Etymology
Propaganda is a modern Latin word, ablative singular feminine of the gerundive form of propagare, meaning 'to spread' or 'to propagate', thus propaganda means for that which is to be propagated. Originally this word derived from a new administrative body of the Catholic Church (congregation) created in 1622 as part of the Counter-Reformation, called the Congregatio de Propaganda Fide (Congregation for Propagating the Faith), or informally simply Propaganda. Its activity was aimed at "propagating" the Catholic faith in non-Catholic countries.
From the 1790s, the term began being used also to refer to propaganda in secular activities. The term began taking a pejorative or negative connotation in the mid-19th century, when it was used in the political sphere.
Definition
Harold Lasswell
provided a broad definition of the term propaganda, writing it as: “the
expression of opinions or actions carried out deliberately by
individuals or groups with a view to influencing the opinions or actions
of other individuals or groups for predetermined ends and through
psychological manipulations.”
Garth Jowett and Victoria O'Donnell theorize that propaganda is converted into persuasion, and that propagandists also use persuasive methods in the construction of their propagandist discourse. This theory signifies the similarity and optimization of propaganda using persuasive soft power techniques in the development and cultivation of propagandist materials.
In a 1929 literary debate with Edward Bernays, Everett Dean Martin argues that, "Propaganda is making puppets of us. We are moved by hidden strings which the propagandist manipulates."
Bernays acknowledged in his book Propaganda
that "The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized
habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic
society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society
constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our
country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our
ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of."
Primitive forms of propaganda have been a human activity as far back as reliable recorded evidence exists. The Behistun Inscription (c. 515 BC) detailing the rise of Darius I to the Persianthrone is viewed by most historians as an early example of propaganda. Another striking example of propaganda during ancient history is the last Roman civil wars (44–30 BC) during which Octavian and Mark Antony
blamed each other for obscure and degrading origins, cruelty,
cowardice, oratorical and literary incompetence, debaucheries, luxury,
drunkenness and other slanders. This defamation took the form of uituperatio
(Roman rhetorical genre of the invective) which was decisive for
shaping the Roman public opinion at this time. Another early example of
propaganda was from Genghis Khan.
The emperor would send some of his men ahead of his army to spread
rumors to the enemy. In most cases, his army was actually smaller than
some of his opponents.
A 1918 Finnish propaganda leaflet signed by General Mannerheim circulated by the Whites urging the Reds to surrender during the Finnish Civil War. [To the residents and troops of Tampere! Resistance is hopeless. Raise the white flag
and surrender. The blood of the citizen has been shed enough. We will
not kill like the Reds kill their prisoners. Send your representative
with a white flag.]
Propaganda during the Reformation, helped by the spread of the printing press
throughout Europe, and in particular within Germany, caused new ideas,
thoughts, and doctrine to be made available to the public in ways that
had never been seen before the 16th century. During the era of the American Revolution, the American colonies had a flourishing network of newspapers and printers who specialized in the topic on behalf of the Patriots (and to a lesser extent on behalf of the Loyalists).
Academic Barbara Diggs-Brown conceives that the negative connotations
of the term “propaganda” are associated with the earlier social and
political transformations that occurred during the French Revolutionary period
movement of 1789 to 1799 between the start and the middle portion of
the 19th century, in a time where the word started to be used in a
nonclerical and political context.
A propaganda newspaper clipping that refers to the Bataan Death March in 1942
The first large-scale and organised propagation of government propaganda was occasioned by the outbreak of the First World War in 1914. After the defeat of Germany, military officials such as General Erich Ludendorff suggested that British propaganda had been instrumental in their defeat. Adolf Hitler came to echo this view, believing that it had been a primary cause of the collapse of morale and revolts in the German home front and Navy in 1918 (see also: Dolchstoßlegende). In Mein Kampf (1925) Hitler expounded his theory of propaganda, which provided a powerful base for his rise to power in 1933. Historian Robert Ensor
explains that "Hitler...puts no limit on what can be done by
propaganda; people will believe anything, provided they are told it
often enough and emphatically enough, and that contradicters are either
silenced or smothered in calumny." This was to be true in Germany and backed up with their army making it difficult to allow other propaganda to flow in. Most propaganda in Nazi Germany was produced by the Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda under Joseph Goebbels.
Goebbels mentions propaganda as a way to see through the masses.
Symbols are used towards propaganda such as justice, liberty and one's
devotion to one's country. World War II saw continued use of propaganda as a weapon of war, building on the experience of WWI, by Goebbels and the British Political Warfare Executive, as well as the United States Office of War Information.
In the early 20th century, the invention of motion pictures (as
in movies, diafilms) gave propaganda-creators a powerful tool for
advancing political and military interests when it came to reaching a
broad segment of the population and creating consent or encouraging
rejection of the real or imagined enemy. In the years following the October Revolution of 1917, the Soviet government sponsored the Russian film industry with the purpose of making propaganda films (e.g., the 1925 film The Battleship Potemkin glorifies Communist ideals). In WWII, Nazi filmmakers produced highly emotional films to create popular support for occupying the Sudetenland and attacking Poland. The 1930s and 1940s, which saw the rise of totalitarian states and the Second World War, are arguably the "Golden Age of Propaganda". Leni Riefenstahl, a filmmaker working in Nazi Germany, created one of the best-known propaganda movies, Triumph of the Will. In 1942, the propaganda song Niet Molotoff was made in Finland during the Continuation War, making fun of the Red Army's failure in the Winter War, referring the song's name to the Soviet's Minister of Foreign Affairs, Vyacheslav Molotov. In the US, animation became popular, especially for winning over youthful audiences and aiding the U.S. war effort, e.g.,Der Fuehrer's Face (1942), which ridicules Hitler and advocates the value of freedom. Some American war films in the early 1940s were designed to create a patriotic mindset and convince viewers that sacrifices needed to be made to defeat the Axis Powers. Others were intended to help Americans understand their Allies in general, as in films like Know Your Ally: Britain and Our Greek Allies.
Apart from its war films, Hollywood did its part to boost American
morale in a film intended to show how stars of stage and screen who
remained on the home front were doing their part not just in their
labors, but also in their understanding that a variety of peoples worked
together against the Axis menace: Stage Door Canteen
(1943) features one segment meant to dispel Americans' mistrust of the
Soviets, and another to dispel their bigotry against the Chinese. Polish
filmmakers in Great Britain created the anti-Nazi color film Calling Mr. Smith (1943) about Nazi crimes in German-occupied Europe and about lies of Nazi propaganda.
The West and the Soviet Union both used propaganda extensively during the Cold War. Both sides used film, television, and radio programming to influence their own citizens, each other, and Third World nations. George Orwell's contemporaneous novels Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four portray the use of propaganda in fictional dystopian societies. During the Cuban Revolution, Fidel Castro stressed the importance of propaganda. Propaganda was used extensively by Communist forces in the Vietnam War as means of controlling people's opinions.
During the Yugoslav wars, propaganda was used as a military strategy by governments of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Croatia. Propaganda was used to create fear and hatred, and particularly to incite the Serb population against the other ethnicities (Bosniaks, Croats, Albanians and other non-Serbs). Serb media made a great effort in justifying, revising or denying mass war crimes committed by Serb forces during these wars.
Public perceptions
In the early 20th century the term propaganda was used by the founders of the nascent public relations industry to refer to their people. Literally translated from the Latingerundive
as "things that must be disseminated", in some cultures the term is
neutral or even positive, while in others the term has acquired a strong
negative connotation. The connotations of the term "propaganda" can
also vary over time. For example, in Portuguese and some Spanish language speaking countries, particularly in the Southern Cone, the word "propaganda" usually refers to the most common manipulative media – "advertising".
In English, propaganda was originally a neutral term for the
dissemination of information in favor of any given cause. During the
20th century, however, the term acquired a thoroughly negative meaning
in western countries, representing the intentional dissemination of
often false, but certainly "compelling" claims to support or justify
political actions or ideologies. According to Harold Lasswell,
the term began to fall out of favor due to growing public suspicion of
propaganda in the wake of its use during World War I by the Creel Committee in the United States and the Ministry of Information
in Britain: Writing in 1928, Lasswell observed, "In democratic
countries the official propaganda bureau was looked upon with genuine
alarm, for fear that it might be suborned to party and personal ends.
The outcry in the United States against Mr. Creel's famous Bureau of
Public Information (or 'Inflammation') helped to din into the public
mind the fact that propaganda existed. ... The public's discovery of
propaganda has led to a great of lamentation over it. Propaganda has
become an epithet of contempt and hate, and the propagandists have
sought protective coloration in such names as 'public relations
council,' 'specialist in public education,' 'public relations adviser.' "
In 1949, political science professor Dayton David McKean wrote, "After
World War I the word came to be applied to 'what you don’t like of the
other fellow’s publicity,' as Edward L. Bernays said...."
Contestation
The term is essentially contested and some have argued for a neutral definition, arguing that ethics depend on intent and context, while others define it as necessarily unethical and negative. Emma Briant
defines it as "the deliberate manipulation of representations
(including text, pictures, video, speech etc.) with the intention of
producing any effect in the audience (e.g. action or inaction;
reinforcement or transformation of feelings, ideas, attitudes or
behaviours) that is desired by the propagandist."
The same author explains the importance of consistent terminology
across history, particularly as contemporary euphemistic synonyms are
used in governments' continual efforts to rebrand their operations such
as 'information support' and 'strategic communication'.
Types
Poster in a North Korean primary school targeting the United States military. Photographed in 2008.
Identifying propaganda has always been a problem. The main difficulties have involved differentiating propaganda from other types of persuasion, and avoiding a biased
approach. Richard Alan Nelson provides a definition of the term:
"Propaganda is neutrally defined as a systematic form of purposeful
persuasion that attempts to influence the emotions, attitudes, opinions,
and actions of specified target audiences for ideological, political or commercial purposes
through the controlled transmission of one-sided messages (which may or
may not be factual) via mass and direct media channels."
The definition focuses on the communicative process involved – or more
precisely, on the purpose of the process, and allow "propaganda" to be
considered objectively and then interpreted as positive or negative
behavior depending on the perspective of the viewer or listener.
According to historian Zbyněk Zeman,
propaganda is defined as either white, grey or black. White propaganda
openly discloses its source and intent. Grey propaganda has an ambiguous
or non-disclosed source or intent. Black propaganda purports to be published by the enemy or some organization besides its actual origins (compare with black operation,
a type of clandestine operation in which the identity of the sponsoring
government is hidden). In scale, these different types of propaganda
can also be defined by the potential of true and correct information to
compete with the propaganda. For example, opposition to white propaganda
is often readily found and may slightly discredit the propaganda
source. Opposition to grey propaganda, when revealed (often by an inside
source), may create some level of public outcry. Opposition to black
propaganda is often unavailable and may be dangerous to reveal, because
public cognizance of black propaganda tactics and sources would
undermine or backfire the very campaign the black propagandist
supported.
The propagandist seeks to change the way people understand an
issue or situation for the purpose of changing their actions and
expectations in ways that are desirable to the interest group.
Propaganda, in this sense, serves as a corollary to censorship in which
the same purpose is achieved, not by filling people's minds with
approved information, but by preventing people from being confronted
with opposing points of view. What sets propaganda apart from other
forms of advocacy is the willingness of the propagandist to change
people's understanding through deception and confusion rather than
persuasion and understanding. The leaders of an organization know the
information to be one sided or untrue, but this may not be true for the
rank and file members who help to disseminate the propaganda.
Woodcuts (1545) known as the Papstspotbilder or Depictions of the Papacy in English, by Lucas Cranach, commissioned by Martin Luther. Title: Kissing the Pope's Feet. German peasants respond to a papal bull of Pope Paul III.
Caption reads: "Don't frighten us Pope, with your ban, and don't be
such a furious man. Otherwise we shall turn around and show you our
rears."
Religious
Propaganda was often used to influence opinions and beliefs on religious issues, particularly during the split between the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant churches.
More in line with the religious roots of the term, propaganda is also used widely in the debates about new religious movements (NRMs), both by people who defend them and by people who oppose them. The latter pejoratively call these NRMs cults. Anti-cult activists and Christian counter-cult activists
accuse the leaders of what they consider cults of using propaganda
extensively to recruit followers and keep them. Some social scientists,
such as the late Jeffrey Hadden, and CESNUR affiliated scholars accuse ex-members of "cults" and the anti-cult movement of making these unusual religious movements look bad without sufficient reasons.
Wartime
A US Office for War Information poster uses stereotyped imagery to encourage Americans to work hard to contribute to the war effort
Post–World War II usage of the word "propaganda" more typically
refers to political or nationalist uses of these techniques or to the
promotion of a set of ideas.
Propaganda is a powerful weapon in war; it is used to dehumanize
and create hatred toward a supposed enemy, either internal or external,
by creating a false image in the mind of soldiers and citizens. This can
be done by using derogatory or racist terms (e.g., the racist terms
"Jap" and "gook" used during World War II and the Vietnam War,
respectively), avoiding some words or language or by making allegations
of enemy atrocities. The goal of this was to demoralize the opponent
into thinking what was being projected was actually true.
Most propaganda efforts in wartime require the home population to feel
the enemy has inflicted an injustice, which may be fictitious or may be
based on facts (e.g., the sinking of the passenger ship RMS Lusitania
by the German Navy in World War I). The home population must also
believe that the cause of their nation in the war is just. In these
efforts it was difficult to determine the accuracy of how propaganda
truly impacted the war.
In NATO doctrine, propaganda is defined as "Information, especially of a
biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point
of view."
Within this perspective, the information provided does not need to be
necessarily false but must be instead relevant to specific goals of the
"actor" or "system" that performs it.
Propaganda is also one of the methods used in psychological warfare, which may also involve false flag operations in which the identity of the operatives is depicted as those of an enemy nation (e.g., The Bay of Pigs
invasion used CIA planes painted in Cuban Air Force markings). The term
propaganda may also refer to false information meant to reinforce the
mindsets of people who already believe as the propagandist wishes (e.g.,
During the First World War, the main purpose of British propaganda was
to encourage men to join the army, and women to work in the country's
industry. The propaganda posters were used because radios and TVs were
not very common at that time.).
The assumption is that, if people believe something false, they will
constantly be assailed by doubts. Since these doubts are unpleasant,
people will be eager to have them extinguished, and are therefore
receptive to the reassurances of those in power. For this reason,
propaganda is often addressed to people who are already sympathetic to
the agenda or views being presented. This process of reinforcement uses
an individual's predisposition to self-select "agreeable" information
sources as a mechanism for maintaining control over populations.
Serbian propaganda from the Bosnian War presented as an actual photograph from the scene (left) of, as stated in report below the image, a "Serbian boy whose whole family was killed by Bosnian Muslims". The image is derived from an 1879 "Orphan on mother's grave" painting by Uroš Predić (bottom).
Propaganda may be administered in insidious ways. For instance, disparaging disinformation
about the history of certain groups or foreign countries may be
encouraged or tolerated in the educational system. Since few people
actually double-check what they learn at school, such disinformation
will be repeated by journalists as well as parents, thus reinforcing the
idea that the disinformation item is really a "well-known fact", even
though no one repeating the myth is able to point to an authoritative
source. The disinformation is then recycled in the media and in the
educational system, without the need for direct governmental
intervention on the media. Such permeating propaganda may be used for
political goals: by giving citizens a false impression of the quality or
policies of their country, they may be incited to reject certain
proposals or certain remarks or ignore the experience of others.
Britannia arm-in-arm with Uncle Sam symbolizes the British-American alliance in World War I.
In the Soviet Union during the Second World War, the propaganda
designed to encourage civilians was controlled by Stalin, who insisted
on a heavy-handed style that educated audiences easily saw was
inauthentic. On the other hand, the unofficial rumors about German
atrocities were well founded and convincing.
Stalin was a Georgian who spoke Russian with a heavy accent. That would
not do for a national hero so starting in the 1930s all new visual
portraits of Stalin were retouched to erase his Georgian facial characteristics
and make him a more generalized Soviet hero. Only his eyes and famous
moustache remained unaltered. Zhores Medvedev and Roy Medvedev say his
"majestic new image was devised appropriately to depict the leader of
all times and of all peoples."
Naturally, the common people don't
want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that
matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders
of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple
matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist
dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. The people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you
have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It
works the same way in any country.
Simply
enough the covenant specifically is not defining the content of
propaganda. In simplest terms, an act of propaganda if used in a reply
to a wartime act is not prohibited.
Advertising
Propaganda shares techniques with advertising and public relations,
each of which can be thought of as propaganda that promotes a
commercial product or shapes the perception of an organization, person,
or brand. For example, after their victory in the 2006 Lebanon War, Hizbullah campaigned for broader popularity among Arabs by organizing mass rallies where Hizbullah leader Hasan Nasrallah
combined elements of the local dialect with classical Arabic to reach
audiences outside Lebanon. Banners and billboards were commissioned in
commemoration of the war, along with various merchandise items with
Hizbullah's logo, flag color (yellow), and images of Nasrallah.
T-shirts, baseball caps and other war memorabilia were marketed for all
ages. The uniformity of messaging helped define Hizbullah's brand.
Journalistic theory generally holds that news items should be
objective, giving the reader an accurate background and analysis of the
subject at hand. On the other hand, advertisements evolved from the
traditional commercial advertisements to include also a new type in the
form of paid articles or broadcasts disguised as news. These generally
present an issue in a very subjective and often misleading light,
primarily meant to persuade rather than inform. Normally they use only
subtle propaganda techniques
and not the more obvious ones used in traditional commercial
advertisements. If the reader believes that a paid advertisement is in
fact a news item, the message the advertiser is trying to communicate
will be more easily "believed" or "internalized". Such advertisements
are considered obvious examples of "covert" propaganda because they take
on the appearance of objective information rather than the appearance
of propaganda, which is misleading. Federal law
specifically mandates that any advertisement appearing in the format of
a news item must state that the item is in fact a paid advertisement.
Edmund McGarry illustrates that advertising is more than selling
to an audience but a type of propaganda that is trying to persuade the
public and not to be balanced in judgement.
Propaganda has become more common in political contexts, in
particular, to refer to certain efforts sponsored by governments,
political groups, but also often covert interests. In the early 20th
century, propaganda was exemplified in the form of party slogans.
Propaganda also has much in common with public information
campaigns by governments, which are intended to encourage or discourage
certain forms of behavior (such as wearing seat belts, not smoking, not
littering, and so forth). Again, the emphasis is more political in
propaganda. Propaganda can take the form of leaflets, posters, TV, and radio broadcasts and can also extend to any other medium.
In the case of the United States, there is also an important legal
(imposed by law) distinction between advertising (a type of overt propaganda) and what the Government Accountability Office (GAO), an arm of the United States Congress, refers to as "covert propaganda".
Roderick Hindery argues
that propaganda exists on the political left, and right, and in
mainstream centrist parties. Hindery further argues that debates about
most social issues can be productively revisited in the context of
asking "what is or is not propaganda?" Not to be overlooked is the link
between propaganda, indoctrination, and terrorism/counterterrorism. He argues that threats to destroy are often as socially disruptive as physical devastation itself.
Since 9/11
and the appearance of greater media fluidity, propaganda institutions,
practices and legal frameworks have been evolving in the US and Britain.
Briant shows how this included expansion and integration of the
apparatus cross-government and details attempts to coordinate the forms
of propaganda for foreign and domestic audiences, with new efforts in strategic communication. These were subject to contestation within the US Government, resisted by PentagonPublic Affairs and critiqued by some scholars.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (section
1078 (a)) amended the US Information and Educational Exchange Act of
1948 (popularly referred to as the Smith-Mundt Act) and the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1987, allowing for materials produced by the State Department and the Broadcasting Board of Governors
(BBG) to be released within U.S. borders for the Archivist of the
United States. The Smith-Mundt Act, as amended, provided that "the
Secretary and the Broadcasting Board of Governors shall make available
to the Archivist of the United States, for domestic distribution, motion
pictures, films, videotapes, and other material 12 years after the
initial dissemination of the material abroad (...) Nothing in this
section shall be construed to prohibit the Department of State or the
Broadcasting Board of Governors from engaging in any medium or form of
communication, either directly or indirectly, because a United States
domestic audience is or may be thereby exposed to program material, or
based on a presumption of such exposure." Public concerns were raised
upon passage due to the relaxation of prohibitions of domestic
propaganda in the United States.
In the wake of this, the internet has become a prolific method of
distributing political propaganda, benefiting from an evolution in
coding called bots. Software agents or bots can be used for many things, including populating social media with automated messages and posts with a range of sophistication. During the 2016 U.S. election
a cyber-strategy was implemented using bots to direct US voters to
Russian political news and information sources, and to spread
politically motivated rumors and false news stories. At this point it is
considered commonplace contemporary political strategy around the world
to implement bots in achieving political goals.
Common media for transmitting propaganda messages include news reports, government reports, historical revision, junk science, books, leaflets, movies, radio, television, and posters. Some propaganda campaigns follow a strategic transmission pattern to indoctrinate
the target group. This may begin with a simple transmission, such as a
leaflet or advertisement dropped from a plane or an advertisement.
Generally, these messages will contain directions on how to obtain more
information, via a website, hotline, radio program, etc. (as it is seen
also for selling purposes among other goals). The strategy intends to
initiate the individual from information recipient to information seeker
through reinforcement, and then from information seeker to opinion leader through indoctrination.
A number of techniques based in social psychological research are used to generate propaganda. Many of these same techniques can be found under logical fallacies, since propagandists use arguments that, while sometimes convincing, are not necessarily valid.
Some time has been spent analyzing the means by which the
propaganda messages are transmitted. That work is important but it is
clear that information dissemination strategies become propaganda
strategies only when coupled with propagandistic messages. Identifying these messages is a necessary prerequisite to study the methods by which those messages are spread.
Propaganda can also be turned on its makers. For example,
postage stamps have frequently been tools for government advertising,
such as North Korea's extensive issues. The presence of Stalin on numerous Soviet stamps is another example. During the Third ReichHitler
frequently appeared on postage stamps in Germany and some of the
occupied nations. A British program to parody these, and other
Nazi-inspired stamps, involved airdropping them into Germany on letters
containing anti-Nazi literature.
In 2018 a scandal broke in which the journalist Carole Cadwalladr, several whistleblowers and the academic Dr Emma Briant revealed advances in digital propaganda techniques showing that online human intelligence techniques used in psychological warfare
had been coupled with psychological profiling using illegally obtained
social media data for political campaigns in the United States in 2016
to aid Donald Trump by the firm Cambridge Analytica. The company initially denied breaking laws
but later admitted breaking UK law, the scandal provoking a worldwide
debate on acceptable use of data for propaganda and influence.
Models
Persuasion in Social psychology
Public reading of the anti-Semitic newspaper Der Stürmer, Worms, Germany, 1935
The field of social psychology includes the study of persuasion. Social psychologists can be sociologists or psychologists.
The field includes many theories and approaches to understanding
persuasion. For example, communication theory points out that people can
be persuaded by the communicator's credibility, expertise,
trustworthiness, and attractiveness. The elaboration likelihood model,
as well as heuristic models of persuasion, suggest that a number of
factors (e.g., the degree of interest of the recipient of the
communication), influence the degree to which people allow superficial
factors to persuade them. Nobel Prize–winning psychologist Herbert A. Simon won the Nobel prize for his theory that people are cognitive misers.
That is, in a society of mass information, people are forced to make
decisions quickly and often superficially, as opposed to logically.
According to William W. Biddle's
1931 article "A psychological definition of propaganda", "[t]he four
principles followed in propaganda are: (1) rely on emotions, never
argue; (2) cast propaganda into the pattern of "we" versus an "enemy";
(3) reach groups as well as individuals; (4) hide the propagandist as
much as possible."
More recently, studies from behavioral science have become significant in understanding and planning propaganda campaigns, these include for example nudge theory which was used by the Obama Campaign in 2008 then adopted by the UK Government Behavioural Insights Team. Behavioural methodologies then became subject to great controversy in 2016 after the company Cambridge Analytica was revealed to have applied them with millions of people's breached facebook data to encourage them to vote for Donald Trump.
Haifeng Huang argues that propaganda is not always necessarily
about convincing a populace of its message (and may actually fail to do
this) but instead can also function as a means of intimidating the
citizenry and signalling the regime's strength and ability to maintain
its control and power over society; by investing significant resources
into propaganda, the regime can forewarn its citizens of its strength
and deterring them from attempting to challenge it.
The 20th century has been
characterized by three developments of great political importance: the
growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.
First presented in their book Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (1988), the propaganda model views the private media as businesses selling a product – readers and audiences
(rather than news) – to other businesses (advertisers) and relying
primarily on government and corporate information and propaganda. The
theory postulates five general classes of "filters" that determine the
type of news that is presented in news media: Ownership of the medium, the medium's Funding, Sourcing of the news, Flak, and anti-communist ideology.
The first three (ownership, funding, and sourcing) are generally
regarded by the authors as being the most important. Although the model
was based mainly on the characterization of United States media, Chomsky
and Herman believe the theory is equally applicable to any country that
shares the basic economic structure and organizing principles the model postulates as the cause of media bias.
Self-propaganda
Self-propaganda
is a form of propaganda that refers to the act of an individual
convincing them-self of something, no matter how irrational that idea
may be.
Self propaganda makes it easier for individuals to justify their own
actions as well as the actions of others. Self-propaganda works
oftentimes to lessen the cognitive dissonance felt by individuals when their personal actions or the actions of their government do not line up with their moral beliefs. Self-propaganda is a type of self deception. Self-propaganda can have a negative impact on those who perpetuate the beliefs created by using self- propaganda.
Children
A 1938 propaganda of the New State depicting Brazilian President Getúlio Vargas
flanked by children. The text reads "Children! Learning, at home and in
school, the cult of the Fatherland, you will bring all chances of
success to life. Only love builds and, strongly loving Brazil, you will
lead it to the greatest of destinies among Nations, fulfilling the
desires of exaltation nestled in every Brazilian heart."
Of all the potential targets for propaganda, children are the most
vulnerable because they are the least prepared with the critical
reasoning and contextual comprehension they need to determine whether a
message is a propaganda or not. The attention children give their
environment during development, due to the process of developing their
understanding of the world, causes them to absorb propaganda
indiscriminately. Also, children are highly imitative: studies by Albert Bandura, Dorothea Ross and Sheila A. Ross in the 1960s indicated that, to a degree, socialization, formal education and standardized television programming can be seen as using propaganda for the purpose of indoctrination. The use of propaganda in schools was highly prevalent during the 1930s and 1940s in Germany in the form of the Hitler Youth.
Anti-Semitic propaganda for children
In Nazi Germany, the education system was thoroughly co-opted to indoctrinate the German youth with anti-Semitic ideology. From the 1920s on, the Nazi Party targeted German youth as one of their special audience for its propaganda messages. Schools and texts mirrored what the Nazis aimed of instilling in German youth through the use and promotion of racial theory. Julius Streicher, the editor of Der Sturmer, headed a publishing house that disseminated anti-Semitic propaganda picture books in schools during the Nazi dictatorship. This was accomplished through the National Socialist Teachers League, of which 97% of all German teachers were members in 1937.
The League encouraged the teaching of racial theory. Picture books for children such as Trust No Fox on his Green Heath and No Jew on his Oath, Der Giftpilz (translated into English as The Poisonous Mushroom) and The Poodle-Pug-Dachshund-Pincher were widely circulated (over 100,000 copies of Trust No Fox... were
circulated during the late 1930s) and contained depictions of Jews as
devils, child molesters and other morally charged figures. Slogans such
as "Judas the Jew betrayed Jesus the German to the Jews" were recited in
class. During the Nuremberg Trial, Trust No Fox on his Green Heath and No Jew on his Oath, and Der Giftpilz were received as documents in evidence because they document the practices of the Nazi's
The following is an example of a propagandistic math problem
recommended by the National Socialist Essence of Education: "The Jews
are aliens in Germany—in 1933 there were 66,606,000 inhabitants in the
German Reich, of whom 499,682 (.75%) were Jews."
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
