other publications
Writers, Readers, Researchers: Beware! Propaganda Ahead!
Barbara Douglas
Many of us living in Canada consider ourselves to be extremely lucky. We are, after all, a wealthy nation enjoying a standard of living not even imaginable to millions of fellow inhabitants around the globe - destitute masses struggling daily to survive. We also live in a democratic society where we are free to vote. We are not held captive, as were citizens of the former USSR and other eastern block countries. No, we have eluded that trap and are definitely freethinkers, right?
While you may be nodding in agreement, I urge you to consider the following statement from linguist and social reformer Noam Chomsky: "The freer the society, the more well-honed the system of thought control and indoctrination. The ruling elite, ever class conscious, ever sure of domination, make sure of that" (Maher and Groves 139). To those of you who are not familiar with Chomsky, this statement may seem surprising, even startling. You may feel confused about the inherent paradox in this statement. Or you may be familiar with Chomsky's work, viewing him as a conspiracy theorist and angry that you've wasted your time to read this. If, however, I have stirred up any curiosity, please read on.
A word of caution, however: rather than coming to any steadfast conclusions, this chapter is geared to stimulate awareness. This is a think piece, designed to look critically at the use of language in the modern world. We will travel on a journey of inquiry with the purpose of illustrating the immense power of language. Language is all-encompassing. It is both anything and everything. The idea that "language shapes our perception of reality" is not an overstatement (Birk & Birk 38). I'm not setting out to prove Chomsky's view as correct, but simply to suggest it as a possibility based on the inherent, implicit, and underlying power of language to persuade and create.
It is helpful for us to backtrack a little and look briefly at the history of persuasion. Although definitions are not absolute, persuasion is often interchanged with the word rhetoric - from the Greek rhetor for orator - the art of writing and speaking effectively. In ancient Greece, Plato cast an eye of suspicion on this practice. He vehemently distrusted the persuasive powers of language, especially poetry, and believed that truth existed solely in the mathematical realm (Adams 252).
In the diet of the contemporary academic world, the use of persuasion is a mainstay. One of the principal methods of persuasion is word choice (Goshgarian 38). Although we all know that some people are more objective than others, we are all biased by the basic (but also complex) decision of word choice. For example, in the second paragraph I use the words surprising and startling to describe possible reactions to the Chomsky quote. The word surprising could lead to curiosity or need for clarification. Surprising could be a good thing. The word startling is stronger, leaning more towards the negative connotation of being frightened. This simple example is relatively subtle compared to other synonyms.
We can see a stronger example of the power of word choice in wartime, where propaganda, defined here as "the unscrupulous use of language to deceive and manipulate," is used shamelessly (MacLennan & Moffatt 261). The following illustrations were taken from mainstream British media and compiled by The Manchester Guardian concerning coverage of the 1991 war in Iraq. The differences in describing the two opposing sides are startling. The press said that British forces launched first strikes, pre-emptively. In contrast, they said Iraqi forces launched sneak missile attacks, without provocation. British soldiers were described by the press as cautious, loyal, resolute, brave, Young Knights of the Sky; whereas Iraqi soldiers were cowardly, blindly obedient, ruthless, fanatical, Bastards of Baghdad (University of Victoria Writers Guide). These opposing terms carry opposing viewpoints of soldiers. In reality, are the men and women who participated in this war really that different from each other?
Another strategy we see used in persuasion is the selection of facts. Looking just at this text again, it is important to emphasize that that I have carefully and deliberately chosen to include certain information and present it in a certain way. For example, in the opening paragraph I assert that Canada is a wealthy nation. This is a generalization and is probably true in a statistical sense, relative to developing nations. I assert it as a fact, even though it excludes the experiences of the many impoverished people struggling in Canada. Again, the lines of persuasion and rhetoric intertwine.
The selection of facts - which is a way of emphasizing or omitting certain thoughts, values, and ideals - is one of the strongest tools available to the artiste of language. The techniques of emphasis and complete omission can be seen daily in the never-ending series of conflicts between people, where differing facts are relayed concerning the same event. For example, if Bobby says, "Mummy, Suzy hit me," but fails to tell Mummy that previous to this assault, he had cut off a big chunk of Suzy's hair, he comes off looking like a victim; however, after Mummy sees Suzy, Bobby's story is put into perspective. Although he probably tries to get out of it with a cute little smile, Bobby can't persuade Mummy he's just that innocent. The selection of facts is all-encompassing - it can swing from an innocent anecdote of childhood antics to the big, mean wartime propaganda machine.
Well-known Canadian journalist Knowlton Nash relates a story about a Pentagon briefing concerning the Vietnam War, when American Secretary of Defense Arthur Sylvester told journalists that they had "a patriotic duty to disseminate only information that made the United States look good" (Mac Lennan & Moffatt 223). This statement is an unequivocal acknowledgement by a government official that there was a deliberate attempt to sort through the available facts in order to create a certain impression. Apparently, Sylvester was reprimanded for this outright statement (223). You see, Sylvester broke the simple but very important rule in the art of propaganda: you can't tell the people whom you're manipulating that you're manipulating them!
No, you have to become more subtle in your approach. According to Chomsky, the propagandists or "ruling elite" have to use a kind of reverse psychology to convey the message that dissident views are welcome and even encouraged (Chomsky). This idea informs the paradox in the Chomsky quote: you're not going to strive for freedom if you think you already have it (in democracy).
I have deliberately used a mismatch of examples to illustrate the power and scope of persuasion and propaganda. It's here, it's there, it's everywhere. I also want to emphasize that use of persuasion is a critical part of language use. I hope I haven't given the impression that it is inherently bad. In fact, our "perception of reality" would be unbearably bland without it (Goshgarian 38).
In the contemporary world, with its so-called advances in technology and communications, the widespread use of propaganda is troubling. The most troubling thought, though, comes from Chomsky who warns us of the undermining of the freedom that every citizen deserves. According to philosopher Bertrand Russell, the goals of education are "to give a sense of value of things other than domination, to help create wise citizens of a free community, to encourage a combination of citizenship with liberty, individual creativeness..." (qtd. in Chomsky). I think Russell would be both surprised and startled by the state of freedom in today's world. And that, my friends, is called an understatement.
Bibliography
Adams, Hazard. ed. Critical Theory Since Plato. Montreal: HarcourtBrace Javanovich, 1992.
Barlow, Maude and James Winter. The Big Black Book: The Essential Views of Conrad Black and Barbara Amiel. Toronto: Stoddart, 1997.
Birk, Newman P. and Genevieve Birk. "Selection, Slanting, and Charged Language."Exploring Language. Ed. Gary Goshgarian. Toronto: Little, Brown & Company, 1986.
Chomsky, Noam. Necessary Illusions: Thought Control In Democratic Societies. Toronto: CBC Publishing, 1991.
Chomsky, Noam. "Democracy and Education". Oct.19, 1994. Z-Magazine. (http//www.zmag.org) Nov.27, 2002.
Goshgarian, Gary. ed. Exploring Language. Toronto: Little,Brown & Company, 1986.
MacLennan, Jennifer & John Moffat, eds. Inside Language. Toronto: Pearson Education Canada, 2001.
Maher, John and Judy Groves. Introducing Chomsky. Cambridge: Icon Books, 1999.
Miller, Clyde."How To Detect Propaganda." In Inside Language. Ed. MacLennan & Moffat. Toronto: Pearson Education Canada, 2001.
Nash, Knowlton. "'Spinning The News'." In Inside Language. Ed. MacLennan & Moffat. Toronto: Pearson Education Canada, 2001.
Pinkert, Robert C. The Truth About English. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1981.
University of Victoria Writer's Guide. 19 Sept. 1995. (http://web.uvic.ca/wguide/Pages/MasterToc.html) Nov. 26, 2002.
© Barbara Douglas 2002
Fair Dealing applies