Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes (original 1962; edition 1973)

Although I take issue with some of the details, this book, written 40 years ago by a French legal scholar, resonates with me, and explains much of what I have observed. Concept of horizontal vs. vertical propaganda, or 'social' propaganda. ( )

Ellul, a French philosopher, sociologist, and theologian, disputes the notion that propaganda is “the work of a few evil men, seducers of the people, cheats and authoritarian rulers who want to dominate a population.” He says it is more like a medium that surrounds us, and may indeed be the inescapable product of a technological society. The author develops a sophisticated taxonomy for propaganda, including such paired opposites as political-sociological, vertical-horizontal, and rational-irrational. The most interesting to me was the agitation-integration pair. Agitation propaganda is what we usually think of as propaganda—it aims to influence people to act. Integration propaganda, on the other hand, is a more subtle form that aims to reinforce cultural norms (such as “our way of life”) and myths (such as “equal justice before the law”) and provide stability to society. Ellul says that educated, middle-class people are more susceptible to integration propaganda, which is often seen in such cultural fare as television shows, movies, and newscasts.

Ellul sees “information” as an essential element of propaganda, which must “have reference to political or economic reality” to be credible. In fact, no propaganda can work until the moment when a set of facts has become a problem in the eyes of those who constitute public opinion.”

Ellul sees propaganda as fundamentally undemocratic and based on need—need on the part of large institutions, which must channel and shape opinion toward what they can provide—and on behalf of the propagandee, who finds support and validation through propaganda. “…information actually generates the problems that propaganda exploits and for which it pretends to offer solutions,” he says. If the government can’t follow opinion, then opinion must follow the government.

Ellul points out that modern institutions invest billions of dollars and years of work in making sophisticated arrangements; public opinion simply cannot be allowed to interfere with these arrangements. Instead, opinion must be shaped. Concentrated ownership of mass media makes this possible by providing a relatively small range of opinion, with constant repetition and reinforcement of messages. Integration propaganda provides the context and backdrop, while agitation propaganda provides the motive force when needed.

Though this book was written over forty years ago, I found it to be prescient in many ways. Ellul died in 1994, just as the Internet was taking off as a popular vehicle. It would be interesting to know how he might see the Internet’s role in detracting from or reinforcing the effects of propaganda.