• 06 Dec, 2022
• Comment (0)

AN EXAMINATION OF THE PAIRED CATEGORIES OF PROPAGANDA IN THE LIGHT OF JACQUES ELLUL’S PROPAGANDA THEORY

Historical Background

The use of propaganda has been an integral part of human history and we can trace its philosophical and theoretical origins back to ancient Greece. Used effectively by Alexander the Great, the Roman Empire, and the early Christians, propaganda became an integral part of the religious conflicts of the Reformation (Ellul, 1967; Scribner, 1981; Oettinger, 2001; McKinney, 2003; Martinson, 2001; Walton, 1997). In point of fact, Martin Luther adopted the invention of the printing press in his fight against the Catholic Church (Soergel, 1993; Wright, 2005; Watt, 1991; Bukofzer, 1960). The Catholic Church, in turn, not only used propaganda to propagate the faith, but also to oppose Martin Luther. Both adversaries used songs as instrument to spread their propagandas.

The opposition instinct in both camps made propaganda to acquire pejorative connotations by losing its neutrality. As a result, some words have been associated with propaganda; when they pop up in discussions, what comes to mind is propaganda. They include lies, distortion, deceit, manipulation, mind control, psychological warfare, brainwashing, and palaver (Victoria O’Donnell & Garth S. Jowett, 2012). The advent of printing technology, hence, provided the ideal medium for the widespread use of propagandistic materials. Propagandists quickly adopted each new medium of communication for use especially during the American and French revolutions and later by Napoleon. By the end of the 19th century, improvements in the size and speed of the mass media had greatly increased the sophistication and effectiveness of propaganda (Moemeka, 1988; Littlejohn, 1983; Hall, 1977; Marcuse, 1964).

 This study examines propaganda from the lens of Jacques Ellul evaluating his perspectives on the categories of propaganda.

Objectives of the study

1. To examine a brief history of Jacques Ellul
2. To evaluate the paired categories of propaganda
3. To evaluate other possible classification bent not touched by Ellul

Who is Jacques Ellul? Brief historical notes

Jacques Ellul is a French Philosopher, Theologian, Legal Scholar, and Sociologist who became discharged as a Professor from French universities by the Vichy regime in France. After his discharge, Ellul became a leader in the French resistance during World War II (Ellul, 1973). After the liberation of France, he became a professor at the University of Bordeaux and wrote 58 books and numerous articles in his lifetime, the dominant theme of which has been the threat to human freedom by modern technology. He was the author of the book “Propaganda: The formation of men’s attitudes”. This book first appeared in French in 1962, but later translated into English. The book appears to be the first attempt to study propaganda from both sociological and psychological approaches.

It presents a sophisticated taxonomy for propaganda, including such paired opposites as political–sociological, vertical–horizontal, rational–irrational, and agitation–integration. The book contains Ellul's theories about the nature of propaganda to adapt the individual to a society, to a living standard, and to an activity aiming to make the individual serve and conform. Ellul's basic assumption in his theory of propaganda differs from previous assumptions, which describe propaganda as a manipulation for the purpose of changing ideas or opinions, or of making individuals believe some ideas or facts, and finally of making them adhere to some doctrine—all matters of the mind (Ellul, 1973). It tries to convince, to bring about a decision, and to create a firm adherence to some truth.

Ellul views these assumptions as a completely wrong line of thinking: to view propaganda as still being what it was in 1850 is to cling to an obsolete concept of man and of the means to influence him. It is to condemn oneself to understand nothing about propaganda (Ellul, 1964; 1973; Castronovo, 2009). According to him, it is essential that we understand propaganda in its modern form. Modern propaganda is scientific and does not operate as it did in the 19th Century. Modern propaganda is a systematic mode of communication within the world of facts deployed to intentionally distort reality. According to Ellul (1973), the aim of modern propaganda is no longer to modify ideas, but to provoke action. It is no longer to change adherence to a doctrine, but to make the individual cling irrationally to a process of action. It is no longer to transform an opinion, but to arouse an active and mythical belief (Ellul, 1973).

Ellul believes modern propaganda is intended to spark action towards a desired response by developing learned attitudes, and that it draws from scientific analyses of psychology and sociology. Ellul (1973) takes the view that prior attempts to define propaganda generally left out the sociological angle. “Propaganda by its very nature is an enterprise for perverting the significance of events and insinuating false intentions. There are two salient aspects of this fact. First of all, the propagandist must insist on the purity of his own intentions and, at the same time, hurl accusations at his enemy. But the accusation is never made haphazardly or groundlessly. The propagandist will not accuse the enemy of just any misdeed; he will accuse him of the very intention that he himself has and of trying to commit the very crime that he himself is about to commit (Ellul in Jowett and O’Donnell, Propaganda and Persuasion, New and Classic Essays, 2006).”

Ellul says, “Propaganda is necessarily false when it speaks of values, of truth, of good, of justice, of happiness—and when it interprets and colors facts and imputes meaning to them (Ellul, 1973; Brunello, 2014).” Ellul means that the scientific application of modern propaganda is decidedly predatory. Written in 1967, Ellul’s criticism implies greater caution for the 21st Century. For example, Ellul never could have considered the power of electronic social networks like Facebook. Even so, the social network today provides a mode of expanding propaganda cheaply, and with greater toxicity than the “chain emails” of the last decade. Propagandists can now initiate politically motivated disinformation campaigns very quickly.

What are his views concerning the categories of propaganda

Although propaganda has many categories; however, it is almost always in some form of activated ideology. Sometimes propaganda is agitative, attempting to rouse an audience to certain ends and usually resulting in significant change; sometimes it is integrative, attempting to render an audience passive, accept­ing, and non-challenging (Szanto, 1978; Evans, 1994). Propaganda is also described as white, gray, or black, in relationship to an acknowledgment of its source and its accuracy of information. However, Ellul presents his views on the categories of propaganda according to the presumed principle of relationship among them. He prefers to pair opposites together as in the following format: political-sociological, vertical-horizontal, rational-irrational, and agitation-integration. In this case, the reverse knowledge of one provides the understanding of the other. We will examine the categories briefly.

Political vs. Sociological Propaganda

Political Propaganda involves techniques of influence employed by a government, a party, an administration, or a pressure group with the intention of changing the behaviour of the public. The themes and objectives of this type of propaganda are of a political nature. The groups, government, party, administration or pressure group determine the goals of political propaganda. The methods of political propaganda are calculated in a precise manner and its main criteria is to disseminate an ideology for the very purpose of making various political acts acceptable to the people (Ellul, 1973). There are two forms of political propaganda, tactical and strategic. Tactical political propaganda seeks to obtain immediate results within a given framework such as wartime pamphlets and loudspeakers to obtain immediate surrender of the enemy.

Strategic political propaganda is not concerned with speed, but rather it establishes the general line, the array of arguments, and the staggering of campaigns. Political propaganda reversed is sociological propaganda because the ideology penetrates by means of its sociological context (Ellul, 1973). Propaganda, as it is traditionally known, implies an attempt to spread an ideology through the mass media of communication in order to lead the public to a desired action. In sociological propaganda even media that are not controllable such as individual artwork, films, and writing, reflect the ideology allowing for an accelerated penetration of the masses and the individuals within them (Ellul, 1973). Sociological propaganda is a phenomenon where a society seeks to integrate the maximum number of individuals into itself.

Therefore, the group that operates sociological propaganda unifies its members' behaviour according to a pattern, then spreads its style of life abroad, and thus imposes itself on other groups. Essentially sociological propaganda aims to increase conformity with the environment that is of a collective nature by developing compliance with or defense of the established order. It does this through long-term penetration and progressive adaptation using all social currents. The propaganda element is the way of life, which permeates the individual and then the individual begins to express it in film, writing, or art without realising it. This involuntary behaviour creates an expansion of society through advertising, the movies, education, and magazines.

"The entire group, consciously or not, expresses itself in this fashion; and to indicate, secondly that its influence aims much more at an entire style of life (Ellul, 1973).” This type of propaganda is not deliberate, but springs up spontaneously or unwittingly within a culture or nation. This propaganda reinforces the individual's way of life and represents this way of life as the best way. Sociological propaganda creates an indisputable criterion for the individual to make judgments of good and evil according to the order of the individual's way of life. Sociological propaganda does not result in action; however, it can prepare the ground for direct propaganda. From then on, the individual in the clutches of such sociological propaganda believes that those who live this way are on the side of the angels, and those who don't are bad (Ellul, 1973).

The propaganda of Christianity in the middle ages is an example of this type of sociological propaganda. And in present times certainly the most accomplished models of this type are American and Chinese propaganda (Ellul, 1973). This sociological propaganda in the United States is a natural result of the fundamental elements of American life. In the beginning, the United States had to unify a disparate population that came from all the countries of Europe and had diverse traditions and tendencies. A way of rapid assimilation had to be found: that was the great political problem of the United States at the end of the nineteenth century. The solution was psychological standardisation—that is, simply to use a way of life as the basis of unification and as an instrument of propaganda.

Vertical vs. Horizontal Propaganda

Vertical propaganda is similar to direct propaganda that aims at the individual in the mass and is renewed constantly. Agitators use this propaganda to accomplish their desired goals. One trait of vertical propaganda is that the propagandee remains alone even though he is part of a crowd. His shouts of enthusiasm or hatred, though part of the shouts of the crowd, do not put him in communication with others. His shouts are only a response to the leader. This kind of propaganda requires a passive attitude from those subjected to it. They are seized; they are manipulated; they are committed; they experience wbat they are asked to experience (Ellul, 1973). In fact, they are really transformed into objects. Consider, for instance, the quasi-hypnotic condition of those propagandised at a meeting.

There, the individual is depersonalised. His decisions are no longer his own, but those suggested by the leader, imposed by a conditioned reflex. When we say that this is a passive attitude, we do not mean that the propagandee does not act. On the contrary, he acts with vigor and passion, but his action is not his own, though he believes it is. Throughout, his action is conceived and willed outside of him; the propagandist is acting through him, reducing him to the condition of a passive instrument. He is mechanised, dominated, hence passive. This is all the more so because he often is plunged into a mass of propagandees in which he loses his individuality and becomes one element among others, inseparable from the crowd and inconceivable without it.

In any case, vertical propaganda is by far the most widespread —whether Hitler's or Stalin's, that of the French government since 1950, or that of the United States. It is in one sense the easiest to make, but its direct effects are extremely perishable, and it must be renewed constantly as we said earlier.  Horizontal propaganda is a much more recent development. We know it in two forms: Chinese propaganda and group dynamics in human relations. The first is political propaganda; the second is sociological propaganda; both are integration propaganda (Ellul, 1973). This propaganda can be called horizontal because it is made inside the group (not from the top), where, in principle, all individuals are equal and there is no leader. The individual makes contact with others at his own level rather than with a leader. Such propaganda therefore always seeks "conscious adherence.”

Its content is presented in didactic fashion and addressed to the intelligence. The leader, the propagandist, is there only as a sort of animator or discussion leader. Sometimes his presence and his identity are not even known—for example, the "ghost writer" in certain American groups, or the "police spy" in Chinese groups. The individual's adherence to his group is "conscious" because he is aware of it and recognises it, but it is ultimately involuntary because he is trapped in dialectic and in a group that leads him unfailingly to this adherence. His adherence is also "intellectual" because he can express his conviction clearly and logically, but it is not genuine because the information, the data, the reasoning that have led him to adhere to the group were themselves deliberately falsified in order to lead him there.

But the most remarkable characteristic of horizontal propaganda is the small group. The individual participates actively in the life of this group in a genuine and lively dialogue. In China the group is watched carefully to see that each member speaks, expresses himself, gives his opinions. Only in speaking will the individual gradually discover his own convictions (which also will be those of the group), become irrevocably involved, and help others to form their opinions (which are identical). Each individual helps to form the opinion of the group, but the group helps each individual to discover the correct line. For, miraculously, it is always the correct line, the anticipated solution, the "proper" convictions, which are eventually discovered. All the participants are placed on an equal footing, meetings are intimate, discussion is informal, and no leader presides.

Progress is slow; there must be many meetings each recalling events of the preceding one so that participants can share a common experience. To produce "voluntary" rather than mechanical adherence, and to create a solution that is "found" by the individual rather than imposed from above is indeed a very advanced method, much more effective and binding than the mechanical action of vertical propaganda. When the individual is mechanised, he can be manipulated easily. But to put the individual in a position where he apparently has a freedom of choice and still obtains from him what one expects, is much more subtle and risky.

Vertical propaganda needs the huge apparatus of the mass media of communication; horizontal propaganda needs a huge organisation of people. Each individual must be inserted into a group, if possible into several groups with convergent actions. The group must be homogeneous, specialised and small: fifteen to twenty is the optimum figure to permit active participation by each person. This group must comprise individuals of the same sex, class, age, and environment. Most friction between individuals can then be ironed out and all factors eliminated, which might distract attention, splinter motivations, and prevent the establishment of the proper line. Therefore, a great many groups are needed (there are millions in China), as well as a great many group leaders. That is the principal problem.

Mao believes each member of a group must be a propagandist for all. However, this form of propaganda needs two conditions. First is lack of contact between groups. A member of a small group must not belong to other groups in which he would be subjected to other influence that would give him a chance to find himself again and with it, the strength to resist. This is why the Chinese Communists insisted on breaking up traditional groups, such as the family, which is a private and heterogeneous group (with different ages, sexes, and occupations). The family is a tremendous obstacle to such propaganda. In China, where the family was still very powerful, it had to be broken up. The problem is very different in the United States and in the Western societies; there the social structures are sufficiently flexible and disintegrated to be no obstacle. However, in horizontal propaganda there is no top down structure like we have in vertical propaganda. Schools are a primary mechanism for integrating the individual into the way of life.

Rational vs. Irrational Propaganda

Propaganda is addressed to the individual on the foundation of feelings and passions, which are irrational; however, the content of propaganda does address reason and experience when it presents information and furnishes facts making it rational as well. It is important for propaganda to be rational because modern man needs relation to facts. Modern man wants to be convinced that by acting in a certain way, he is obeying reason in order to have self-justification.  

According to Ellul (1973) describing the effect of the film, Algérié Fran‚caíse and the nature of American bulletins, “Similarly, the propaganda of French grandeur since 1956 is a rational and factual propaganda; French films in particular are almost all centered around French technological successes. The film Algérié Fran‚caíse is an economic film, overloaded with economic geography and statistics (Ellul, 1973). But it is still propaganda. Such rational propaganda is practiced by various regimes. … American propaganda, out of concern for honesty and democratic conviction, also attempts to be rational and factual. The news bulletins of the American services are a typical example of rational propaganda based on "knowledge" and information.” We can say that the more progress we make, the more propaganda becomes rational and the more it is based on serious arguments, on dissemination of knowledge, on factual information, figures, and statistics.'

Purely impassioned and emotional propaganda is disappearing. Even such propaganda contained elements of fact: Hitler’s most inflammatory speeches always contained some facts, which served as base or pretext. It is unusual nowadays to find a frenzied propaganda composed solely of claims without relation to reality. However, the overarching problem in this modern time lies in the effect of propaganda, which, most times, is irrational. The challenge is creating an irrational response on the basis of rational and factual elements by leaving an impression on an individual that remains long after the facts have faded away. No framework exists to compel individuals to act based rather on facts than emotional pressure, the vision of the future, or the myth.

Agitation vs. Integration Propaganda

May be we go the Lenin way by giving the difference between agitation and propaganda. According to Oxford dictionary, to agitate is "to excite or stir it up," whereas propaganda is a "systematic scheme or concerted movement, for the propagation of some creed or doctrine." These definitions are not a bad starting point. Agitation focuses on an immediate issue, seeking to 'stir up' action around that issue. Propaganda is concerned with the more systematic exposition of ideas. The pioneer Russian Marxist Plekhanov pointed out an important consequence of this distinction. "A propagandist presents many ideas to one or a few persons; an agitator presents only one or a few ideas, but presents them to a mass of people (Duncan, 1984)." Like all such generalisations, this one should not be taken too literally.

Propaganda can, in favourable circumstances, reach thousands and tens of thousands. And the 'mass of people' reached by agitation is a highly variable quantity. Nevertheless, the general point is sound. Now back to Lenin! Lenin, in his book, What Is to Be Done, develops this idea: The propagandist, dealing with, say, the question of unemployment, must explain the capitalistic nature of crises, the cause of their inevitability in modern society, the necessity for the transformation of this society into a socialist society, etc (Duncan, 1984). In a word, he must present "many ideas", so many indeed, that they will be understood as an integral whole by a (comparatively) few persons. The agitator, however, speaking on the same subject, will take as an illustration the death of an unemployed worker's family from starvation, the growing impoverishment etc (Duncan, 1984).

Utilising this fact known to all, however, the agitator directs his efforts to presenting a single idea to the "masses." Consequently the propagandist operates chiefly by means of the printed word; the agitator by means of the spoken word. On this last point Lenin was wrong because he was too one-sided. As he himself had argued, before and after he wrote the statement above, the revolutionary paper can and must be a most effective agitator. But this is a secondary matter. The important thing is that agitation, spoken or written, does not explain everything. Propaganda of agitation seeks to mobilise people in order to destroy the established order and/or government. It seeks rebellion by provoking a crisis or unleashing explosive movements during one.

It momentarily subverts the habits, customs, and beliefs that were obstacles to making great leap forward by addressing the internal elements in each of us. It eradicates the individual out of his normal framework and then proceeds to plunge him into enthusiasm. It then suggests extraordinary goals, which nevertheless seem to the propagandee completely within reach. However, this enthusiasm last only a short time so the objective must be achieved quickly and then a period of rest follows. People cannot be kept in a "state of perpetual enthusiasm and insecurity (Ellul, 1973)". Propagandist who knows that hate is one of the most profitable resources when drawn out of an individual is the one that incites rebellion.

Agitation propaganda is usually thought of as propaganda in that it aims to influence people to act. However, we should affirm here that government too can initiate agitation propaganda against a segment of society seen as obstacle to making great leap forward. Integration propaganda, on the other hand, is a more subtle form that aims to reinforce cultural norms. This is sociological in nature because it provides stability to society by supporting the "way of life" and the myths within a culture (Ellul, 1973). It is propaganda of conformity that requires participation in the social body. This type of propaganda is more prominent and permanent, yet it is not as recognised as agitation propaganda. Basically, agitation propaganda provides the motive force when needed and when not needed integration propaganda provides the context and backdrop.

Though not exclusive, however, integration propaganda provides the most preferred instrument of government. This is because of its stabilizing and unifying influence in social life. In the United States, integration propaganda is much more subtle and complex than agitation propaganda (Ellul, 1973). It seeks not temporary excitement, but total moulding of the person in depth. Here, propagandists utilise both mass media of communication and psychological and opinion analysis. It is the most important political and sociological instrument in a world divided by subversive influences of agitation propaganda. The more comfortable, cultivated and informed the milieu to which it is addressed, the better it works.

Other Classification Bent

White vs. Black vs. Gray Propaganda

Jacques Ellul did not examine these types of propaganda in his analysis. This is one criticism that one can say limits his overall evaluation, but there is need to present some distinctions in respect of these propaganda types. While there are discrepancies in the way people define these terms, Garth S. Jowett and Victoria O’Donnell (2012) use the following labels:

White propaganda comes from a source that is identified correctly, and the information in the message tends to be accurate. Although what listeners hear is reasonably close to the truth, it is presented in a manner that attempts to convince the audience that the sender is the ‘good guy’ with the best ideas and political ideology (Victoria O’Donnell & Garth S. Jowett, 2012 on Battle of the Midway). White propaganda is used to boost national celebrations and regional chauvinism with overt patriotism. This is what one hears on Radio Moscow and VOA during peacetime. For instance, the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing, China, had all the usual nations represented, but in addition to the events themselves, American television primarily focused on biographical profiles of American athletes, especially champion swimmer Michael Phelps.

Black propaganda, on the other hand, is credited to a false source, and it spreads lies, fabrications, and deceptions. Black propaganda includes all types of creative deceit, and this type of propaganda gets the most attention when it is revealed. The success or failure of black propaganda depends on the receiver’s will­ingness to accept the credibility of the source and the content of the message. Care has to be taken to place the sources and messages within a social, cultural, and political framework of the target audience. If the sender mis­understands the audience and therefore designs a message that does not fit, black propaganda may appear suspicious and tends to fail. However, disinformation is another term used to describe black propaganda. Disinformation is usually considered black propaganda because it is covert and uses false information.

In fact, the word disinformation is a cognate for the Russian dezinformatsia, taken from the name of a division of the KGB devoted to black propaganda. Disinformation means, “False, incomplete, or misleading information that is passed, fed, or confirmed to a targeted individual, group, or country (Shultz & Godson, 1984).” It is not misinformation that is merely misguided or erroneous information. Disinformation is made up of news stories deliberately designed to weaken adversaries and planted in newspapers by journalists who are actually secret agents of a foreign country. The stories are passed off as real and from credible source. Ladislav Bittmann, former deputy chief of the Disinformation Department of the Czechoslovak Intelligence Service, in testimony before the House Committee on Intelligence of the U.S. Congress in February 1980, said,

If somebody had at this moment the magic key that would open the Soviet bloc intelligence safes and looked into the files of secret agents operating in Western countries, he would be surprised. A relatively high percentage of secret agents are journalists. … There are newspapers around the world penetrated by the Communist Intelligence services. (Brownfield, 1984, p. 6)

A popular black propaganda credited America as the developer of the virus responsible for acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) for biological warfare. The story appeared in the news media of more than 60 countries, including Zimbabwe, while the nonaligned coun­tries were having a conference there (Victoria O’Donnell & Garth S. Jowett, 2012). The story also appeared in the October 26, 1986, issue of London’s Sunday Express after Express reporters interviewed two people from East Berlin who repeated the story. Subtle variations continued to appear in the world press, including an East German broadcast of the story into Turkey that suggested it might be wise to get rid of U.S. bases because of servicemen infected with AIDS. Interestingly, it has been the desire of the Soviet Union to plant such stories in foreign newspapers to discredit the United States. Increasing evidence shows that major world powers practise disinformation, which reflects the reality of international politics.

 In the same vein, gray propaganda is somewhere between white and black propaganda.  Here, the source may or may not be correctly identified, and the accuracy of information is uncertain. Gray propaganda is used to embarrass an enemy or competitor. Radio Moscow took advantage of the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and John F. Kennedy to derogate the United States. VOA did not miss the opportunity to offer similar commentaries about Russia’s invasion of Afghanistan or the arrests of Jewish dissidents. This propaganda involves planting of favourable stories in foreign newspapers. This practice has long standing root in the United States. The United States plants favourable stories about itself in foreign newspapers as the source. The practice has been sanctioned by the U.S. Department of Defense.

An unclassified summary of the policy confirmed this as released by the Associated Press: “Psychological operations are a central part of information operations and contribute to achieving the commander’s objectives. They are aimed at conveying selected, truthful information to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of governments and other entities (Pentagon Propaganda Program within the Law, 2006).” It is not only governments that practise planting favourable stories, for private organi­sations do it as well. Since 1980s, the use of video news releases (VNRs) inserted in television news programmes has been on the increase (Pavlik, 2006). However, while these definitions are in themselves fairly ambiguous, one could argue that all forms of persuasion fall into the category of white propaganda at the very least, extending the general definition of propaganda to anything that argues an opinion.

Other Criteria for Classification

Propaganda may be classified upon the basis of many possible criteria. Some are carried on by organisations like the Anti-Cigarette League, which have a definite and restricted objective. Others are conducted by organisations, like most civic associations, which have a rather general and diffused purpose (Harold Lasswell, 1927). According to Lasswell (1927), this objective may be revolutionary or counter-revolutionary, reformist or counter-reformist, depending upon whether or not a sweeping institutional change is involved. Propaganda may be carried on by organisations, which rely almost exclusively upon it or which use it as an auxiliary implement among several means of social control. Some propagandas are essentially temporary while some others are comparatively permanent. Some propagandas are intra-group, in the sense that they exist to consolidate an existing attitude and not, like the extra-group propagandas, to assume the additional burden of proselytising (Harold Lasswell, 1927).

Those who hope to reap direct, tangible, and substantial gains man some propaganda. Those who are content with a remote, intangible, and rather imprecise advantage staff other propagandas. Men who make running propaganda their life work run some propagandas, and amateurs handle others. Some depend upon a central or skeleton staff and others rely upon widespread and catholic associations. One propaganda group may flourish in secret like Biafra radio, and another may invite publicity like Boko Haram. Besides all these conceivable and often valuable distinctions, propagandas may be conveniently divided according to the object toward which it is proposed to modify or crystallise an attitude.

According to Lasswell (1927), some propagandas exist to organise an attitude toward a person, like Mr. Coolidge or Mr. Smith. Others exist to organise an attitude toward a group, like the Japanese or the workers. Others exist to organise an attitude toward a policy or institution, like free trade or parliamentary government. Still others exist to organise an attitude toward a mode of personal participation, like buying war bonds or joining the marines (Harold Lasswell, 1927). No propaganda fits tightly into its category of major emphasis, and we must remember that people invent pigeonholes to serve convenience and not to satisfy yearnings for the immortal and the immutable. Lasswell maintains that the problem of the propagandist is to intensify the attitudes favourable to his purpose, to reverse the attitudes hostile to it, and to attract the indifferent, or, at the worst, to prevent them from assuming a hostile bent.

If you need the full paper, you can contact me by dropping a comment.