Destroy the Mad Brute, Part 2: The Rulers of Men
“As creeping ivy clings to wood or stone,
and hides the ruin that it feeds upon,
so Sophistry cleaves close to and protects
sin’s rotten trunk, concealing its defects.”
-William Cowper,
The Progress of Error (1782)
THE DAWNLESS PAST: AN INTRODUCTION TO ANCIENT MEDIA
Propaganda could very well be as old as art. The urge to dominate one’s peers—the desire to obtain and maintain the position of “alpha”—is even older; passed on to humankind by its ruthless mammalian ancestors. The instinct to control seems to be evolutionarily hard-wired into the minds of animals—including humans—as a result of millions of years of onerous living. The fear of ostracism, the unknown, death, or genetic erasure is ample motivation to live life as savagely as possible. These fears represent the emotional baggage that humans have inherited from their gruff, no-nonsense ancestors.1 These are the primal fears that motivate some of man’s most vile and deplorable behaviors.
On the other hand, there are “primal desires,” just as there are primal fears. Varying lists have been presented in attempts to quantify these instincts, though they all represent certain commonalities; certain undeniable basic instincts. What is interesting to note, however, is the fact that some people do deny these supposed instincts, suggesting that they are only general patterns, not unbreakable laws of nature. The general human instincts are survival (this includes sustenance, self-defense, peer defense, etc.), sex (reproductive and pleasurable), comradery (social position, friends, family, etc.), and, apparently, excitement or novelty (thus explaining humanity’s attraction to dangerous activities and unhealthy habits that may contradict the prior instincts).2, 3, 4
“Man is a tool-making animal,” wrote Benjamin Franklin.5 Certainly Franklin speaks generally in this distinction between humans and other animals, for tool use is by no means exclusive to man. Birds build nests, beavers build dams, and chimpanzees even “fish” for ants using blades of grass!6
Nonetheless, Franklin’s sentiment is understood. There is very obviously a difference between chimpanzees’ use of tools and humanity’s. It is only a difference in degree, and it is true that, when it comes to tool-making, some people are closer to the level of “chimp” than they are to some genius inventor. It remains, though, that generally speaking, humanity is unique in its adeptness with tools.
Another human novelty, as far as can be seen, is the possession of abstract thought. From Project LEARNet:
Abstract thinking is a level of thinking about things that is removed from the facts of the “here and now,” and from specific examples of the things or concepts being thought about. Abstract thinkers are able to reflect on events and ideas, and on attributes and relationships separate from the objects that have those attributes or share those relationships. Thus, for example, a concrete thinker can think about this particular dog; a more abstract thinker can think about dogs in general. A concrete thinker can think about this dog on this rug; a more abstract thinker can think about spatial relations, like “on.”7
Thus, humans can conceptualize the reality surrounding them; reflecting on it and devising ways to improve it. By thinking like this, humans design tools and technologies, always increasing in their complexity. However, the technology improves at an exponential rate8—much faster than the rate at which humans are evolving. Despite all of the incredible technological leaps, humankind is still a race bound to its instincts; subjected to those archaic primal fears and desires.
People used some of these primitive technologies to express themselves; indeed some of the oldest technologies are language and art—audial and visual media. People spun stories to explain their presence on the earth; they drew pictures of the sun and the stars and other things they wondered about. Because these media provided them with common means of communication, people were able to huddle together in larger numbers, eventually giving rise to great cities. As this trend continued, people began to distinguish between their clan and other clans. Stories of gods both benevolent and angry played on people’s primal fear of the unknown, and their desire to be a dutiful component of society: a “patriot.”
With these group differences there came the first wars, and, naturally, man utilized the technologies at hand to claw his way to victory. Not just in terms of weapons technology, but media technology as well.
Propaganda in the ancient world began when one group of people started telling another group of people that they were somehow fundamentally different—either from them, or yet another group of people. The reverse is true as well; propaganda will often be used to “bring people together,” thus getting the target population to identify with one group while differentiating itself from another. For example, the ancient Greeks referred to all non-Greeks as “barbarians,”9 thus succeeding in “uniting” the former population while dehumanizing the latter, creating an “us-vs.-them” mentality. Some of the most basic driving forces of history include: artificial division (“divide-and-conquer”) and artificial unification (“patriotism,” “nationalism,” “group-think,” etc.). Though the media become more complicated, subtle, and persuasive with every passing era, the underlying fundamentals always remain. With these similarities and differences established—with a hierarchy set in place—religion, state, and warfare could begin their long triumvirate reign over the human race.
As early as 7000 BCE, drawings and paintings were used to refer to warfare,10 possibly acting as “agitprop” (“agitation propaganda”), a concept originating in late 19th and early 20th century Marxist thought.11 Such drawings were carved into the walls of caves in those days before paper, making them permanent artifacts of a mysterious era in human history. There were no means of preserving the audial arts in those days; only visual art remains.
Despite the fact that no audial art from the ancient world survives today, it is known that it did exist transiently. Thanks to texts—visual media—passed down through the ages, it is now possible to replicate the music of old. Musical notation is a concept that was apparently invented very early on, as even Sumerian music can be listened to on the internet.12
Appreciation for music is another very old concept—in fact, it could be argued that music was appreciated more in the past than it is even now. The ancient Greeks understood the effects music could have on the brain, evidenced by this statement from The Republic:
[R]hythm and harmony most of all insinuate themselves into the inmost part of the soul and most vigorously lay hold of it in bringing grace with them; and they make a man graceful if he is correctly reared, if not, the opposite.13
An audial art that accompanied music in the early days of humanity was the oral tradition. For generations, stories of ancestors, gods, kings, cataclysms, and the like were passed down by speech alone; literacy was not a luxury afforded to these early bards. A great example of this is the great Greek figure Homer and his epics The Odyssey and The Iliad, which are both said to have been memorized completely and recited without visual aids.14
Oral traditions spread religious belief, economic news, political news, and more throughout “primitive” society. Speech was the means employed by those in power to control the uneducated masses, be it through messages of fear or of hope.
Amongst the literate, written language was employed. We see examples of ancient literature in the writings of Plato, the paintings of Egypt, the carvings of Babylon, and the Bible. However, the luxury of literacy was generally reserved for merchants, priests, and, less often, kings. By withholding the ability to read and write, the ruling classes of the day ensured their supremacy over the general population; they could communicate practical and/or complex ideas to one another in a way that was completely undecipherable to most. Education was not for the poor or the workers—it was for only the best bred “stock.”
Another early art used to convey messages was pottery.15 Though ancient pottery is typically associated with the Greeks, many prior cultures such as the Assyrians used the imagery on pottery to display their military tales to merchant, vendor, and customer alike.
Architecture also plays a role in propaganda, both ancient and modern, as it is the aesthetic representation of a culture’s institutions. Large statues and monoliths suggest clearly that ancient cultures believed very seriously in the supernatural, and that they deified their rulers.16 The commanding structures of Egypt and Babylon served dual purposes; first, they “unified” their own populations; second, they intimidated other populations in time of war.
On a disorganized level, propaganda and warfare were likely born as twins. For the most part, the general population is usually not interested in war, as it goes against their best interests. Warfare detrimentally effects not only the economic livelihoods of the masses, but threatens to take away their very lives, and their children’s lives. Why, then, is history littered with the casualties of innumerable wars? The answer, at its root, is simple.
War benefits the rulers.
It is war that makes the chief, the king and the state, just as it is these that make war. In Samoa the chief had power during war, but at other times no one paid much attention to him. The Dyaks had no other government than that of each family by its head; in case of strife they chose their bravest warrior to lead them, and obeyed him strictly; but once the conflict was ended they literally sent him about his business.17
As is shown by this full quotation (see note 17), centralized leadership in the tribal world was only deemed necessary during periods of inter-tribal conflict. It follows that, to the would-be ruler craving power, war is beneficial, for warfare makes him needed; the savage state of warfare justifies the equally savage position of “king.”
Eventually as war and commerce became more common, government and kings became more common as well. These permanent rulers over our ancient ancestors employed primitive propaganda techniques, though they were not identified as such at the time. The rulers of Babylon, Assyria, and Egypt were all thought by their subjects to be gods, destined by divine right to rule their kingdoms. The state and religion began as two sides of the same coin. The belief that their king was a god—likely with supernatural powers—sufficiently frightened the general population into accepting his authoritarian rule. Not only did this ensure their subservience, but it also meant that their enemies were not simply competing with them over wild game, farmland, water, etc.; it meant their enemies opposed the will of their god.
One’s own king became a hero; one’s enemy’s king became a despicable villain. It is common to find that, when studying ancient warfare, the accounts are written like fantastic myths or fables. In his book Munitions of the Mind, Philip Taylor provides the example of an Assyrian story of King Tukulti-Ninurta I. The story details the glorious military exploits of the king, as well as his forgiving nature. Says Taylor:
It would appear that the events depicted in the poem were largely fictitious, that it was designed for public consumption and intended for oral recitation before large and illiterate crowds.18
Politically and militarily charged myths like this were very common in the ancient world, and are still prevalent in areas of Africa, according to Taylor. If such exaggerated stories were designed for the illiterate public, then we see in them a very clear example of propaganda in the ancient world.
Composed after the event, often long afterwards, epic royal poems and stories can be regarded as an example of celebratory war propaganda, being designed to praise and glorify the achievements or memory of a particular ruler.19
Obviously, in these times before the technological spoils of the modern world, the only media for the dissemination of propaganda were drawings and paintings, architecture, pottery, music, and oral traditions. As societies grew into kingdoms, and kingdoms into empires, the prevalence of these arts grew as well. In Egypt, visual art and written language became one-in-the-same, with the invention of hieroglyphics. In Assyria, as in the example above, poetry was a commonly employed form of audial media. Convincing and magnificent stories can be just as powerful a manipulator as divine images of the king, provided the target population lacks the critical thinking tools and the will to question their “leaders.”
GODS AND SOPHISTS
Religion stirs human passions. When convinced of a higher-calling, people can be convinced to do things they normally wouldn’t do; history indicates that many of its most heinous atrocities were committed by people who felt they were serving some “noble cause.” Thus, because of the way it can direct people’s thoughts and actions, religion has been used over and over again by rulers to control their subject populations. The ancient Greeks were no exception.
Religion to this day plays a pivotal role in wartime propaganda. The Greeks believed that the gods would send out omens before battle, such as a meteor or an eclipse. These natural events were assumed to be significant in determining the victor of a battle. Therefore, it was only a matter of time until generals began staging omens.
Alexander the Great would do exactly that. It is said that he disguised a tame snake to look like the serpentine god Asklepios, with the intent of rallying his troops. In this same vein, Alexander was guilty of “dyeing the word ‘Victory’ on the liver of a sacrificed animal and showing it to the troops before battle as a sign from the gods.”20 Vital as it is to boosting soldiers’ morale, religion plays an equally important role in social matters, as will be seen.
The Iliad and The Odyssey by Homer, considered to be foundational pieces of Occidental culture, provide fantastic accounts of gods and kings during the time of the Trojan War. Though these stories are obviously very colorful exaggerations to the modern reader, there was a time when they were taken as literal histories of the events.21
Does this mean that the poems of Homer were deliberately intended to change the way the masses felt towards their gods and their government? Perhaps. It is impossible to know the intent of Homer, supposing the man as we imagine him ever even existed. Perhaps these poems are merely artistic representations or interpretations of the Greek mentality at the time.
I am not here to indict Homer as some master propagandist—the intent of this book is not to decry all art as manipulative and dangerous. At the same time, I think it unwise to assume the opposite, that all artists are just artists. It is beyond question that some “art” is very clearly propaganda. As was established in the introduction, propaganda is deliberate. However, it is possible (and very common) for one to be so indoctrinated by propaganda and propagandized ideals that they become unwitting promoters—“dupes,” if you will—for the propagandist. Perhaps a more gentle way of putting it would be to call such people “victims of the times and circumstances.” When put this way, I’m sure anybody could think of a time when they fit this description. Was Homer working to “sell” the Greek pantheon to the masses? Or was he playing with concepts that already existed? And, in glorifying the exploits of these gods and kings, did he unwittingly support a hierarchical ruling class that ran on slavery and oppression? In doing so, did he contribute to the intellectual degradation of the masses by inculcating within them superstition? Or did he just tell some good stories with characters people were already familiar with?
“Homer’s poems were ‘ruling-class propaganda, written to glorify the ancestors of powerful chieftains and fighting men, and to inculcate the spirit of obedience and martial pride in the new generations,’” says Abraham Feldman in The Classical Journal, quoting Upton Sinclair.22 In the same article, Feldman quotes Werner Jaeger, saying “Homer’s poetry brings out one fundamental fact: that all culture starts with the creation of an aristocratic ideal.” These quotations are provided critically, though. It seems that the author Feldman is of the opinion that Homer’s works promoted liberty and the democratic process, stating: “Homer was a bard of democracy. … [T]he first and finest epic songs belonged to the people, founded on principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity.” As it stands, Homer’s intent is unclear; thus we will assume his innocence as there is no proof of his guilt.23
Moving forward in time but remaining in Greece, we encounter an important concept, crucial to understanding the history of propaganda: Sophistry.
Sophistry, or Sophism, is defined by Merriam-Webster as “subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation.”; “an argument apparently correct in form but actually invalid; especially: such an argument used to deceive.”24 In ancient Greece, a Sophist would claim to teach a pupil aretē—“virtue” or “excellence”—for a nominal fee, of course. Often these lessons would be presented to young men of “high stock”; the future nobility. Thanks to their generous clientele, the Sophists generally enjoyed wealth and renown. Though aretē had initially connoted “aristocratic virtues,” as the Sophists began teaching it, it became more about success in the public eye; “the ability to influence one’s fellow citizens in political gatherings through rhetorical persuasion.”25
According to Will Durant in his classic, The Story of Philosophy:
[T]he most characteristic and fertile developments of Greek philosophy took form with the Sophists, traveling teachers of wisdom, who looked within upon their own thought and nature, rather than out upon the world of things.26
Any student of philosophy will instantly recognize this as one of the earliest incarnations of the age old debate between primacy of existence and primacy of consciousness. This, however, is neither the time nor place to go into that debate; suffice it to say, the Sophists generally held more stock in their reasoned out theories than in empirical data and evidence. On the subject of the Sophists’ politics, Durant continues:
In politics they divided into two schools. One, like Rousseau, argued that nature is good, and civilization bad; that by nature all men are equal, becoming unequal only by class-made institutions: and that law is an invention of the strong to chain and rule the weak. Another school, like Nietzsche, claimed that nature is beyond good and evil; that by nature all men are unequal; that morality is an invention of the weak to limit and deter that strong; that power is the supreme virtue and the supreme desire of man; and that of all forms of government that wisest and most natural is aristocracy.27
It was due to their convincing rhetoric, as well as the fact that they put a cost on their lessons, that the Sophists were viewed negatively by many. Interestingly, philosophers like Plato and Aristotle led the intellectual charge against Sophistry, and attempted to separate it from philosophy.28
Even more interesting is that Socrates (whose point-of-view nearly all of Plato’s works are written from), was himself accused of Sophistry, despite the fact that he did not charge money for his teachings. It was in Aristophanes’ play The Clouds that this accusation was made, in which a young man is turned “into a pale and useless intellectual” by Socrates.29 In the play, Socrates’ philosophy is portrayed to teach people “how to make the weaker argument defeat the stronger.”30 Such was the concern over the Sophists: they were not concerned with truth; they were concerned only with fulfilling their own agenda and lining their pockets.31
According to philosopher Stefan Molyneux, a philosopher pursues “important truths for their own sake,” whereas a Sophist “tells you what you want to hear, appealing to your insecurity [and] your base fears. … Making the worse argument seem the better.”32 Fundamentally, says Molyneux, a Sophist “refuses or avoids definitions… figures out what moves people emotionally… [and] is not willing to step you through the argument but wants you to accept the conclusion.”33 This is precisely why defining one’s terms was emphasized in the introduction to this book; Sophistry could be anywhere, lurking in the words of even those most trusted. Sophists “manufacture trust”; by avoiding definitions and not forming logically cohesive arguments, they “make you dependent on the approval or disapproval of the Sophist… [they] do not want you to ask ‘how do you know what you know?’”34
Where the philosopher strives to impart the methods of critical thinking, so that the student can reach reasonable conclusions without relying on the master, the Sophist trains people to rely on his or her conclusions, not his or her methods of thinking or reasoning. Picture a person who gets their news from a particular cable news channel. They have their favorite pundit who the watch every night, and sort of download those brief soundbites of opinion and incorporate them into their own belief system. Philosophy is not present in that process; different channels and pundits are marketed to certain types of people, and they draw their crowds in using emotionally charged rhetoric. It creates people who are totally reliant on a TV Sophist for their values and opinions, not on their own ability to research and analyze.
Sophists make their livings and sway their audiences by using flowery and manipulative rhetoric, bypassing their target’s rational minds. Such verbal trickery is a fundamental aspect of propaganda, as it is made to give something the appearance of truth, without actually being true.
ARCHITECTURE AND WAR IN GREECE
The vases of ancient Greece are known to nearly everyone. Despite the modern hype,
pottery stood very low indeed in the hierarchy of crafts in ancient Greece. In Athens pots were produced in a disreputable quarter of the city and even decorated vessels fetched very low prices.35
More so than the vases, it was the architecture of ancient Greece that showed off national splendor. The kings of Greece took great pride in the architecture they commissioned, as it would glorify them over their enemies.
Demosthenes spoke of the Propylaea and the Parthenon as symbols of Athenian honour at the expense of war against the Persians, and some of his own orations were designed as warnings on the dangers posed by Philip of Macedon. Monumental sculptures were also erected to commemorate victories, such as those put up by Attalus I of Pergamum and Eumenes II to celebrate their triumphs over the Gauls.36
In the essay The Parthenon as Ancient Athenian Propaganda,37 Benjamin Messenger explains how the magnificent second Parthenon, a temple to Athens’ patron goddess Athena, served partly as anti-Persian propaganda.
The highest point in Athens, called the Acropolis, was home to a number of important buildings in classical times; most notably, the first Parthenon. In the early-mid years of the fifth century BCE, the Acropolis was destroyed by an occupying force of Persians, who were chased out of Athens not long after. A project to rebuild the Acropolis was commissioned by the statesman Pericles, beginning with the Parthenon.
Between the driving out of the Persians and the rebuilding of the Parthenon, the Athenians had sworn the “Oath of Plataea,” which demanded they not rebuild any of the temples or sacred sites destroyed by the Persians “to remind them of the Persian threat, and perhaps also of the revenge that they still owed.”38 Effectively, this oath was the equivalent of “Acropolis: Never Forget.”
Peace was finally made with the Persians and rebuilding finally began (though it is possible that the plans for reconstruction were put in place before the peace).39 Messenger explains that the reborn Parthenon seemed
to have been symbolic of the fact that the Persian threat was over, and that the Athenians were the victors. The whole building project seems to have been testament to the achievement, and also to the city’s greatness and power.40
The Parthenon defined Athena as the epitome of Athenian civilization: directed by “wisdom and light.”41 The carvings in the Parthenon distinguished the wise, enlightened Athenians and their goddess, who was directed by “intellect and reason,” who symbolized “the positive forces of the cosmos,” with “those irrational, hostile, bestial forces” that were the enemy, and their “old Titan-born… god of uncontrollable, violent forces of nature.”42
Earlier than all this, in the mid-7th century BCE, the Spartan poet Tyrtaeus inspired his nation’s armies in the Second Messenian War, “[combining] exhortations to courage and self-discipline with reminders of past victories and assurances of future successes.”43 Morale is absolutely vital to winning a war, and thus propaganda must be applied to a nation’s own troops, to envelop them in patriotic zeal and rally them to victory.
One very common way of boosting morale while intimidating the enemy is the playing of music during battle. While most Greek armies would charge aggressively into battle, shouting and roaring to terrify the enemy, the expert-warrior Spartans would approach slowly, accompanied by music.44 The steady rhythm ensured a lock-step march forward, displaying the exceptional order and discipline of the Spartan military.
THE UTOPIAN IDEAL IS FORMED
Before moving on, I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate the definition of propaganda provided in the introduction: the deliberate, directed, and secret deception of a person or people, during peacetime or war, by a particular person or group, with the intent of promoting a particular agenda.
Bear this definition in mind, as finally we meet an early and perhaps unlikely advocate for propaganda: Socrates; or rather his student and chronicler, Plato.
The reader may be confused at this, but it is so. The very same Plato who denounced the Sophists as charlatans and scoundrels also believed that the ideal state would lie to its public, “making them care more for the city and one another.”45 The term used for this is Noble Lie; a myth that justifies the structure of the state and the existence of the ruling class to the masses (even the rulers would believe these lies, says Plato).
What exactly is this Noble Lie? Socrates says that in the ideal society, the entire population would be convinced that they were molded by God for a specific purpose, and that they must absolutely not contradict their destiny. The citizens of his perfect city would be told that they were assigned predetermined roles within the city before birth, and that any deviation from that predestination would bring about disaster in the city. Describing the fable told to all three levels of his ideal social hierarchy, Socrates states: “[G]od, in fashioning those of you who are competent to rule, mixed gold in at their birth; this is why they are most honored; in auxiliaries,46 silver; and iron and bronze in the farmers and other craftsmen.”47
Such a narrative would ensure that the different sections of the population remained in their respective “groups,” and not disrupt the harmonious flow of the city. Says Will Durant of the Noble Lie: “Perhaps with this ‘royal fable’ we shall secure a fairly general consent to the furtherance of our plan.”48
In The Republic, “Noble Lie” is used to refer to that particular fable. However, since Plato’s time, the term has been used more generally. One may associate this concept with the more innocuous “white lie”—lying to spare one’s feelings. Though similar, both ideas differ in implication. The fable told by Socrates serves as a basic formula for what a Noble Lie constitutes today; an untruth told by those in power to secure their powerful positions, and further their agendas. The important word in the term is “noble”—the liar believes that they are lying for a good reason; for a “higher purpose.”
A Noble Lie is deliberate and directed—it is spread with a clear purpose. It is secretive—the public must remain ignorant of the fact that the story of their social stratification is false. It is inflicted on one group (the citizens of the society) by another group (apparently philosophers like Socrates himself). It is told and believed during both peacetime and war. Finally, it is promoted with the clear agenda of maintaining the health of the system, the state, and ensuring the willing subservience of the masses to that system. Having fit all six criteria of our definition, we can conclude that Plato’s/Socrates’ Noble Lie is, in fact, synonymous with propaganda.
To Socrates, the life of the state depends on its population’s belief in a deity. More specifically, a “living God,” which could “inspire hope… devotion… sacrifice.” This personal God can “offer comfort to the hearts of the distressed… courage to the embattled soul… and can stir or frighten the self-seeking individualist into some moderation of his greed, some control of his passion.”49 To Socrates, Noble Lies about gods were vital to controlling and directing the emotions—and therefore actions—of the public. Religion is not the opiate of the masses; it is the engine of the masses.
But why? For what reason does Socrates/Plato spin these theoretical webs of social control? What great end is achieved by maintaining a government by systematic deception?
A Utopia. The word “utopia” is generally taken to refer to the ideal society or government, in which perfection or near-perfection of legal systems, cultural practices, and government functions is achieved. It is also commonly accepted that the realization of the “utopian ideal” is unattainable. Nevertheless, history is rife with individuals and groups that attempt to initiate their own concept of “Utopia”; invariably at the expense of others. All of these idealists owe a great debt to Plato and his book The Republic, for starting the age-old tradition of dreaming up a society based on one’s own desires.
That is not to say that all historical Utopians agree with Plato in all instances; certainly man’s conception of perfection has changed since the days of ancient Greece. In fact, it seems that what constitutes “universal perfection” varies from person to person, as most Utopians disagree amongst themselves on what would make a society perfect. Thus even the “perfect” city could not be agreeable to all, and would therefore not be perfect. But I digress.
To speak in Plato’s idealistic terms, The Republic is one of those books that I daresay lay in the very DNA of western culture. The main actor in the story, Socrates, and some friends get into a discussion about the concept of “justice,” and how to define it. Not long into the conversation, Socrates suggests that perhaps it would be easier to nail down a definition of the word if it were viewed in the context of an entire society, rather than in the context of a single individual. Thus begins a very long and very important thought-experiment, as Socrates and his companions formulate in their heads literature’s very first Utopia.
What exactly constitutes this perfect city? For one, as intimated before, there would be a three-pronged “caste” system50 which the citizens were not to deviate from. This hierarchical system would be meritocratic, not based on one’s heritage: “it sometimes happens that a silver child will be born from a golden parent, a golden child from a silver parent, and similarly all the others from each other.”51
One’s position on the social ladder will not be assigned at birth, says Socrates, but instead it will be discovered over time and then assigned, by a series of tests intermingled into life-long schooling. It was state-schooling, according to Socrates, that was the key to the survival of his Utopia, for it would be the institution that supplied the population with the extreme regimentation necessary to upholding the aforementioned social strata.
Everyone, male and female, would attend universal, state schools. Employed in these schools would be a set curriculum—the same for everybody in the beginning—composed of studies in gymnastics, music, and philosophy. The universality of the curriculum would ensure total national uniformity in theory and practice and, to Socrates, be the main provider of virtue to the people.
For the guardian class—the “gold” ones—child and parent would be separate, to avoid preferential treatment and nepotism. One’s lineage would be entirely unknown; their parent would be the state.
The reasoning behind this was that parents would pass on their undesirable thoughts and habits to their children, thus retarding the perfection of the state. The ideal society would ensure that its own values and practices were instilled into the minds of its young; not gamble its future generations on individual families.52
Another way of making sure the purity of the population was preserved was through “strict eugenic supervision of all reproductive relations.”53 Socrates, giving voice to the multitude of eugenicists who would come some 2,500 years later, says:
[T]here is a need for the best men to have intercourse as often as possible with the best women, and the reverse for the most ordinary men with the most ordinary women; and the offspring of the former must be reared but not that of the others, if the flock is going to be of the most eminent quality. And all this must come to pass without being noticed by anyone except the rulers themselves if the guardians’ herd is to be as free as possible from faction.54
Regimented breeding is fundamental to Socrates’ Republic. In another book authored by Plato and told from the point of view of Socrates, it is stated that “education should begin before birth”; referring once again to “healthy ancestry.”55 This evolutionary “education” was only the beginning, however.
Vital to “post-birth education” is the teaching of music, says Socrates. Because of its influence over the mind of man, he suggests in his typical fashion that music be used politically, to produce “the rhythms of an orderly and courageous life.”56 He prescribes allowances for only certain modes of music, those that
appropriately imitate the sounds and accents of a man who is courageous in warlike deeds and every violent work… [and those] for a man who performs a peaceful deed… either persuading someone or making a request… These two modes—a violent one and a voluntary one, which will produce the finest imitation of the sounds of unfortunate and fortunate, moderate and courageous men—leave these.57
All other modes of music are to be erased, says Socrates, for “there is no further need of wailing and lamentations.”58 Plato/Socrates understood that only a small number of possibilities could exist for music if the perfect state was to keep hold on its power, for new modes of music can sway the minds of the masses and change the flow of history:
[The philosopher kings of the Utopia] must be aware of change to a strange form of music, taking it to be a danger to the whole. For never are the ways of music moved without the greatest political laws being moved.59
On Plato’s approach to music, Ariana Phillips says in her short essay, Exaltation of the Rational: The Treatment of Music by Plato and St. Augustine:
[M]usic is useful when it serves the purposes of the state by encouraging people to be resolute in the face of difficulty and considerate in relationships with other people. If one examines Plato’s arguments about the arts, it becomes apparent that Plato assigns music to the lowest class of “good” things—those which society appreciates for their desirable results, rather than for any natural value (Rep. 357c). This causes Plato to restrict polyharmonic instruments for the sake of civic unity and to discourage subtlety and variation in rhythm in order to promote an orderly and composed life (Rep. 399c-399e).60
Therefore to Socrates/Plato, music should not exist for entertainment, but for manipulative purposes. It is for this reason that music will be added to the list of things we will watch as we continue to move through history.
Similar to Socrates’ approach to music is his approach to stories. From a very early age, children will be told fables and myths; it is those that build the character of the future citizenry. The stories should serve as models for children; ideals they should strive to imitate. They are not to be frightened with tales of monsters, but to be inspired with messages of heroism and good citizenship. As we will continue to explore as we move forward through history, the early indoctrination of the young breeds in them inextricable beliefs and views, and is thus paramount for those in power to infiltrate the minds of children using whatever media available.
Of course, stories and fables are not propagandistic in-and-of themselves. They can indeed be used to instill useful values in children, as well as provide them with role models, not to mention entertainment. It is only when the fantastic power of the human imagination is used to sway people into believing a certain thing or acting a certain way that a story becomes propaganda. Unfortunately, when it comes to the stories children are told by popular media, most more accurately fall into the latter category, as will be seen as we progress.
In ancient Greece there were no radios, comic books, or internet. The only media for propaganda were (to a lesser degree) art, and (to a greater degree) legends and myths. “Don’t you understand,” Socrates asked his friend Glaucon,
that first we tell tales to children? And surely they are, as a whole, false, though there are true things in them too. … Don’t you know that the beginning is the most important part of every work and that this is especially so with anything young and tender? For at that stage it’s most plastic, and each thing assimilates itself to the model whose stamp anyone wishes to give to it.61
Glaucon agrees, and thus Socrates suggests that, because of the great importance of storytelling, not just anyone should be allowed to tell tales to children: “[W]e must supervise the makers of tales; and if they make a fine tale, it must be approved, but if it’s not, it must be rejected.”62 Even the divine myths were to be altered, so that they only presented the gods in a positive light. All stories chronicling the conflicts between deities were branded “lies” by Socrates, and were to by stricken from the record.63
So we see that Socrates wishes to take advantage of the plasticity of the young, and impose upon them his ideal view of a good citizen; a “just” individual.
This sounds all well and good; it is hard to disagree that children are easily manipulable, and that, ideally, they would only be exposed to those things that would lead them down the path toward a good and fruitful life. Unfortunately, such Utopian thinking is only reasonable in theory, and, as history will show, often produces the opposite result.
Who is to decide what fables are acceptable? Will there be debate as to which fables are approved or rejected? Does not the censorship of what is perceived as “negative” paint an inaccurate picture of the world? Would it not be better to teach children to think critically about the legends they are told, so that they learn to differentiate good from bad, and thus tease out useful values from it?
No, says Socrates. Children are to be shown that the state exists only in a positive light. They are to be indoctrinated into believing the national myths—those positive stories of the gods—and that the state is the embodiment of justice and social perfection. They are, for all intents and purposes, to be made into patriots. And the mother of this patriotism is none other than the Noble Lie.
At last it is clear that a Noble Lie is necessarily fundamental to Utopian thinking. At some point a national fable, a “cultural mythology,” must be employed to justify the actions of the state. This harmony and social cohesion is in turn used as the justification by the ruling class for the lie itself. As if to simultaneously inspire governments and warn citizens all through history, Socrates and Plato inform us that propaganda is a necessary component of a centralized state.
INSTITUTIONAL CONDITIONING: GREEK SCHOOLS
They say that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Thus it is so with propaganda; it is possible to decondition one’s self, but it is better to not be conditioned at all. Proper education is crucial to achieving this, for it is reason and critical thinking that tear away the veil and reveal propaganda before it can take hold.
The sort of education that emphasizes logical thinking relies primarily on reading and life experience: reading for the opportunity to consider the ideas of those dead or far away, and life experience to train the body and mind to operate under pressure. Instruction in this sort of education is not necessary; so long as one can read—and more importantly, question what they read—and is willing to get their hands dirty, one has the potential to learn anything they please.
The opposite of this autonomous, voluntary education (which I will refer to henceforth as simply “education”) is compulsory, homogenizing school (which I will merely refer to as “school,” to distinguish it from the former, “education”). In the latter system, parents are forced by the state to hand over their children to “experts,” who instruct them in a bureaucratically approved curriculum. In this model, a group of unwilling children are lectured at by a stranger, who grades their work based on government standards. Such lectures and homogeneous curricula deprive the children of ever having to think critically about what they hear or what they read. The questions are already asked by the book or teacher; the children need not come up with their own questions. And the standards for what constitutes a “right” or a “wrong” answer have already been decided upon by a committee with not a single child member.
Children in school merely regurgitate ready-made conclusions they have been conditioned to memorize. It goes without saying that such children (and adults) schooled thusly for years upon years will be more than susceptible to the propagandist’s web.
In a book that serves as in important reference to this work, former schoolteacher John Taylor Gatto explains the differences between Athenian education and Spartan schooling. The book is The Underground History of American Education, and the differences are as follows.
Astounding to the modern individual is the fact that the some of the most important public officers in ancient Athens were chosen by lottery.64 This process was referred to as the Sortition, and was considered to be a fundamental aspect of genuine democracy.65 Perhaps even more astonishing than this is that fact that “there were no schools in Hellas.”66 How, then, could the people be trusted to fill these key positions without any formal training?
“The tests that mattered came in living, striving to meet ideals that local traditions imposed,” says John Taylor Gatto, describing the Athens of reality, not the Republic of Plato.67 The closest institutions to schools in ancient Athens were Plato’s Academy and Aristotle’s Lyceum, though these were nothing like the modern conception of school. For one, children weren’t forced to go. No one was forced to go. They were places where people could get together to discuss philosophy. Aristotle would give lectures, but there were no assignments, grades, or classrooms.
As was the case for most of history, education occurred at home and in communities, without bureaucratic intervention and state influence. This being the case, people learned what was necessary when it was necessary. According to Gatto, specialists or technicians were “never well regarded because prevailing opinion held that technicians had enslaved their own minds… Forced training was for slaves.”68, 69 Therefore, the hallmark of freedom was volitional education, self-reliance, and community responsibility.70
Contrasted with this was the military state of Sparta, which saw its citizenry formally trained from birth ‘til death. Such fierce regimentation of the public was necessary, as every citizen was expected to serve the state and its interests, usually by marching off to war. That is the interesting thing about it; total subservience to a ruling class requires official training by that ruling class (or sponsored by it). Such blind obedience to a monarchic government was abhorrent to the comparatively free and educated citizens of Athens. Taking into account the fact that any coerced activity constitutes one degree or another of slavery, even those considered “citizens” of Sparta—the supposed “non-slaves”—were, in fact, victims of slavery.
[The Spartans] were always in a state of perfect training, like the “wiry dogs” of Plato’s Republic. They were strong conservatives; innovation was strictly forbidden… They had also a talent for minute organization; both their army and their children were greatly subdivided. Everyone at Sparta was a part of a beautifully organized machine, designed almost exclusively for military purposes.71
As we move forward through history, marking important developments in the world of propaganda, we will keep a close eye on the developments of schooling and education as well, as these concepts go hand-in-hand. Education can be a wonderful preventative medicine and cure for propaganda, while forced schooling is one of the propagandist’s greatest weapons. The distinction between Athens, whose greatest thinkers are still read and respected thousands of years later, and Sparta, which is remembered only for its inclination towards violence for violence’s sake, begins our journey through the history of state-sponsored instruction and conditioning, as it relates to propaganda.
CONCLUSION
Propaganda in the ancient world mostly revolved around the fact that the average person did not understand the intricate workings of nature around him, making him open to accepting the superstitions and myths told to him by his elders and his rulers. In Greece, there were those who rejected the mythological explanations of reality in exchange for a more scientific outlook, but for the most part, the masses were easily controlled by powerful people claiming to be the agents of contrived gods. Unfortunately, as we move forward in time we will see that this tool of social control was not left in those mysterious days of pyramids and pagan wonder, but was grasped tightly by man as he marched through the ages.
Having looked briefly at the early days of civilized humanity, and having looked quite a bit longer and harder at Greece; having established the importance of music, literacy, schooling, and education; understood the significance of the Utopian Ideal and the power of Sophistry, we can finally leave the columns of Greece for the columns of what is considered to be Occidental history’s next major civilization: Rome.
References
1 For a specific example of these vestigial fears, see Roach, John. “Fear of Snakes, Spiders Rooted in Evolution, Study Finds.” National Geographic, 4 Oct. 2001, news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/10/1004_snakefears.html. From the article: “A new study suggests that such fear has been shaped by evolution, stretching back to a time when early mammals had to survive and breed in an environment dominated by reptiles, some of which were deadly.”
2 Key, Alex S. “Human Needs… What Are They?” Psychology Today, 15 Dec. 2008, www.psychologytoday.com/blog/basic-instincts/200812/human-needs-what-are-they.
3 “What Are Some Human Primal Instincts?” Quora, 25 Mar. 2015, www.quora.com/ What-are-some-human-primal-instincts. See answer provided by Sadan Yagci, A.A. Psychology, Pensacola State College.
4 Port, Robert F. “Possible Human Instincts.” Indiana University Bloomington, 28 Apr. 2000, www.cs.indiana.edu/~port/teach/205/instincts.html.
5 The Ben Franklin Academy. www.benfranklinacademy.org/welcome-to-franklins-toolkit.
6 “Chimpanzee Tool Use, Fishing for Ants to Eat.” YouTube, uploaded by Nature Picture Library, 12 May 2016, www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0DT_Te0xZ4.
7 “Tutorial: Concrete vs. Abstract Thinking.” Project LEARNet, Brain Injury Association of New York State, 2006, www.projectlearnet.org/tutorials/concrete_vs_abstract_thinking.html.
8 Moore’s Law states that computer processing power will double every two years. See http://www.mooreslaw.org/.
9 Taylor, Philip M. Munitions of the Mind. 3rd ed., Manchester UP, 2003. Page 25. Dehumanization of outsiders makes it easier to resist their “strange” practices and perhaps even bring violence down upon them, thus solidifying the status quo and/or justifying “national expansion.”
10 Taylor, 20.
11 “Agitprop.” Encyclopedia Britannica, www.britannica.com/topic/agitprop. Defined as: “political strategy in which the techniques of agitation and propaganda are used to influence and mobilize public opinion.” Agitprop will be discussed in detail in later chapters.
12 “Ancient Sumerian, Babylonian, Mesopotamian music – Stef Conner.” YouTube, uploaded by Goorky, www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHRud455ht4.
13 Plato. The Republic, Book III (401 d-e). Plato and The Republic is covered in greater detail in the section “The Utopian Ideal is Formed.”
14 Hooker, Richard. “Homer.” World Cultures, Richard Hooker, 12 Sept. 1997, richard-hooker.com/sites/worldcultures/MINOA/HOMER.HTM.
15 Taylor, 24.
16 Taylor, 21.
17 Durant, Will. Our Oriental Heritage. Simon & Schuster, 1954. 11 vols. Page 22. Originally published in 1935. Durant continued (referring to human society before “government”): “In the intervals of peace it was the priest, or head magician, who had most authority and influence; and when at last a permanent kingship developed as the usual mode of government among a majority of tribes, it combined—and derived from the offices of warrior, father and priest. … How did war lead to the state? It is not that men were naturally inclined to war. … Nevertheless, primitive life was incarnadined with intermittent war. Hunters fought for happy hunting grounds still rich in prey, herders fought for new pastures for their flocks, tillers fought for virgin soil; all of them, at times, fought to avenge a murder, or to harden and discipline their youth, or to interrupt the monotony of life, or for simple plunder and rape; very rarely for religion. … Above all, war dissolved primitive communism and anarchism, introduced organization and discipline, and led to the enslavement of prisoners, the subordination of classes, and the growth of government. Property was the mother, war was the father, of the state” (pp. 22-23).
18 Taylor, 22.
19 Ibid.
20 Taylor, 29.
21 Taylor, 25.
22 Feldman, Abraham B. “Homer and Democracy.” The Classical Journal, vol. 47, no. 8, May 1952, p. 337. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3293064
23 Indeed, there isn’t even proof of his existence.
24 “Sophistry.” Merriam-Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sophistry. Also, “Sophism.” Merriam-Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sophism.
25 Duke, George. “The Sophists (Ancient Greece).” The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, www.iep.utm.edu/sophists/.
26 Durant, Will. The Story of Philosophy. Garden City, 1943. Page 6, originally published in 1926.
27 Ibid. Page 8. The reader would do well to remember the latter school, as that philosophy will play an important role in our story.
28 Duke, “The Sophists (Ancient Greece).”
29 Ibid. The nature of Aristophanes’ criticism is possibly lighthearted: “[W]e find Aristophanes frequently in the company of Socrates; they agreed in their scorn of democracy; and Plato recommended The Clouds to Dionysius.” See The Story of Philosophy by Will Durant, page 11.
30 Ibid.
31 Hart, Randall. The Trivium of Classical Education. 2004. Greenleaf University, PhD dissertation. From the section entitled “Socrates’ Impact on Classical Education”: “[The Sophists’] services were sought by the new monied class who sought to use the power of rhetoric in their quest to solidify their economic position.” According to Hart, the Sophist situation was quid pro quo; they ensured the wealthy they would remain wealthy, provided they too were allowed to enjoy the wealth.
32 “An Introduction to Sophistry.” YouTube, uploaded by Stefan Molyneux, www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hUg4hgWQKw.
33 Ibid.
34 Ibid.
35 Vickers, Michael. “Pots Are for Plebs: Why Vases Were Cheap in Ancient Greece.” The Art Newspaper, 19 Feb. 2016, theartnewspaper.com/comment/reviews/books/pots-are-for-plebs-why-vases-were-cheap-in-ancient-greece/.
36 Taylor, 27.
37 Messenger, Benjamin. “The Parthenon as Ancient Athenian Propaganda.” Academia, www.academia.edu/2204711/The_Parthenon_as_Athenian_propaganda.
38 Ibid. Page 2. Citing Rhodes, R. F. Architecture and Meaning on the Athenian Acropolis, Cambridge, 1995. Page 32.
39 Ibid. Page 1.
40 Ibid. Page 2.
41 Rhodes, 93.
42 Ibid.
43 “Tyrtaeus.” Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th ed., Micropedia vol. 10, Encyclopedia Britannica, 1983.
44 Taylor, 28.
45 Plato. The Republic, Book III (415 d).
46 That is, the military class.
47 Plato. The Republic, Book III (415 a).
48 Durant, 25. This concept is reminiscent of the term coined by seminal Progressive Era propagandist Walter Lippmann: “manufactured consent.”
49 Durant, 24.
50 The word “caste” is put into quotes because, in the strictest sense of the word, Socrates’ arrangement is not a caste system; that implies that status is somehow inherited. The opposite is the case in this Utopia. The different social levels might be better referred to as functions.
51 Plato. The Republic, Book III (415 a-b).
52 For more on this, read the article Plato and the Abolition of the Family by June Brown, located at www.academia.edu/3070388/Plato_and_the_Abolition_of_the_Family.
53 Durant, 24.
54 Plato. The Republic, Book V (459 d-e).
55 Plato. Laws (789).
56 Plato. The Republic, Book III (399-400).
57 Ibid.
58 Plato. The Republic, Book III (398 d-e).
59 Plato. The Republic, Book IV (424 c). From Durant’s The Story of Philosophy, page 22, quoting Daniel O’Connell: “Let me write the songs of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws.”
60 Phillips, Ariana. “Exaltation of the Rational: The Treatment of Music by Plato and St. Augustine.” The Pulse, vol. 4, no. 1, Fall 2006. http://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php?id=37672
61 Plato. The Republic, Book II (377 a-b).
62 Ibid.
63 Plato. The Republic, Book II (377-378)
64 Gatto, John Taylor. The Underground History of American Education. Pre-publication ed., Oxford Village Press, 2000. Page 12.
65 Headlam, James Wycliffe. Election by Lot at Athens. Cambridge UP, 1891. From pages 12-13: “[F]riends and enemies of democracy all agree on this point that in a perfectly democratic state magistrates will be elected by lot. … The few adverse criticisms on it which have been preserved to us make this only more clear; they are invariably the criticisms of men opposed to democracy, and objection to elections by lot is always accompanied by dislike of democracy.”
66 Hellas is the Greek word for Greece. Quoted by Gatto in The Underground History of American Education, from Kenneth Freeman’s 1907 book Schools of Hellas.
67 Gatto, 12.
68 Ibid.
69 Freeman, Kenneth. Schools of Hellas. Macmillan, 1907. Page 46. Freeman quotes Plato’s book Laws: “[T]he general opinion of Hellas still maintained that ‘technical instruction and all teaching which aimed only at money-making was vulgar and did not deserve the name of education. True education aimed solely at virtue, making the child yearn to be a good citizen, skilled to rule and to obey.’”
70 This is not to imply that Athenian society was entirely agreeable; as stated before, it was a society dependent on slavery, susceptible to superstition, and even its most astute thinkers were prone to the most virulent state-worship.
71 Freeman, 12.
