“Organizing Chaos” – An Analysis of “Propaganda” Chapter 1 by Edward L. Bernays
BERNAYS HOME PAGE (READ FIRST)
**If you are new to this series, make sure you start HERE**
In the first chapter of Propaganda – entitled “Organizing Chaos” – Bernays introduces the idea itself, and contends that propaganda was, and would increasingly become, the most important element in the development of the society of the future.
The chapter opens with Bernays immediately claiming that the thoughts and opinions of the masses within a democratic society are not their own. Instead, he says, the “public mind” is formulated by a secret cabal of psychological rulers, and that, without this “invisible government” as he calls it, the society would cease to function. To Bernays, the propagandist treads the thin line between order and chaos. Therefore, it would appear, democracy as it is commonly understood is a farce; a mask worn by the true rulers of the society. Instead of “the people” running the society by way of educated voting, these people’s minds are swayed by those with influence and psychological know-how. This symbiotic relationship between propagandist and propagandee is a fundamental requirement for the working “democratic” society, so the claim goes.
The author does nothing to hide his high regard for the propagandist; the very first paragraph of the book reads as follows:
The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. [Bernays, 37; emphasis mine]
He next clarifies something very important about these “invisible governors”: It is often the case that they don’t know who one another are. They don’t make up some monolithic organization – it isn’t some single-minded conspiracy. The “invisible government” is instead a loose connection of differently-interested parties whose only commonality with each other is their ability to shape public opinion. Those who hold the most power and influence may not agree with or even recognize those amongst their ranks as such. Bernays seems to be claiming thus far that “democracy” is government of, by, and for the influential. We will have to read on to discover if and how the agendas of this diverse cabal of propagandists converge.
Obviously, this cadre of propagandists is not elected by the public; in fact, they are largely unknown to the public. “They govern us by their qualities of natural leadership,” Bernays says. [Bernays, 37]
He goes on:
[I]n almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons—a trifling fraction of our hundred and twenty million—who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind, who harness old social forces and contrive new ways to bind and guide the world. [Bernays, 37-38]
The concept of “natural leadership” is intrinsically utopian, as it suggests that those at the top are there because that is where they belong within the social hierarchy. When the rulers rule because they are naturally inclined to do so (another, older term for this is “destined”), it delegitimizes the questioning of the actions and motivations of those rulers. The notion of “natural leadership” over-simplifies power within human society. Is a proclivity toward good leadership the only possible reason one might rise to the top of a hierarchy of propagandists? And even if this is the case – even if their intentions are nothing but pure – who watches the watchmen? To employ yet another cliché: The road to hell is often paved with good intentions.
Exactly what natural qualities Bernays is referring to are not made explicitly clear; at least, not yet. It seems a rather idealistic thought, however, that those “who pull the wires which control the public mind” – those who “bind and guide the world” – are rightly suited to such lofty and precarious tasks by their presumably beneficent natures. Bear this view of the “invisible governors” in mind as we continue, and learn Bernays’ thoughts on the natures of the common-folk. Perhaps most importantly, this paragraph states what separates the propagandists from the masses: Specifically, their knowledge of individual and group psyches, and their ability to control them. The propagandist is an expert trend-reader; he or she must be a master of pattern recognition. But more on this later.
Bernays now provides an example of the unrecognized importance of the invisible governors. The American democracy as set up by the Constitution only leads to confusion, he says. (Bernays consistently refers to the United States as a democracy; not once does he correctly identify it as a republic. Knowing Bernays, it is likely that this mis-characterization was on purpose.) To avoid the chaos of hundreds of presidential candidates, for example – many of whom are sure to espouse radical or unseemly points of view – the invisible government instituted political parties “almost overnight.” [Bernays, 38]
Ever since then we have agreed, for the sake of simplicity and practicality, that party machines should narrow down the field of choice to two candidates, or at most three or four. [Bernays, 38]
What follows is very important if we are to understand Bernays’ approach to propaganda. He explains, rightly, that contemporary society has more complexities to it than any other that came before. It is because of this complexity, he says, that the secret group of propagandists is necessary. If the average individual who works and cares for his or her family (not to mention tries to enjoy some leisure-time when possible) attempted to understand every aspect of the political, economical, or scientific goings on of society, their life would be entirely consumed with this impossible undertaking. Because this simply cannot be, Bernays explains that the propagandists, through the media and the mouths of influential people, reduce this complicated information to manageable, “bite-sized” chunks for public consumption.
He claims that this arrangement is consensual; that “society has consented to permit free competition to be organized by leadership and propaganda.” [Bernays, 39]
The designation of the propagandist-propagandee relationship as voluntary seems to starkly contradict the previous statements that the activities (and even the existence) of the invisible government are unknown to the masses; not to mention that if the propagandists are ‘molding the minds of the masses,’ the possibility of any sort of legitimate consent appears to vanish.
Nonetheless, he is not wrong that society was more complex than ever before – and he was writing in 1928! Certainly no one could possess an intimate knowledge of all society’s machinations; anybody who would even want to would doubtlessly be frightful company.
However, in my opinion, this seems to be quite a flimsy justification for a secretive ruling class doling out information as they see fit. Perhaps instead of “consenting” to this, we should take the unmanageable complexity of our society as a sign that we should really take a look at how we’ve been organizing. After all, things will only continue to get more and more complex, and perpetually increasing complexity is in the interest of the invisible government, as it is what justifies their existence in a “democratic” society. Perhaps instead of further centralizing the responsibility of parsing through important information, we should concern ourselves with more localized matters, and not be beholden to some top-down agenda. Perhaps the answer to unmanageable complexity within society isn’t surrender to a mysterious invisible government; perhaps the answer is a move toward local community, and taking responsibility for local, simpler problems instead of overly complicated and politically motivated national or global problems. That way, the average individual need not bear the weight of the world on his or her shoulders, but instead may participate openly and honestly within their own local environment in a truly symbiotic fashion. But I digress.
Moving on, Bernays notes that the rapid advancements of communication technology in the late 19th and early 20th centuries play a key role not only in the further complication of society, but in the growing potential for propagandistic influence. Or, in Bernays’ frank terms:
As civilization has become more complex, and as the need for invisible government has been increasingly demonstrated, the technical means have been invented and developed by which opinion may be regimented. [Bernays, 39-40]
Living in the early 21st century and using the Internet, I’m sure anybody reading this can appreciate that. “With the printing press and the newspaper,” he continues, “the railroad, the telephone, the telegraph, radio and airplanes, ideas can be spread rapidly and even instantaneously over the whole of America.” [Bernays, 40]
To illustrate his point further, Bernays quotes an article in The New York Times written by H.G. Wells, ending with Wells stating that, thanks to those modern marvels of communication that were previously listed,
Ideas and phrases can now be given an effectiveness greater than the effectiveness of any personality and stronger than any sectional interest. … [The common design] can be elaborated and developed steadily and widely without personal, local and sectional misunderstanding. [Bernays, 40]
Bernays explains that, while Wells was referring specifically to politics, this applies equally to “commercial and social processes and all manifestations of mass activity.” [Bernays, 40]
So here we see, by way of technology and propaganda, the “great homogenization” of society occurring in the early years of the 20th century. We see the focus on local community (which, of course, had been the norm up to this point for most all of human history) being replaced with a focus on larger, more abstract organizational entities, such as “nation,” and, following the Great War, “world.” This is because, says Bernays, people used to have to be physically together to exchange ideas, or be willing to wait what would be considered by modern standards absurd lengths of time to correspond; but with the advent of modern technology, “persons having the same ideas and interests may be associated and regimented for common action even though they live thousands of miles apart.” [Bernays, 41]
To demonstrate this, Bernays devotes three pages to listing different groups and associations throughout the country, including The Royal Order of Sphinx, The National Circus Fans’ Association of America, The Texas Folklore Association, The Insecticide and Disinfectant Association, The National Pickle Packer’s Association, and of course The National Knitted Outerwear Association. The point of this long list is to show that there are many groups people belong to, and most people belong to more than one group. Thus, there is an intersectionality of influence running through a great many, seemingly separate, walks of life. For an example, he posits “John Jones,” who,
besides being a Rotarian, is member of a church, a fraternal order, of a political party, of a charitable organization, of a professional association, of a local chamber of commerce, of a league for or against prohibition or of a society for or against lowering the tariff, or of a golf club. The opinions which he receives as a Rotarian, he will tend to disseminate in the other groups in which he may have influence. [Bernays, 44]
Thus, by simply being involved in society, we are each, to varying degrees, caught in a web of influence, whether we are the influential ones or the ones being influenced makes no difference; in fact, both are probably true simultaneously.
This invisible, intertwining structure of groupings and associations is the mechanism by which democracy has organized its group mind and simplified its mass thinking. To deplore the existence of such a mechanism is to ask for a society such as never was and never will be. To admit that it exists, but expect that it shall not be used, is unreasonable. [Bernays, 44]
Napoleon said that force as a means of social control pales in comparison to the manipulation of public opinion. [Bernays, 44]
The intent of this book, says the author, is to describe the machinations of the propagandistic element of society, and “to find the due place in the modern democratic scheme for this new propaganda and to suggest its gradually evolving code of ethics and practice.” [Bernays, 45]
That concludes chapter one, “Organizing Chaos.” We have seen how Bernays justifies the existence of a secret ruling class by citing the ever-increasing complexity of society at the hands of technology. We know that in Bernays’ view, “democracy” is really for the propagandist; as in a society based on majority rule, true power lies with the one who can influence the most people. So now, as we await the next chapter, entitled “The New Propaganda,” we are posed with some important questions: Is a highly technical society possible without an “invisible government”? What are some new ways people could organize themselves given the current state of technology and American society? Is the move away from local communities toward large, abstract political entities an inevitable result of our technological advancement? If so, is this necessarily a bad thing?
Certainly these aren’t the only questions this chapter leaves us with, and certainly there are many more to come as we continue our analysis of Propaganda by Edward L. Bernays.
