“The New Propagandists” – An Analysis of Chapter 3 of “Propaganda” by Edward L. Bernays
**If you are new to this series, make sure you start HERE**
There are a great many men and women that Americans would consider to be influential. These would include those in such positions as president, congress, big-city mayors, CEO’s, union leaders, media moguls, political organizers, and – of course – celebrities. “Such a list,” says Edward Bernays, “would comprise several thousand persons.” [Bernays, 60] It would hardly be a mystery to Americans why those in these positions might be called influential, and so we – acknowledging their existence – go about our business. Yet, Bernays curtly asserts that “it is well known that many of these leaders are themselves led, sometimes by persons whose names are known to few.” He posits such hypothetical examples as the congressman who is influenced by a “district boss,” a local pastor guided by church authority, and chambers of commerce spouting local loyalty while coyly marching in lock-step with some national project.
A presidential candidate may be “drafted” in response to “overwhelming popular demand,” but it is well known that his name may be decided upon by half a dozen men sitting around a table in a hotel room. [Bernays, 60]
Now, you don’t need me to tell you that this is a very interesting thing for somebody to put forth so bluntly, especially considering that this particular man had worked and would work closely with multiple presidential administrations. But, alas, as soon as he makes mention of the presidential selections, he moves on, and the subject is not addressed again in the book. However, because of the weight of this quote and its potential implications, I’d like to break it down just a little bit here.
First of all, we must resist the urge to take this contextually vacant sound-bite and run with it, concluding that Bernays is saying that the President of the United States is simply picked by a group of six men, and that’s that. If this were my conclusion, it would only be a matter of time until someone soberly pointed out that he only said candidates are selected by secretive groups; presumably the one who actually becomes president does so by participating in the democratic process. Yet we have already learned from Mr. Bernays that the life-blood of democracy is propaganda; thus it would be fair to posit that a candidate chosen by a small cabal of men would be the subject of a public relations campaign to “sell” him (or her) to the masses. And, of course, it stands to reason that it’s not just one candidate per election that undergoes such a procedure; in fact, I’d go out on a limb and suggest that all of them do.
I think that what he’s saying at this point in the book is that those people we consider to be important or influential (like the president) are actually directed by PR agents whose job it is to manage the majority’s perception of them and their actions. While on the campaign trail, a presidential candidate may have a portion of the public convinced he or she is the right choice for the job on his or her own merit, when in actuality, the campaign has been tailored to manipulate people emotionally, to trust in their slogans and ideology, and overlook (or never even be exposed to) the candidate’s often fatal flaws. Of course, even those who don’t support that candidate likely support another, who is also the subject of a similar propaganda campaign. Either way, we are propagandized, and the “invisible government” stays in power. Finally, when election time comes, millions of heavily-propagandized individuals will cast their votes, each thinking that their choice was organically and entirely their own.
So behind those people that the average American would consider influential – not least the president – Bernays matter-of-factly states that “There are invisible rulers who control the destinies of millions.” [Bernays, 60] In essence, those who occupy these influential positions are to some degree or another mouthpieces or puppets of his “invisible government.” Whether it be in politics, fashion, our musical or artistic tastes, or nearly any other aspect of our lives, “we imagine ourselves free agents, [but] we are ruled by dictators exercising great power.” [Bernays, 61]
He goes on, saying that there are a multitude of “dictators”; it just depends on which part of society you’re talking about.
Different men rule us in the various departments of our lives. There may be one power behind the throne in politics, another in the manipulation of the Federal discount rate, and still another in the dictation of next season’s dances. If there were a national invisible cabinet ruling our destinies (a thing which is not impossible to conceive of) it would work through certain group leaders on Tuesday for one purpose, and through an entirely different set on Wednesday for another. [Bernays, 62-63; emphasis mine]
This reminds me of the pagan religions of old, wherein every imaginable thing had some divine spirit or representative. Now, every imaginable thing has a group of propagandists associated with it, this pantheon of perception masters constituting Bernays’ much lauded invisible government. If what he’s saying is true – if the propaganda is so powerful and so ubiquitous – then how are we to know whether a thought or opinion is our own? How do we know it wasn’t subtly placed there by some grand master of manipulation?
Simply, I don’t believe that our situation is as hopeless as he makes it appear. For one thing, we can become acquainted with the logical fallacies employed by propagandists, and learn to recognize emotional manipulation as it is occurring. For another thing, we must remember that Bernays himself is a propagandist. He is a salesman, and he is writing this book to potential clients and associates. In my opinion, when he makes these sweeping generalizations and grandiose statements that essentially reduce the public to simple-minded children in the propagandist’s care, he is exaggerating the power of his craft to sell his services. He’s using the very techniques he describes in the book to get customers.
Now that certainly doesn’t mean that he is wrong about the great influence of propaganda; a cursory study of his life’s work will show precisely what “public relations” is capable of. But it just might suggest that the masses aren’t as stupid and subservient as he’d like his audience to believe.
Perhaps it is conceit that rears its head here, rather than a sales-pitch. Maybe, blinded by arrogance and self-importance, he cannot see any alternative to his type of society. After all, not once has he addressed a single criticism of his argument, nor has he provided an instance of his brand of propaganda not working or needing tweaking, which to me is highly suspect. Whatever his motives for not properly addressing the relationship between propaganda and critical thinking – between the rule of the minority and the freedom of the many – the point is, the public might not be so permanently caught in the PR web as he assumes it is.
Moving right along, he asserts that
[G]overnment is only government by virtue of public acquiescence. Industries, public utilities, educational movements, indeed all groups representing any concept or product, whether they are majority or minority ideas, succeed only because of approving public opinion. [Bernays, 64; emphasis mine]
This being the case – as a minority could never enslave an unwilling and rebellious majority – the overall function of propaganda or public relations within a “democratic society” is to secure and ensure the status quo. When used internally, Bernaysian propaganda is sort of like a vaccination against intellectual revolution; when used externally… well, just look at what Bernays, the United Fruit Company, and the CIA did to Guatemala.
Internally, the necessary acquiescence to established powers and institutions is garnered by public relations counsels through the selective presentation of information, repetition, emotional manipulation, and appeals to popularity and authority. Interestingly, contemporary writer and notable propagandist Walter Lippmann referred to this process as the “manufacture of consent.” [See Public Opinion by Walter Lippmann]
To protect against being ignored or removed, institutions employ PR agents who establish them as necessary for the well-being and proper functioning of society within the minds of the masses. They use people’s emotions like a dog owner uses a leash; there is no logical discourse. One can only obey, or be gagged. Propaganda is quite a bit more subtle than a dog leash; it allows for coercion without direct physical force. While the state and large corporations might not burn books, they do decide what books and information people are exposed to by controlling the school system and the media. So long as the great unwashed are convinced that they are freer than the subjects of some foreign despot, safe enough to remain complacent, yet in enough danger to stay dependent, they will be locked in a prison they cannot see; and people won’t rattle invisible cages.
Thanks to public relations, the rulers no longer have to make violent displays of power like plundering a castle village after mounting a rebel’s head on a spear. Instead, a politician just needs to appear on TV; maybe dance around, crack jokes – you know, appear “just like one of us.” It’s a great deal easier to maintain the status quo when the (thought) leaders – who are themselves directed by propagandists, according to Bernays – are thought by many to be likable, kind, or heroic. Such gimmicks naturally distract people from serious actions being taken by the influential person – be it a politician, businessperson, monarch, actor, whatever – that might actually affect people’s lives. When important information is presented to the public, it is invariably done so wrapped in propaganda, always playing to some angle and supporting an unknown agenda. [Bernays, 64]
For an example of this, he asks the reader to imagine an orphanage plagued by lack of donations and indifference by the public.
The counsel on public relations may discover upon analysis that the public, alive to modern sociological trends, subconsciously criticizes the institution because it is not organized on the new “cottage plan.”* He will advise modification of the client in this respect. [Bernays, 65]
*A “cottage planned” asylum is one which – unlike older, single-building institutions – had a number of buildings with tenants segregated based on their condition. See here for more.
The formula is simple and clear:
- A client approaches a propagandist with some sort of institutional problem.
- The propagandist analyzes public opinion to gauge or estimate the reaction.
- Synthesizing the two, the propagandist (and the client) reach a public relations solution.
To further ease this process,
[M]any large corporations were employing public relations counsel under one title or another, for they had come to recognize that they depended upon public good will for their continued prosperity. [Bernays, 67]
This gave these big businesses a constant finger on the pulse of America, creating a feedback loop allowing them to more readily adapt to changing public opinion. Thus gigantic corporations were able to sanitize their images (though they didn’t necessarily have to alter their behavior). “They were obliged to convince the public that they were conforming to its demands as to honesty and fairness.” [Bernays, 67]
For lack of a better phrase, what Bernays is here describing is rhetorical crowd-control. He explains that, in order for an institution to keep up with its “sanitized image,” it must be prepared to deal with “rumors and suspicions” by building up public confidence in it. [Bernays, 68] Naturally, Bernays assures the reader that this will only be done honestly and with integrity, there presumably being no conceivable reason to legitimately lack confidence in a given institution. No, the PR counsel will only shed light on “rumors and suspicions.” Such phrases as “conspiracy theory” and “fake news” come to mind here; phrases which, when evoked, trigger a virtually immediate dismissal of their targets.
Once the power of both positive and negative press is harnessed and directed, the propagandist may enjoy the designation of “perception manager.” As Bernays reveals in this portion of the book, there are many cases in which the totality of information available to the public on an issue has been spread by propagandists. Without the constant presence of “invisible governors,” the public could not “understand and appreciate the value of what a merchant, educator or statesman is doing.” [Bernays, 68]
There it is then, laid to bare. Relations between the public and perceived people of prominence in our society listed at the beginning of this chapter are mediated by propagandists; also, both of these classes are simultaneously understood and guided by propagandists. We learn that, to Bernays, propaganda – “public relations” – is ubiquitous, relentless, universal, and totalitarian. It is that which binds the modern, civilized society together; that which allows that society to function, for without it, there would be chaos.
It aims to bring about an understanding between educators and educated, between government and people, between charitable institutions and contributors, between nation and nation. [Bernays, 69]
He appears to have forgot one: Master and slave.
Finally, and in summation, Bernays emphasizes that the role of the PR counsel “is not to fool or hoodwink the public.” [Bernays, 70] This is because a dishonest propagandist would ruin his reputation, and nobody would want to work with him. As the reader has most likely noticed by now, this is a favorite contradiction of our author. He says that a dishonest PR man would lose public favor, after he spent considerable portions of the first and second chapters explaining that the public was hardly even aware of this “invisible government’s” existence. After he has written what he has about using psychology to guide people imperceptibly, the designation of his “public relations counsel” as a beacon of honesty is – in my humble opinion – bullshit.
For the PR counsels to possess the sense of ethics Bernays claims they do, it would seem that there would have to be some sort of oversight or common knowledge of their activities. Yet for the propaganda to be effective, the propagandists’ methods must remain obfuscated from the layman’s view. Bernays envisions a Utopia, but with every utopian vision there is a corresponding dystopia: If the public does not possess an adequate level of intellect and education, the propagandists will become a class of their own, artificially crafting the world for the masses, and indeed, for the powerful as well. This is because no group, especially when left to its own devices (and even more especially when granted the immense power held by propagandists), is capable of resisting the fruit of corruption.
The entire book up to this point has detailed the incredible influence that propaganda has over nearly, if not all, aspects of the average person’s life. In describing this influence, Bernays employs such an evocative term as “invisible government.” To casually say, after everything up to this point, that the job of the propagandist “is not to fool or hoodwink the public,” is absurd on its face. Bernays’ positive opinion of propagandists, be it genuine or not, is highly reminiscent of Plato’s opinion of his “benevolent ruler” class in the Republic. Both men see no issue in allowing a “relatively small number of persons” whom most people “have never heard of” to “bind and guide the world.” (Bernays, 37-38)
Bernays either misses or ignores the reality of the situation, which is that, as the field of propaganda grows, public intellect diminishes. As public intellect diminishes, the job of the propagandist becomes easier. As the job becomes easier, the field will grow bigger still. As demand for and prevalence of propaganda increases, the honest are “bred out” of the field, to be replaced by the ruthless and the efficient. This is in no small part due to the fact that propaganda is most highly concentrated in the worlds of business and politics, neither of which is known for being particularly honest. Eventually, both the worlds of politics and business will be so inundated with propaganda that the public will lose sight of what is true in those worlds. Eventually, the spread of propaganda will remove from public perception any difference between “fact” and “fiction,” and the invisible government will need a small set of emotional dog-whistles to move the mass mind one way or another. The public will be cajoled into believing whatever is handed down by the propagandists and their puppets. The ad hominem will replace the rebuttal; the appeal to popularity will supplant individuality; the appeal to knee-jerk emotion will dethrone empathy and logic; the appeal to authority will dethrone autonomy. And if this dim, propaganda-addled future should come to pass over time, the public won’t even notice the change.
