Chapter 6. Defining Propaganda
Jacques Ellul calls propaganda a new system of human techniques more sophisticated than others since it involves developing and synthesizing physical technology and psychosocial techniques. State or private actors use propaganda to influence public opinion to stimulate mass action or integration into the social order. The mechanical techniques important to the propaganda system in Ellul’s time consisted of radio, press, television, billboards, and motion pictures. These technologies permit communication from a sole source to large numbers of people who perceive the message as addressed to them individually (1964, p. 363). The psychosocial techniques central to propaganda are the complex social and behavioural sciences that give access to an increasingly exact knowledge of human behaviour.
Today the list of mechanical techniques has expanded to reach into the mind and pockets of the average American, including the internet (news and opinion sites, social media, streaming, and gaming). However, other mechanical technologies that have developed since Ellul’s writing have extended the power of propaganda even further, including advances in the surveillance of populations (phone records, internet tracking, big data mining, voice and face recognition, and ubiquitous video recorders). Technicians can combine the data with advances in social science methodologies (focus groups, polls, and surveys, to name a few). Like mechanical technologies, more sophisticated theories of human behaviours, attitudes, and beliefs form the basis of psychosocial propaganda techniques. The result is that people are increasingly manipulated and coordinated by organizations with the resources to utilize these systems.
Rather than rooting the beginnings of propaganda in totalitarian states, Ellul asserts that proto-propaganda was first utilized under capitalism in its drive to sell products and maximize profits. From the beginning of the 20th century, advertising set about to convince many people to buy products using subtle manipulation. Newspaper ads were expensive, so they were designed with few words to have the maximum impact on the average consumer. Large commercial enterprises were thus the first to supplement these mechanical techniques with emotional and psychological appeals to status, health, and eventually sex, and by 1910 mechanical and human techniques were combined (1964, p. 364).
Once these techniques were proven to be effective, they were applied to other spheres, not only to sell products but also to educate and convince people. Before the 20th century, according to Ellul, political persuasion was mainly intellectual and aimed at elites through debates, speeches, and personal discussions. Several governments made clumsy attempts at producing propaganda during the First World War, but it was ineffective since they failed to incorporate psychology into their messaging. It was only with the rise of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany that the two techniques were combined to serve political goals. Today all nation-states and many organizations exploit propaganda techniques to influence the attitudes and behaviours of individuals and groups (1964, p. 365).
Since its beginnings as a technique, Ellul says, propaganda has advanced in theory and practice; practitioners have studied conditioned reflexes, how to produce them, and how to measure their success. Political parties have reduced their ideologies to programs, platforms, slogans, symbols, and pictures. Totalitarian regimes have instilled conditioned reflexes through their educational systems, or they have tapped into pre-existing spontaneous reflexes.
Scholars have studied propaganda extensively when produced by totalitarian states; there is much less literature about propaganda produced by democracies, at least when Ellul was writing. However, he asserts that the United States engaged in a concerted propaganda campaign during the Second World War by using erotic imagery (among other reflexes) to sell the population first on going to war and then on maintaining their support for it over time. Protected by two oceans and far from either front, Americans had to be subjected to an intensive propaganda campaign to maintain their commitment. Ellul characterizes the American propaganda technique during the Second World War as “obsessional,” constantly exposing citizens to propaganda through radio programs, posters, rallies, victory gardens, and drives to collect needed materials. The individual was confronted with rallies at work, posters and handbills, movies and newsreels, newspapers, and radio shows. All propaganda messages encouraged individuals to support the war effort and commit to war production through their opinions and actions. The messages appearing everywhere became part of the social environment, beneath the individual’s conscious awareness (1964, p. 366).
Slipping messages past conscious awareness is of immense importance for the success of propaganda. Like the proverbial fish unaware of water, effective propaganda must become as natural as the air around us, unnoticed and thus easy to forget. It is ordinary because it is what the individual knows and experiences daily. To those outside the system, the propaganda surrounding others might seem foolish and fantasy-like, but to the individuals within the bubble it is what they know. The prolonged exposure to “hypnotic repetition” of the same ideas, images, opinions, and conspiracy theories “conditions” the target population to internalize the propaganda so that it becomes an indelible part of their identity (Ellul, 1964, p. 366).
All forms of government engage in propagandistic manipulation and subject people from all levels of society to it. Ellul goes as far as to say that we live in a “psychologically subversive” universe. As individuals, we can readily see the effects of propaganda on others—many Americans, for example, can see propaganda at work in Putin’s Russia or Xi’s China but do not recognize its effects on their compatriots or, most significantly, on themselves. Being immersed in a propagandist’s universe does not reveal itself to the individual; one must be outside the bubble and looking in (1964, p. 368). Ellul adds that, as a technique, propaganda is open to refinement and constant improvement, always searching for the most productive and efficient ways to influence the thoughts and actions of the masses.
Propaganda in his time was in its preliminary stages, not operating for long enough to reveal its full consequences on the human psyche. Ellul writes that when it is more fully developed, and its full consequences appear, we will be so immersed in the system, “so absorbed and manipulated,” that the effects might be impossible to recognize. Just as we struggle to understand the consciousness of our distant ancestors, so too our descendants will have no idea what we once might “have been” (1964, pp. 368–369). Nevertheless, even in the 1960s, Ellul states, some effects were already apparent. He discusses three such consequences in detail.
First, propaganda creates collective passions that suppress the critical faculties of the individual. Because they are collective passions, Ellul (1964) argues, they are amplified and reinforced by the group. People under this collective influence cannot distinguish “truth from falsehood” and reality from wishful thinking (p. 369). With this suppression of critical faculties, propaganda gives its subjects the collective conviction of their moral superiority over the “other,” stronger because their fellow citizens collectively hold it and since the various media repeat it. In the case of nationalist propaganda during wartime that promotes a strong collective social consciousness, Ellul points out, it led to a reduction in neurosis and crime, as evident in Nazi Germany and the United States during the Second World War (p. 369).
Also related to the suppression of critical faculties is the creation of a new sphere of the “sacred,” Émile Durkheim’s term denoting something set apart from the everyday that inspires feelings of awe or reverence among believers. The realm of the sacred contrasts with the realm of the profane, which refers to elements of the everyday, mundane world. Once society defines a person, event, or idea as sacred, it is beyond the realm of questions or discussions, and people treat it as truth. Modern propaganda combines this creation of the sacred with the suppression of critical faculties and the formation of moral superiority, making it an “application of psychoanalytic mass techniques” (p. 370).
Second, propaganda increases the susceptibility of the target population to manipulation. The goal is to integrate individuals into the group so that they lose their individuality and internalize the group’s norms, values, and opinions. Thorough integration into the group predisposes them to follow the propagandist’s lead and perform any advantageous act at a moment’s notice. The party line can change; alliances formed today might have to be abandoned or modified over time. Heroes of the revolution can become villains in the minds of the elite. The goal of the propagandist is to create a population that the organization can manipulate to undertake action following the winds of change (Ellul, 1964, pp. 370–371).
Third, propaganda creates its own reality, an alternative universe, in the minds of individuals under its influence. They fashion images of people, places, or things based on news items and opinion pieces that might or might not accurately reflect reality. These images are repeated in rallies, newspapers, television, radio, and now the internet. The news might well be “faked” to put forward a vision of the world consistent with the propagandist’s organization. Alternatively, news based on reality might be labelled as “fake” if it portrays unpleasant facts. Faking the news was a widespread practice in Soviet society. However, Ellul asserts, all countries and political parties practise it to various degrees. In the creation of an alternative universe with created heroes and villains, truths and falsehoods become so internalized that victims are willing to sacrifice their lives for their manufactured world view (1964, p. 371). This creation of an alternative reality was apparent in workers in the Soviet Union, in which propaganda produced the same levels of satisfaction as positive changes in their working conditions. The same thing occurred among workers in the United States during the Second World War, at least temporarily. Ellul adds that the rapid spread of public relations in the United States will facilitate the application of propaganda techniques to all economic, political, and social activities (1964, p. 373).
Ellul points out that his readers will often see the effects of propaganda on others but will protest that it does not affect them. Nevertheless, he says, if they read the newspaper, go to movies, watch television, and (today) cruise the internet, then the description very much applies to them. To the objection that some countries do not exploit the technique, Ellul counters that some might not be able to afford it or that others exploit it only to a limited extent—and here he uses the example of the United States in the early 1960s. However, he adds that democracies will employ these techniques when they are in their national interests, especially given the global struggle between dictatorships and democracies. He writes that propaganda will be used because it efficiently mobilizes support for policies and prompts populations to action. It will be used because it is easily disguised as information and public relations, consistent with modern sentiments of freedom of thought and expression. Ellul writes that, once it becomes a part of our daily lives, it will be “impossible to turn back” (1964, p. 372).
One other consequence of the widespread use of propaganda is of political importance. Ellul considers it so apparent that he only briefly summarizes the effects of propaganda on democracy in his book on general technique. The idea among many people is that, because several parties employ propaganda, citizens are free to choose from among it. However, Ellul insists, this is not a defence of its influence. Propaganda is not the calm arguments of positions or political theories that citizens can ponder and choose intelligently and in accordance with their interests. Political parties with sufficient resources can exert force on a population to believe and act. This force is powerful enough to inspire intense hatred of others and even prompt some to act against their self-interests. Politicians, even those who believe in their party’s ideologies and proposals, will seek the most significant amount of support from their constituents through the most efficient means possible. This political need will lead to ever more efficient and effective use of propaganda.
Ellul also points to the tremendous costs associated with modern propaganda as one of the significant reasons that minor political parties fail to thrive in a democracy. Although human technicians are relatively inexpensive, the material techniques are costly. The more intense the competition among parties, the greater the costs of propaganda; the result is that only a few parties within a democracy remain competitive. This leads to intense competition between the two blocs fought through propaganda.
The influence of propaganda carries over to citizens as well. When competition between parties is intense, as in the United States in the first quarter of the 21st century, the individual often submits to one of the two streams and becomes thoroughly integrated into the chosen group (liberal or conservative). From there, political positions are easily arrived at; the individual parrots the requisite beliefs of the party “and votes as the group votes” (Ellul, 1964, p. 374).
Propaganda is thus a means to an end, a technique to stimulate individual action. The means are weapons that manipulate and exploit the individual, whether by dictatorships or by political parties within a democracy. Ellul asserts that there can be significant differences between dictatorships and democracies regarding objective conditions such as public health, technical innovation, and employment. Nevertheless, in a moral sense, if a democracy uses propaganda to achieve its ends, it is fundamentally the same. Both systems are dependent on “well-kneaded citizens” who, in the end, are made “progressively indistinguishable” from one another by the operations of human technique (1964, p. 374). “The human effects of technique are independent of the ideological end to which they are applied” (1964, p. 375).
When writing Propaganda, Ellul (1965) maintained that there were three major propaganda blocs in the world: the Soviet Union, China, and the United States. Today, at the end of the first quarter of the 21st century, the three remain with one modification. The Soviet Union collapsed, went back to its Russia label, and abandoned its pretend communism for pretend capitalism. Although a dictator still rules (with assistance from oligarchs), it is a much-diminished economy and military power. However, in Ellul’s time, the three blocs represented three diverse types of propaganda, and those differences appear to remain today.
When analyzing propaganda techniques, one should remember that the sole criterion is their effectiveness in moving people to action and empowering desired policies. Propaganda, Ellul maintains, is an “indispensable” technique for maintaining technological civilization and continuing technical progress (1965, p. ix). There are several widespread suppositions about propaganda that make its study exceedingly difficult. It is not simply a pack of lies and tall stories. It is not necessarily evil, although, like all other techniques, it has been employed for evil purposes. It is challenging to study because it is hard to define and often carried out secretly. Rather than formally defining propaganda at the beginning of his study, Ellul analyzes its characteristics as a “sociological phenomenon” (1965, p. xi). His study focuses on the propagandist rather than on the social scientists behind the technique.
In its broadest sense, propaganda seeks to modify opinions and induce actions among citizens. It includes psychological warfare in which the propagandist seeks the destruction of an adversary’s morale, re-education camps to turn prisoner enemies into allies, and campaigns to promote revolution or social integration. It also includes public relations and human relations. Ellul acknowledges that their inclusion might shock some people. However, they meet the definition of propaganda because their goal is to help people conform to organizational and societal expectations, the goal of all propaganda. He adds that there is also an organizational aspect to propaganda. Technicians combine psychological manipulation with organizational techniques that immerse individuals in meaning and inducement to action.
Organizations use propaganda techniques to condition and coordinate the actions of people. The phenomenon is the same throughout the world. However, the media of dissemination vary according to the technical level of the society employing the propaganda, and specialized techniques can vary among nation-states. Since propaganda is a technique, it is constantly refined to become more efficient and effective (1965, p. xiv). Finally, Ellul adds that, no matter who employs the technique—Nazis, Communists, or Western democracies—it has deleterious effects on individuals and groups.
He believes that propaganda has become a necessary technique in a technological society. Modern individuals, he writes, are much taken with facts, believing them to be the “ultimate reality,” and therefore they are willing to subordinate their values to them. Ellul is not willing to do that. To call it a necessity is proof of its power, not whether it is good for the individual or society. Confronted by the necessity of propaganda, people must become aware of and master it (1965, p. xv).
The social force of propaganda threatens the individual’s freedom of thought and action. Ellul addresses two significant issues in this work: the nature and strength of this threat. If it is as strong as he believes, then it is a dangerous flaw in a democratic society. True democracy and propaganda cannot coexist; to think otherwise is “to live in a dream world” (1965, p. xvi). As a lover of democracy, Ellul believes that he must warn individuals of their weakness so that they can strengthen themselves against propaganda. Still, no one is invulnerable to the reach of propaganda, and no one is entirely free from its manipulation, not even Ellul.
To focus exclusively on propaganda as a political weapon of a regime is a mistake. Its primary role is integration, a technique designed to fit individuals into their roles in a technical society. Furthermore, propaganda cannot be studied apart from its organizational and social contexts. Researchers cannot study its effects in a laboratory; they can only study them in a nation or group subjected to effective propaganda (Ellul, 1965, p. xii). Propaganda is a social force emanating from the enlarged and centralized organizational structures of socio-cultural systems—governments, corporations, and many other administrative structures.
The Characteristics of Propaganda
Technicians formulate modern propaganda based on the findings of several disciplines, specifically in-depth psychology, social psychology, communications, and sociology. Propagandists use this knowledge of human and group attitudes and behaviours—tendencies, desires, needs, conditioning, values, and socialization—to fashion their techniques. According to Ellul, without this empirical foundation, propaganda would still be in a more primitive form and therefore much less effective (1965, p. 4).
As the social sciences advance their understanding of human behaviour and social life, propaganda will become more effective. In this body of knowledge, Ellul notes, propagandists establish rules and test procedures to further their ends. Rather than leave it up to intuition or blind luck, they apply rules and formulas that anybody with the proper training can apply, a technique rooted in the scientific method (1965, p. 4). A second point regarding propaganda’s reliance on science is that its employment demands solid empirical knowledge of the target group to be subjected to propaganda, the social environment, and the campaign goals. Propaganda is not a one-size-fits-all technique; the type employed depends on analyzing these factors (which is why big data are such a critical development). A third and decisive point that highlights the scientific character of modern propaganda is practitioners’ attempts to measure its effectiveness in reaching its goals. Ellul asserts that this is prompted by a “spirit of experimentation” and a desire to improve the technique, making it more efficient over time (1965, p. 5).
Many observers will dispute the scientific character of modern propaganda by claiming that the science behind it is not scientific psychology or sociology. However, Ellul asserts that many disagree with Pavlov’s theory of conditioned reflex behind Stalinist propaganda; Dewey’s theory of teaching, the basis of American propaganda; or Freud’s theory of repression, which lies behind Nazi propaganda. Nevertheless, this merely means that there are different schools of thought among social scientists and propagandists. The latter borrow what seems valuable from the social sciences and, through their questionnaires, interviews, and focus groups, continuously measure the effects of their propaganda and refine its effectiveness.
Ellul divides propaganda into pre-propaganda (also called subpropaganda) and active propaganda. Sub-propaganda is continuous, subtle, and slow. It prepares individuals for action by making them sensitive to selected issues, stereotypes, and symbols. Its goal is to mobilize the target group for future action. The conditioned reflex is one route to achieving this preparation for action. Conditioning involves training the individual to react to certain words, persons, images, or facts. Recent examples come to mind: “Build the Wall,” “fake news,” “but her emails,” “lock her up,” “planting evidence,” “no collusion,” “witch hunt,” “an enemy of the people,” and the list goes on. On the other side (I am not an advocate of “both-sides-ism”; there is a qualitative difference to be discussed later), there is “The Big Lie,” which, though truthful (which propaganda can be), is repeated at every opportunity, a characteristic of propaganda. Conditioning calls for constant repetition of the formula. The propagandist spends months working the crowds to provoke the hoped-for reaction to each call. And then, once the automatic response is achieved, more repetition reinforces the conditioned reflex.
A second route that sub-propaganda takes to prepare the individual for action is through the creation of myths. Myths appeal to the individual’s sense of the sacred, associated with desirable objectives and all that is good, right, and true. Ellul mentions several myths associated with propaganda campaigns in the past, such as those associated with race (always popular among fascists), the proletariat (among communists), der Führer (again with the fascists), productivity, and hard work (among capitalists), and the American Dream (among American capitalists and consumers). More current examples include “the deep state” and “stop the steal” (among American fascists). Again, these myths can only be created (or reinforced) through extended, patient, sub-propaganda operations. Through conditioned reflexes and living in a collective mythical reality, through sub-propaganda, the propagandist prepares the individual for action, triggered by active propaganda.
According to Ellul, the two techniques of sub-propaganda—conditioned reflex and myth—can be used in combination or alternated by an organization. However, there is a tendency for organizations in the United States to prefer using myth to prepare the population for mobilization, whereas the former Soviet Union preferred conditioned reflexes. Regardless, sub-propaganda prepares the individual for action. However, there is not necessarily a connection between the reflex and the called-on action or between the myth and the action—the sub-propaganda only readies the individual for action, not a specific action. The propagandist (technician) must continuously renew myth and the conditioned reflex, which is why sub-propaganda is a continuous operation. Once conditioned, the individual can be pushed into action in various directions depending on the organization’s objectives and the active propaganda campaign. According to Ellul, propaganda’s spectacular and seemingly inexplicable results are only possible because of the explicit preparation of sub-propaganda (1965, p. 31).
Propagandists cannot create reflexes or myths out of thin air; they must have some knowledge of the attitudes, prejudices, beliefs, myths, and stereotypes held by the target population. The organization will analyze this population through surveys, focus groups, and, in the 21st century, web activities and other big data analyses to determine the levers available. The sub-propaganda builds upon this knowledge to tailor its myths and reflexes to the existing terrain. Techniques must be fitted to the target population (Ellul, 1965, pp. 33–34). As with all techniques, the propagandist attempts to achieve the goal as efficiently as the state of the art allows.
Although it is futile for propagandists to make a frontal assault on a well-established opinion or fixed behavioural pattern, that does not mean that they cannot take steps to undermine the status quo. Ellul writes that there is no logical consistency between opinions and actions. One can get a business owner to vote for communists or a factory worker in Kansas to vote Republican. Everyone holds innumerable opinions, stereotypes, and beliefs. The skillful propagandist will seek to appeal to the target population without confronting existing counter-prejudices or stereotypes and play on those characteristics and opinions that can lead to the desired actions (Ellul, 1965, p. 35). Through years of sub-propaganda work and then a short active propaganda campaign, the propagandist can lead true believers in the sanctity of law and order to attack police without noticing the inconsistencies between their beliefs and actions.
To be effective, propaganda of any sort must attach itself to an emotion, idea, belief, or fear present in the target individuals. It is far easier to establish a conditioned reflex when an innate reflex is already present—such as a political party that conditions hatred of immigrants by connecting them to fear of the stranger and crime or the advertising campaign that focuses on “new and improved” to appeal to Americans’ belief in progress. The propagandist must build myths upon existing attitudes and beliefs, many of which are available from the dominant religion, the mass media, or schools. Propaganda, according to Ellul, is restricted to using existing myths and beliefs; it does not create them (1965, p. 36).
He writes that a final criterion for effective propaganda is that it must respond to the needs of the target population. Those needs can be physical (food, water, shelter, work), psychological (peace, security, happiness, meaning), or a combination of them. Through social research, the propagandist’s organization (e.g., a nation-state, political party, corporation, government bureau, or social movement organization) will be aware of these needs and the population’s innate fears, ideas, and emerging myths when designing the propaganda. Again, one can see this in American product advertising, creating new product “needs” based on Americans’ fear of offending others (now with deodorant marketed explicitly for the derrière), keeping up with the neighbours, or not having the latest gadget.
Again, that propaganda must stick to exploiting existing tendencies and myths in the target population is not limiting; by using them indirectly, the skillful propagandist (or marketer) can create something new. Ellul gives the example of communist propagandists who base their appeal on unhappy factory workers who might be angry with their managers and, through propaganda, manipulate the workers to develop class consciousness and revolutionary zeal. In another example, he sketches a population oppressed by conquerors of a different ethnicity. Most of the population resents the occupying power and might even engage in a few random acts of violence. A burgeoning resistance group might take this resentment and build a revolution through its increasing organization and targeted propaganda. A country’s nationalism is a natural and innate feeling among many in the population. However, only propaganda can knit patriotism into an integrated force to defeat a foe (1965, p. 38).
Properly cast propaganda often initially attacks from the rear. It then wears down counter-opinions, redirects attention, provides new distractions and issues, and instills in the captured individual a passion for the cause, prejudice, and hatred toward the other upon command. Propaganda that engenders passion and action gives it an ever-strengthening hold on its subject population. It can make individuals do things that they would never do of their own volition, even eliciting actions counter to their opinions (say, attacking the police) (Ellul, 1965, p. 38).
Ellul’s last point about the fundamental characteristics of propaganda is rather chilling. The goal of propaganda is not to change opinions, elevate us to a higher form of consciousness, or serve our noblest instincts. The goal is not to serve us but to make us “serve” the propagandists and their organizations (1965, p. 38). Governments, corporations, and non-governmental agencies attempt to achieve this goal by tapping into individuals’ base instincts and drives as well as their crudest prejudices, fears, beliefs, and desires. These are the most effective levers of propaganda.
The Individual and the Masses
Propaganda addresses itself to the individual and the masses simultaneously; it does not separate the two. According to Ellul, modern propaganda aims at individuals immersed in groups and the groups themselves (1965, p. 6). Individuals are encouraged to identify with labour unions, interest groups, and political parties. Contribute once to a political campaign, and the individual will likely be bombarded with questionnaires, petitions, and appeals for additional contributions. The goal is to get the individual to commit further to the cause. Integrating the individual into mass groups whenever possible is thought to weaken individual defences. Individuals are treated as group members in terms of what they share with other members. It is easier for propagandists to provoke reactions when the individual is integrated into a group.
Groups tend to amplify emotions, both when the individual is physically present within the group and when the individual is participating in it through media; the individual can be caught up in the emotionalism and impulsiveness and is thus prone to excess; all of this is well known to propagandists. The propagandist (technician) treats the individual as an average member of the target group—with shared likes, dislikes, motivations, and myths—and the propaganda is then aimed at this average. At the same time, the propagandist exploits “the individual’s need for self-affirmation” (Ellul, 1965, p. 7).
It is not just the social and behavioural sciences that have made modern propaganda more efficient; advances in media have also contributed to its increased reach and power. The modern mass media of radio and television (and we can now add social media and the internet) can reach the whole group simultaneously, Ellul argues, while addressing themselves to everyone separately (1965, p. 8). He calls the mass audience the “lonely crowd,” the most opportune type in which to influence the individual. Recent developments in media technology now make this routine and pervasive.
Total Propaganda
To be effective, propaganda must be total, using all available technical means of communication. Sporadic messages do not constitute propaganda. Each modern type of media has a specific effect; television does not have the same impact as newspaper articles, does not play on the same motives, and does not provoke the same reactions. Each medium has a particular role to play in a propaganda campaign; each has strengths and weaknesses, and all must be combined to break down individuals’ resistance, begin to shape views, provoke decisions, and act accordingly. Ellul lists the media of his day and his analyses of their strengths and usefulness; however, his list is somewhat dated given the advances in communication technologies and propaganda techniques (1965, p. 10). The essential point is that the propagandist focuses on the entire intellectual and emotional life of the target population, using the available media tools in concert with one another.
Totalitarian propaganda surrounds the individual with feelings and ideas that explain the world, encouraging the individual to internalize this world view and act when called on. This organized world view, or myth, includes various beliefs and interpretations of events that are uniform, one-sided, and not open to any other interpretation. In such totalitarian societies, news outlets present information, news, and opinion pieces in a one-sided manner, all in support of the myth. Once internalized, the myth becomes a force controlling the individual’s thought and behaviour, immune to the influence of alternative world views. Individuals adopt a totalitarian attitude, explaining everything in terms of the myth and “truths” that they have been fed. They reflect the propaganda that has captured them (Ellul, 1965, p. 11).
Total propaganda is organized, skillfully combining media and stimuli into an overall campaign. Each campaign uses various instruments in relation to one another; Ellul goes as far as to call it composing a symphony. In addition to using all available media, the successful campaign employs censorship of its own media, charges of censorship and fake news against those that it does not control, legislative proposals, talking points endlessly repeated, national and international conferences, rallies, and personal contacts. Ellul writes that it is characteristic of propaganda to incorporate “everything that can serve it” (1965, p. 14). This “intrinsic necessity” of propaganda includes education, history, religion, legislative hearings, and criminal trials.
Pre- or sub-propaganda generally seeks to create a climate favourable to specific ideas, feelings, and biases. Ellul states that pre-propaganda is sociological, not inducing change but preparing the individual for future calls to action. He compares it to plowing the ground, conditioning the individual for action. Pre-propaganda is doing the groundwork for the active propaganda campaign to take root.
A solid propaganda campaign uses different media and different forms of propaganda. Ellul identifies two primary forms: direct (or overt) and indirect (or covert). Overt propaganda, in which people are aware of the source, is helpful for attacking enemies, rallying one’s forces, displaying the movement’s strength, or proclaiming victory (1965, p. 15). As a direct incitement to act, propagandists become involved in the movement, demonstrating their conviction and support, thus hoping to inspire their followers further to act. The march on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, serves as an example of several speeches and President Trump himself urging action, even saying that he would march to the Capitol to stop the certification of the electoral votes.
Covert, or “black propaganda,” occurs when people are unaware that an outside force is manipulating them and influencing their actions. Covert propaganda also uses mysteries, long silences, and then grand reveals. Although the distinction between direct and indirect propaganda is useful, Ellul points out that modern propagandists combine the two types in effective campaigns. Each type has a specific use. Direct incitement leads to immediate action; indirect incitement is often characteristic of propaganda through the mass media. When in direct contact with crowds (radio, television, in person), propaganda is most effective when the performer believes in the cause. On the level of propaganda strategy, Ellul asserts that there must be some separation from the public (1965, p. 16). Effectively combined, indirect and direct propaganda form an entire campaign.
Ellul writes that an effective propaganda campaign needs to be continuous and long lasting. It must confront individuals consistently, not leaving any gaps in their day, constructing a world view for them without any outside points that contradict it. The propagandee must not have an outside reference point that questions this world view. The propagandist must not leave individuals with their thoughts or alternative viewpoints. Propaganda bases its influence on constant repetition, censorship of alternative views, and construction of a complete media environment from which the individual never emerges.
The grip of propaganda is so strong that it can change an individual’s perceptions instantly, approving today what it condemned the day before, and the individual follows along. Breaking with the world view is simply too painful, for too much of the individual’s identity has been invested in it. The propagandist explains the new truth and “proves” that it is right and good. Resistance to the new routine is futile, fragmented, and sporadic. The target individual is caught up in daily living and is soon overwhelmed by the steadiness and repetition of the propagandist’s message (Ellul, 1965, p. 19).
The long-term, continuous nature of propaganda is why its effectiveness cannot be measured in the laboratory or election campaigns lasting only a few weeks. However, the current US campaign system, lasting years in presidential elections, is ample time for active propaganda campaigns. This is especially true for political parties and other actors that manufacture pre-propaganda campaigns continuously, laying the ideological groundwork for the fierce active propaganda campaigns to follow.
The Organization of Propaganda
Administration and professional technicians in various fields are necessary to organize and coordinate effective propaganda campaigns. Technicians are needed to coordinate the media, calculate the effectiveness of slogans and advertisements, and decide on the timing of new campaigns to replace old ones. Often from social science backgrounds, these administrators are “technicians of influence” who utilize data from opinion surveys and focus groups to decide on strategies (Ellul, 1965, p. 20). They serve as consultants to politicians or entire governments, advising them on courses of action that will satisfy their followers and on exploiting that satisfaction.
In addition to technicians, there is a need for an organization, or a bureaucracy, that closely ties the psychological manipulation of symbols to physical action. To understand the phenomenon fully, one cannot separate physical organization from psychological manipulation. They are of a piece; effective propaganda is only possible when psychological manipulation is combined with group organization (Ellul, 1965, p. 20). Organizational influence on the individual is critical; without it, there is no real propaganda. The organization might be a political party, a social movement, or a nation-state bureaucracy attempting to organize an entire population.
Because of the absolute need for physical organization and the inducement to action, propaganda can only work inside a group. For this reason, propaganda from outside the group, say one nation trying to destabilize another, is weak because of the absence of physical organization. One can reach the population by manipulating symbols through the press. However, unless there is an internal organization to encircle the individual and push for action, such efforts, at best, can only raise doubts among individuals about their country. The simple dissemination of words can hardly affect morale unless an organization sustains it and calls people to action (Ellul, 1965, p. 21). This internal organization can be accomplished by infiltrating a domestic political party, interest groups, or the media. In the mid-1960s, according to Ellul, the Soviet Union used domestic Communist Parties to spread its propaganda. In the 21st century, Russia has found domestic authoritarian political parties in several countries to amplify their propaganda and use it in opposition to liberal parties in Western democracies. So far, this tactic has been successful. Again, domestic organizations are essential for effective propaganda to take root.
Psychological action is an indispensable piece of the propaganda mechanism. By manipulating symbols, it convinces people to join an organization. It also provides them with reasons and justifications for their actions; if effective, then it gains their total allegiance. The propagandees must become true believers in their manufactured beliefs, finding meaning and satisfaction in their world views and requisite actions—their commitment results from psychological manipulation in combination with an organization (Ellul, 1965, p. 23).
According to Ellul, the propagandist is a creature of the organization, a manipulator employed by the machine. A technician’s words are calculated for effect; they are not spontaneous, though often seeming so, but part of a meticulous script prepared well in advance. Belief in the cause is essential for them, but not necessarily belief in the message of the moment, for it might have to change without warning. The propagandist can simulate human contact, for human relations are necessary for propaganda to have full effect, but they are simply the voice and actions of the organization itself. Like an insincere salesperson selling a false promise, when they speak, they are at the height of their “mendacity and falsifications,” whether conscious of them or not (1965, p. 24).
Orthopraxy
Propaganda might have started in the 1850s as information manipulation to change individuals’ opinions or ideas—making people believe in falsehoods or ideas and ideologies with little proof but great conviction. If this was ever true, Ellul asserts, then it is no longer so. Technicians create modern propaganda to provoke individuals to action and, once engaged, get them to “cling irrationally” to that course (1965, p. 25). They intend to loosen the target’s reflexes, inspire a mythical belief in a cause or a hero, and precipitate action on behalf of this cause. This capture of the individual is not through intellectual debate or persuasion, for the intellect is a poor motivator of action. Besides, the debate process is long, and it is uncertain whether it will bring positive results. Instead, Ellul argues, technicians often design effective propaganda campaigns to operate unknown consciously to the individual, appealing to central tenants and thus stimulating them to appropriate actions. Individuals do not act by choice or value judgment; instead, their action is the intentional objective of propagandists, who manipulate the instruments at their disposal—technical, organizational, and psychological—to “secure precisely this action” (1965, p. 27).
Like the division between thought and action created throughout technical society in factories and offices, propaganda recreates the great divide. It leaves individuals feeling free of thoughts but channels their actions consistent with the goals of the propaganda organization. Often these actions counter the private beliefs or material interests of the individual. Ellul asserts that it is well known that there is no necessary continuity or rationality among convictions, opinions, and actions. Technicians design propaganda to exploit this gap by inserting its levers to induce action. In sum, propaganda seeks not to educate or create reasonable men and women but to foster foot soldiers, committed actors, “proselytes and militants,” primed for collective action (1965, p. 27).
The action thus engendered must be channelled on behalf of the propaganda organization. The foot soldiers receive orders (often indirect) through the organization, leading them to the appropriate actions. They act as a group for the organization (or the hero), giving their actions a patina of justice and strengthening the individual’s integration into the group. Once the group acts, it reinforces the individual’s beliefs in the propagandist’s messages. To question those messages is to question the justification for the actions, making them appear unjust, stupid, or absurd. The action commits the foot soldier, militant, or proselytizer to continue down the path indicated by the propaganda, “for action demands more action” (Ellul, 1965, p. 28). The individual has been co-opted and forced into a specific role in society. Often there is a break from family members and previous friends and colleagues. Individuals now have prescribed enemies and friends. If they have committed an illegal or violent act condemned by many, Ellul notes, then they cling even tighter to the propaganda and the myths behind it that provide that justification. They become more involved in the movement until it dominates their consciousness (1965, pp. 29–30).
Social Conditions
Certain social conditions of technological societies create the ideal conditions for the continuing development of the power and reach of propaganda. It is a powerful tool for structural elements of our societies, governments, political parties, corporations, interest groups, and other organizations. This point deserves emphasis. Propaganda is the symbolic part of an organization’s resources in its efforts to become more productive and efficient in achieving its goals. As a reflection of the organizational structure of society, it is part of the entire socio-cultural system and cannot be separated from it.
Ellul describes several myths and presuppositions shared among all technical societies today. All collectively share them without question. They are the foundations of capitalism, but they are now shared by non-capitalist countries as well. First, the goal in life is individual happiness. Second, progress is inevitable and positive. Third, humanity is essentially good and will eventually do the right thing. Fourth, the material universe is all there is (1965, p. 39). According to Ellul, the two fundamental myths of modernity, the foundations of all others, are science and history. From these general myths, we get the collective myths of the positive nature of work, happiness in social relations and material comforts, continuous progress, youth, and the hero (1965, p. 40).
The role of social organizations is to build upon these presuppositions and myths to achieve their objectives (profit, votes, conditioning, or rally attendance). One of the most productive and efficient ways to achieve these goals is through propaganda. Another characteristic of these organizations is that they are all bureaucratic, which means, among other characteristics, that they have hierarchies, and whatever propaganda the organization makes will be in accord with the interests of its hierarchy.
It is interesting how liberal Americans perceive the propaganda on the right as blatant manipulation but consider their sources of information factual and straightforward. The same phenomenon exists among those on the right, who are blind to the biases of their preferred media (Fox News, Newsmax) but perceive a leftward bias among media outlets on the left (MSNBC, Daily Kos). Moreover, both groups are suspicious of the mainstream media—attacked from the right as “lamestream” media or, at minimum, left-leaning sources and from the left as carriers of “both-sides-ism” (a charge of false balance, a media bias in which journalists present an issue as being more balanced between opposing viewpoints than the evidence supports).
There are many similarities between the sub-propaganda of Americans influenced by the left and the right. The differences are in the ultimate goals. Media arms of the right and the left in the United States emphasize news stories and opinion pieces that suit each narrative and ignore those that go against the overall message. The exceptions to this rule are opinions on the other side that can easily be pilloried and events that are so newsworthy (i.e., marketable, for the news is a business, and rating and readership are paramount) that they cannot be ignored. There are also significant differences among various media in the two camps regarding how closely they subscribe to journalistic ethics—multiple sources, accurate quotations within contexts, correct reporting—but both camps reflect sub-propaganda in service to their parties’ interests. Both interests have their roots in American myths and presuppositions.
Ellul claims that propaganda that stresses virtue over happiness or austerity over consumption has little chance of broad resonance in technological societies. All propaganda in such societies must be compatible with the myth of continuous progress. As the old General Electric slogan had it, “progress is our most important product.” The propaganda in all technological nations will parrot one version or another of this adage—the nation will continue to industrialize and modernize; science and technology will create a material paradise.
Ellul asserts that, though advertising for products might evoke nostalgia, it is not a viable strategy for political propaganda. Although it might appear that “Make America Great Again,” a slogan used by both Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump, counters that assertion, it is consistent since the slogan also evokes a better tomorrow. Successful propaganda in modern society must also be consistent with the currents of that society. For example, a campaign to restrict women to 19th-century roles cannot win wide acceptance in a technological society—economic realities, working families, struggles to maintain a middle-class lifestyle, and corporate and government entities dependent on women in the outside labour force will resist it.
Ellul offers a not-so-compelling example of the impossibility of successful propaganda that contradicts the nationalist zeitgeist. True federalist propaganda (advocating for state and regional authority), he writes, “can never succeed” in modern technological societies (1965, p. 41). His reasoning about its incompatibility is that it challenges the national myth and the widespread faith in the strength and efficiency of centralization, part of the general faith in progress. However, federalist propaganda has found a willing audience and is valuable for some interest groups; others use it when it suits their purposes. A better example is one of the impossibilities of the success of propaganda advocating true anarchy, for such a philosophy runs directly counter to technological society.
Propaganda can turn patriotism into the conquest of other nation-states. It can turn a culture based on thrift and hard work into a consumer society. It can turn patriotic American citizens against their government. It can justify gross inequalities and integrate people more firmly into existing social structures. Ellul asserts that propaganda not only reflects a society’s myths and presuppositions but also strengthens and “hardens them, sharpens them, invests them with the power of shock and action” (1965, p. 40).
Timing
Active propaganda’s calls to action must be timely and responsive to the social and economic conditions of the moment. According to Ellul, the public of the modern nation-state is sensitive to contemporary news events, particularly economic and political news events, that challenge the fundamental currents of their society. The propagandist can utilize news events related to these fundamental currents and the public’s deep beliefs and attitudes. The news event reflects reality and has power over the individual because of this resonance and because it engenders “seductive excitement” by its call to immediate action in support of the manufactured reality (1965, p. 43).
The modern individual, Ellul notes, is at the mercy of news events. They come at the individual in rapid succession, faster, more numerous, and more intrusive each successive year. Individuals are further saddled with a limited attention span, little time to understand the world outside their jobs (usually jobs of limited scope), and short memories. Moreover, the same can be said of the various media that carry these fast-moving events. Current news gets massive attention, some events so much as to exclude all other contemporaneous events (think of the Department of Justice raid on Mar-a-Lago or Queen Elizabeth’s death in the summer of 2022). Once the obsession with today ends, Ellul points out, it is forgotten, or interest is lost (1965, p. 45). So, despite their obsession with the news, modern people do not think much about or understand current social, political, or economic problems; instead, they react emotionally to them. One of the benefits of the job of propagandists is that they can depend on the fact that the public will forget the theme, event, or opinion within a few weeks (1965, p. 46).
Propaganda uses words and phrases that can break through the media noise and into the consciousness of the target population. Words and slogans are tested in focus groups, presented through surveys, and discussed in board rooms. They are pointed, active, and often associated with the times or images that inspire strong emotions in the target audience. Watergate! Benghazi! No Collusion! Witch Hunt! There is the possibility of information overload among the public (Ellul calls it “an excess of information”). To eliminate inconsistencies, an individual can repress or forget previous events. Such a person, he writes, is denying their continuity as a person and living on the surface: that is, a “discontinuous and fragmented” life (1965, p. 47). Such “current events” persons are ripe for propaganda since they lack well-defined anchors or values and are carried along by the prevailing current.
Ellul considers this obsession with news responsible for many people ignoring the most critical information about our world. Here he mentions the splitting of the atom and nuclear weapons. One could add information about climate change, habitat destruction, deforestation, and desertification, some of our current environmental problems. Moreover, there are our social, political, and economic problems—few of which are adequately covered in the news flashes. There are long-term issues such as rising inequalities based on race, class, and gender, struggles between authoritarianism and democracy, and the ever-present threats of plague, economic recession, and war.
Nevertheless, the news itself, Ellul writes, could be a simple fact or the dissemination of an item of information. It could be true or false, depending on the source. It might be heavily edited to support a point of view, taken out of context, an opinion disguised as news, or an objective piece that looks at all sides. The important thing in studying propaganda is its dissemination, not its reality (1965, p. 47). Ellul emphasizes that people have been conditioned in the modern era to be sensitive to economic, political, and social news. It does not have to be objective or even rooted in reality; it only needs to be presented as such. Propaganda on behalf of a government, party, corporation, or other organization can then suggest specific facts from the news content that become real to the individual who has been conditioned to be concerned. Through propaganda, the organization exploits the individual’s concern for its own ends (1965, p. 48).
The Undecided
Ellul estimates that anywhere from 7% to 10% of a population are indifferent to the social life of the group—they are not the undecided and not viable targets for organizational propaganda. The undecided are full participants in the life of society but have not yet committed to policies or actions on seemingly urgent social, political, or economic problems. Members of this group are susceptible to the control of their opinions and attitudes. They are often targeted with propaganda to bring them under organizational coordination and control. Nevertheless, according to Ellul, this is only possible if the undecided share the concerns of the social group. Propaganda has its strongest appeal to individuals involved with the prevailing social currents of society who share the group’s collective interests.
In modern technological societies, writes Ellul, collective interests seem to converge on issues of politics and governance, economics, occupations, and technologies. More recently, the environment and health care have joined this list of collective interests. It is within the collective foci of interests—that is, societal interests—that propaganda can be most effective. The more integrated the individual is into active groups tied to a collective focus of interest, the greater the effect of its propaganda on its members. Ellul emphasizes that this intensity centres on the collective focus of interest, and it is not simply the individual’s reaction but also the result of group participation. Participating in collective life makes one susceptible to an organization’s influence and propaganda (1965, p. 50).
Ellul then summarizes three major principles of effective propaganda. First, the organization must place its propaganda within the socio-cultural system’s focus of interest. Second, the propaganda should aim at individuals intensely involved in group life. Third, a combination of the first two, the propagandist should note that the intensity of involvement is greatest around the collective focus of interest (1965, p. 51).
Handling the Truth
Propaganda’s relation to the truth is mixed (like most of us and our organizations). Most people believe that propaganda is easy to recognize because it consists of tall stories and repeated and obvious lies. That attitude leads many to fail to recognize their susceptibility to propaganda. In fact, according to Ellul (as well as actual propagandists such as Goebbels, Hitler, and Lenin), truth is highly valued by propagandists, particularly truths that embody facts. It is in the interpretation of facts that lying becomes a fundamental skill (1965, p. 52).
Propaganda must be accurate when reporting “local facts” that the target group can experience directly. As a caveat, Ellul states that propagandists cannot go against such local facts unless they have their target population so well in hand that they will believe anything. However, he says that this condition is rare (though perhaps not rare enough). Regarding factual material that is more remote, such as labour statistics or productivity claims, Ellul asserts that such propaganda from government entities tends to be accurate. Although propagandists have built campaigns on factual lies with some success, only true believers tend to go along with them. However, those outside the group, the undecided or those in thrall to opposing propaganda, see the improbability of such assertions and find them ludicrous and unbelievable. As a result, Ellul writes, campaigns based on real lies are becoming rare (1965, p. 54).
However, he might have been premature in this assertion since lies seem to be coming back in fashion as a propaganda technique. The “firehose of lies” is a technique in which many false messages are broadcast rapidly, repetitively, and continuously over multiple channels (e.g., news and social media) without regard for truth or consistency. The object is to overwhelm the target population with such assertions to get them either to believe the falsehoods or to give up on ever discerning the truth of the matter. Recent examples include the many assertions about COVID-19 vaccines and alternative treatments and the “stolen” election of 2020.
There are some exceptions to the use of lying propaganda noted by Ellul. Propaganda claiming that a fact is a lie is still popular, as is making vague “factual” claims to deceive people, such as claiming a 15% increase in productivity without specifying the time period. Alternatively, facts can be presented in such a way that, by innuendo, suggests an opponent is guilty of something. Also, facts withheld often suit the organization’s purpose (Ellul, 1965, pp. 54–56). For example, the Texas government, after effectively banning all abortions, withheld maternal death rate statistics until well after the elections in November 2022. According to many, this withholding was meant not to give ammunition to those who favour choice in abortion (Klibanoff, 2022).
Nevertheless, interpreting facts is the “real realm of the lie” (Ellul, 1965, p. 57). Counter-facts can detect factual lies, but it is hard to disprove an interpretation of an event or a fact. A fact, Ellul points out, has different significance depending on who is interpreting it. Consider the different interpretations of the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago in August 2022 (much in the news at the time of this writing). The trick, Ellul writes, is to go immediately from the facts to moral and ethical judgments and assertions.
By its very nature, propaganda is a technique used by organizations for interpreting events. Ellul becomes negative here, calling it “an enterprise for perverting” interpretations and false insinuations (Ellul, 1965, p.58), but that might be too cynical. Indeed, some propaganda comprises lies and self-justifying assertions. However, many people interpret events and facts in a light as favourable as efficiency and effectiveness allow. Furthermore, much might be honestly believed by the propagandist or be factually accurate, such as propaganda pushing the effectiveness of a vaccine.
The second part of the relationship between propaganda and truth telling is that propagandists often (Ellul implies always) must obscure or outright hide the motivations of the organizations for which they act—such as the government, a political party, a corporation, or an activist group. Again, this might be a case in which Ellul is overbroad and too focused on active propaganda of a political nature. As he points out elsewhere, many organizations engage in propaganda openly with their stated goals. Examples include organizations such as the Sierra Club or Doctors without Borders, though one can also imagine such organizations engaging in active political propaganda that obscures their organizational interests.
So, lies about interpretations and intentions are common in propaganda campaigns. The government of the United States lies, Ellul asserts, when it claims to defend liberty everywhere—it does not do so when it is against its national interests. The government of Russia lies when it claims that Nazis rule modern-day Ukraine with the intention to invade Mother Russia. Ellul points to a form of projection well known about propagandist-political leaders; they often accuse their enemies of intentions, misdeeds, or crimes that “clearly reveal the intention of the accuser” (1965, p. 58).
However, Ellul also points out that the propagandist sometimes believes lies. Some leaders in the US government might have believed that they were preventing the development of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or defending the freedom of the homeland (the latter word always had a German ring to it). All three political blocs—the United States, China, and Russia—make positive claims about themselves and their interpretations of events and cast aspersions on the interpretations of others. Ellul credits these governments with some good faith in their beliefs about themselves. However, as soon as their propaganda becomes organized around false claims about themselves or others, it is done in bad faith. In his words, “propaganda reveals our hoaxes even as it encloses and hardens us into this system of hoaxes from which we can no longer escape” (1965, p. 61). The lie becomes part of social reality, and the propagandist and the target audience are ensnared. Like Sir Walter Scott’s (1808/1888, Canto 6, Stanza 17) adage, “oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.”
To summarize, Ellul’s definition of propaganda is a set of psychological methods of manipulation that an organization uses to arrange and trigger a mass of individuals to adopt beliefs and actions consistent with that organization’s ends (1965, p. 61). With modernity, propaganda has become ever more efficient and pervasive and actively threatens human freedom and democracy.