The very definition of the word propaganda suggests that it cannot be a force of good. The Oxford Dictionary defines it as, “Persuasive mass communication that filters and frames the issues of the day in a way that strongly favors particular interests… through lies, half-truths, and the selective re-telling of history.” In this essay, I will be taking an ethical approach in examining why propaganda can never be a force of good as it depicts a distorted narrative to persuade a large sum of people to a particular viewpoint. Firstly, I will refer to how propaganda was used to spread misinformation during the Rise of the Nazis to demonstrate why propaganda can never be a force of good and is morally wrong. Moreover, I will then examine how the use of language can create a biased and selective narrative and prevent people from critically thinking about a subject. Finally, I will examine how the use of credible sources are used to influence and control people.
Historically, propaganda has always been used as a tool to control the masses, right from when it was first defined as a form of Catholic indoctrination, and later to justify the colonization of distant countries. Political parties are known to have used propaganda to manipulate people’s emotions and encourage support. Goebbels, the Nazi minister of propaganda was an expert at exploiting the emotions of the people of Germany. The infamous phrase “Freiheit und Brot” (freedom and bread), reinforced this tactic of manipulation. Randal Marlin explained it perfectly in his book Propaganda and the Ethics of Persuasion, “At the most abstract level, people want happiness, so the art of persuasion will show them, sometimes only implicitly, that a proposed program, ideology, way of life, commercial object, or whatever will contribute to their happiness.” This suggests that the power of propaganda lies not in convincing people to believe in something but in manipulating the narrative to ensure that the ideology lines up with people's core values and beliefs. For Germans in 1930, they longed for stability and safety, something which Nazi propaganda promised. When one looks at the impact of propaganda from an ethical and historical approach it is clear propaganda cannot be a force of good. The use of propaganda was one of the main components in ensuring Nazi success. The narrative that was portrayed was misleading and did not represent the true intentions of the party. When this tactic of mass manipulation continues to occur, one must question how much free choice ‘we’ have.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
Furthermore, “language manipulation” is a major component in the success of propaganda. Certain trigger words and phrases invoke certain feelings in individuals. This is dangerous as it can create authoritative figures that appear familiar and suggest that you can trust the individual without consulting other sources.
“Verbal symbolization can also create a sense of power. The use of language associated with authority figures such as parents, teachers, heroes, and gods renders authority to that which the language describes— “the fatherland,” “Mother Church,” “Uncle Sam,” and “Dear Leader.” The propaganda agent who can manipulate sacred and authority symbols but avoid detection can define a public view of the social order. Propaganda uses language that tends to deify a cause and Satanize opponents”.
The symbolization of language may aid in political advancements that are not necessarily good as it can disguise, obscure, and distort the true intention of the legislation being passed. For example, during the Bush administration the “Healthy Forests Initiative” was passed, despite the word “healthy” suggesting that it would allow the forests to rejuvenate without trees being cut down, the legislation increased deforestation. This shows how language can manipulate the truth and force people to come to misleading conclusions. In recent years it has seemingly been more difficult to question the narrative and the intentions of authoritative figures as a result of the deification of political figures.
Source credibility is a strong factor in the use of propaganda. People usually follow the crowd, regardless of their own beliefs. As a result of this, people turn to authoritative figures for guidance. This would not normally be an issue, as the role of the authoritative figure is to watch out for the best interests of the people. Having said that, one must ask – what happens when the authoritative figure is the propagandist?
“Expert opinion is effective in establishing the legitimacy of change and is tied to information control. Once a source is accepted on one issue, another issue may be established as well based on prior acceptance of the source. The analyst looks for an audience’s perceived image of the source.”
Propaganda has always been a tool of “control and conformity by the dominant power”, it is used as a way to coerce citizens into behaving in a certain manner that aligns with the national identity. For example, Britain’s involvement in the Second World War has shaped this nation's identity, and every time there is a crisis ‘the Churchillian way’ is mentioned. This narrative has been repeated by all media outlets for decades, so as a result it has impacted not only who we are as a nation, but who we are as individuals. This implies that propaganda can never be a force of good as it limits our thinking and creates a narrow version of events. Unfortunately, unless you’re trained to think critically it is expected that the propaganda that you’re fed just becomes the basis of one’s knowledge. This is immoral as if history has shown us anything, misinformed people can create devastating outcomes.
To conclude, propaganda can never be a force of good – regardless of the message. The use of propaganda throughout history has created devastating outcomes, such as the holocaust during the 1930’s and 40’s. At the beginning of the Nazi regime, the propaganda used just promised a brighter future, however, it turned into mass murder. This demonstrates how propaganda can be used to deceive and control people. The use of language and source credibility as a propaganda tactic limits people’s ability to critically think as they trust in the authoritative figure. Misleading language used in the media can create division among the people as those who question the narrative are ridiculed. Propaganda is dangerous. It is inevitable, it is everywhere in this society. However, it does not serve a good purpose.
Bibliography:
- Davis, Jesse B. 'THE HEALTHY FORESTS INITIATIVE: UNHEALTHY POLICY CHOICES IN FOREST AND FIRE MANAGEMENT.' Environmental Law 34, no. 4 (2004): 1209-1245. Accessed February 7, 2021. http:www.jstor.orgstable43267028.
- Fitzmaurice, Katherine. 'propaganda.' Brock Education 27, no. 2 (2018): 63-67
- Jokic, Aleksandar. (2014). 'Propaganda and the Ethics of Persuasion,' 2nd ed., by Randal Marlin. Teaching Philosophy. 37. 426-431. 10.5840teachphil201437329.
- Marlin, Randal Propaganda and the ethics of persuasion, Ontario: Broadview Press p 95-102
- O’Donnell, Victoria. II. Jowett, Garth. Propaganda and persuasion. London: SAGE publications (2012) P.289-306
- Oxford Reference. ; Accessed 6 Feb. 2021. https:www.oxfordreference.comview10.1093oiauthority.20110803100349558
Stuck on your essay?
