Discussion Question 1:
Black’s piece on
propaganda explains the overall pervasiveness of a communications power
imbalance—both of political and social institutions—onto civil society. I took away two different dimensions to
Black’s message in relation to public diplomacy. In this historical sense, the author utilizes
Ellul’s philosophy in his definition. Ellul states that numerous elements of
society are oriented towards the manipulation of individuals and groups,
including the threads of our sociocultural fabric. This poses propaganda as a one-way flow of
information. Interestingly, van Ham
states in his book this same definition of public diplomacy but posed in
relation to foreign affairs. The author
states that the purpose of public diplomacy is to shape a favorable opinion for
a foreign policy agenda, and is different from propaganda because it aims to,
“create a wider, perhaps even global community, which is susceptible to a way
of thinking that is considered desirable” (p 117). But who, then, considers this particular way
of thinking desirable? Why? And who says? This is where the second dimension
that I thought was interesting in Black’s article is applicable, where he
argues that propaganda is a function of the media. The media spreads the ideas of the social and
political institutions. Within this
process it abates the openness and freedom of expression that is supposed to
counter that communication power imbalance.
As U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powel defined American diplomacy as:
“We’re selling a product. That product we are selling is democracy.”(van Ham, p
119). In terms of public diplomacy and propaganda
are interchangable, where the media becomes a weapon and battlefield of choice
to win over its publics.
I guess one of the things that comes to mind here is: if propaganda is so pervasive and indeed, essential to the functioning of society - why should PD be such a bad thing? Does it not just utilize what is already happening? Alternatively, we could apply an ethical standard a la Black. PD should be about educating and informing, rather than deception and manipulation. Even so - disagreements occur and persuasion may be necessary. If I'm trying to convince you to do something "good" - does my use of effective rhetoric mean I'm manipulating in an unethical way? The unresolved issue, for me at least, are the standards by which we judge PD.
ReplyDeleteI think that loaded terms are what differentiate and make propaganda and PD seen as "bad". When you use the terms decepting versus informing, manipulating versus persuading, coercing verus educating etc. the public has a widely different perception on the issue at hand. U/S Sonenshine made a statement yesterday in her talk that really resonates about how the weight of particular words affect how the issue is portrayed. This is where I believe the media comes into play and can be used as that "weapon" either for or against the topic at hand. These two articles cover the change in Smith Mundt Act but are drastically different in their coverage and tone: 1. http://blog.heritage.org/2012/05/22/smith-mundt-modernization-better-late-than-never/ versus 2. http://www.buzzfeed.com/mhastings/congressmen-seek-to-lift-propaganda-banPersuasion. In this sense, I think the standards by which we judge PD is heavily reliant on the carefully chosen idiom, not the act of PD itself.
Delete