Propaganda

Nonfiction | Book | Adult | Published in 1928

A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.

Download PDF

Summary

Background

Chapter Summaries & Analyses

Chapters 1-4

Chapters 5-11

Key Figures

Themes

Index of Terms

Important Quotes

Essay Topics

Tools

Beta

Discussion Questions

Chapters 1-4Chapter Summaries & Analyses

Chapter 1 Summary: “Organizing Chaos”

Bernays argues that the deliberate manipulation of the opinions and habits of the masses is necessary for a democratic society to function in a coherent and organized manner. Human beings are able to cooperate in society because in all domains of daily life, whether in politics, business, or social conduct, peoples’ perceptions of social reality are molded by what Bernays calls an “invisible government” of experts “who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses” (10). For Bernays, these experts can guide and govern the masses because they hold key positions in society and have both natural leadership qualities and a keen ability to provide the “needed ideas.” In a country of 120 million, Bernays claims, there are very few people who are able to understand socio-political phenomena, and these “invisible governors” provide the direction and organization needed by mass society. He argues that the framers of the Constitution did not envision political parties or the complex machinery of 20th-century politics, and without the direction of propagandists, the American voter would be left in a state of confusion. In a similar sense, the public cannot examine, price, and test the varieties of commodities available to them, so the propagandists step in to narrow the choices to a few select products. Bernays claims that the open competition of the American marketplace can only function smoothly when it is organized by “leadership and propaganda” (12).

Bernays addresses the concerns of critics who bemoan the manipulation of ideas about politicians, the news, and commercial products by admitting that the instruments that manage public opinion could be misused. However, he argues that the organization of social ideas is “necessary to orderly life” (12). As civilization becomes more complicated and the technological means of communication more advanced, this “invisible government” is increasingly necessary. Bernays acknowledges many divisions in society in terms of “social, political, economic, racial, religious” and ethical interests and then notes the subdivisions in each of these categories (13). He provides a lengthy list of propaganda sources to demonstrate the sheer quantity of these subdivisions and to emphasize the necessity of propagandists who would simplify the confusion of interests and ideas. Bernays argues that the instrumental manipulation of the public makes democracy possible and creates organization out of chaos. To deplore such a mechanism of control, Bernays maintains, is to “ask for a society such as never was and never will be” (18). For Bernays, it would be unreasonable to think that such a mechanism should not be used.

Chapter 2 Summary: “The New Propaganda”

Bernays writes of the shift in power from the king to the people, which was facilitated by the three components of the Industrial Revolution: “the steam engine, the multiple press, and the public school” (19). The shift in power from the aristocracy to the bourgeoisie, who began to fear the common people because of the possibility that they, too, could gain power, was facilitated by “universal suffrage and universal schooling” (19). Today, however, Bernays argues that a “minority has discovered a powerful help in influencing majorities” (19). It is now possible for an elite minority to “mold the minds of the masses” so that the masses will “throw their newly gained strength in the desired direction” as prescribed through propaganda (20). Bernays argues that the practice of propaganda in the present society is inevitable and that nothing of “social importance” is accomplished today without the help of propaganda. Bernays views the minds of literate Americans in terms of a rubber stamp—the instantaneous endorsement of what is presented in advertisements or published data. He claims that the ideas Americans entertain are not their own but rather are received from external sources in a wholesale fashion. These ideas are disseminated through propaganda, which Bernays views as a benign and “organized effort to spread a particular belief or doctrine” (20).

Bernays addresses the negative connotations of propaganda that emerged after World War I. He suggests that the term is a value-neutral term and offers some dictionary definitions to bolster his point. He cites how definitions point to propaganda being used by religious or other institutions to propagate doctrines or systems. It also is defined as an effort to systematically gain public support for an idea. He cites a Scientific American article in which the author argues for a restoration of the pre-war definition of propaganda and likens the use of propaganda to the dissemination of truth.

Bernays provides some examples of propaganda from the newspaper and demonstrates how some of the articles provide data and are not considered propaganda, while other articles are attempts to influence public opinion. He notes, “These examples are not given to create the impression that there is anything sinister about propaganda. They are set down rather to illustrate how conscious direction is given to events” (24). He seeks to show that there are “men behind these events” who influence public opinion (24).

The influence behind the scenes constitutes modern propaganda, which Bernays defines as a “consistent, enduring effort to create or shape events to influence the relations of the public to an enterprise, idea or group” (25). Bernays argues that no “important undertaking” is possible without the use of propaganda. Regardless of how the propaganda is disseminated, it must be “universal and continuous” in shaping the public mind as rigorously as a military regiment (25). Bernays sees nothing pessimistic about the deliberate shifting of public opinion. In fact, he warns that when a group of minds are regimented and cling to stereotypes, the result can be bands of men with “sheet and pillow-case” (26), referring to the Ku Klux Klan. This is why he advocates for universal and continuous propaganda. If rulers are incapable of exercising power without the consent of the masses, then propaganda is a necessity that is "here to stay" (27).

The “astounding success” of propaganda in World War I revealed how useful the instrument could be in civilian life in times of peace. Business, in particular, demonstrates the importance of propaganda in changing the public’s opinion about a product. Bernays provides the example of the velvet manufacturers’ dilemma when their product fell out of fashion. Since they were unable to revive the fashion trend in the United States, they instead promoted the material in Paris, “the home of fashion” (29), knowing Americans would look to Paris to determine what was fashionable. In this case, propaganda manufactured demand. Propaganda is necessary to create demand, and the intelligent minority must combine selfish business interests with the interests of the public, and therein lies the “progress and development of America” (31).

Chapter 3 Summary: “The New Propagandists”

Bernays posits the question about who makes up the invisible government that he claims is responsible for giving the public their ideas. He assumes that a list of these “molders of public opinion” would first include the President of the United States, cabinet members, the people in Congress, governors, and more (32). Bernays reiterates the point that this group of public opinion manipulators is obscure, “but it is well known that many of these leaders are themselves led, sometimes by persons whose names are known to few” (33). In this sense, Bernays suggests that there is a hierarchy of these manipulators, and it is difficult for even established politicians to know whether they were elected in response to popular demand or whether their name was “decided upon by half a dozen men sitting around a table in a hotel room” (33).

Bernays explains that the “type[s] of ruler associated with the phrase invisible government” may be “dictators in other fields,” such as business, whose influence is just as powerful as that of politicians (35). For Bernays, there are “invisible rulers who control the destinies of millions” (35). He claims that people are not aware of the notion that “our most influential public men are dictated by shrewd persons operating behind the scenes,” and neither do people acknowledge that “our thoughts and habits are modified by authorities” (35). It would be a mistake to imagine ourselves as free-thinking agents, according to Bernays, because “we are ruled by dictators exercising great power” (35).

In some cases, that “dictator” might exist in a different agency because “invisible government is relative” in the sense that “different men rule us in the various departments of our lives” (37, 36). One power might exist “behind the throne in politics” (36), while another manipulates the Federal discount rate, and yet another dictates the fashion industry. Bernays argues that a man doesn’t choose a particular suit because it is the type of garment he prefers but because his tastes are already dictated by fashion leaders in Paris.

Bernays maintains that the reason only a few people control this invisible government is due to “the expense of manipulating the social machinery which controls the opinions and habits of the masses” (37). Advertising is expensive, and it is also a difficult task to persuade group leaders to “dictate the public's thoughts and actions” (37). Ultimately, propaganda is concentrated in the hands of the “propaganda specialist,” and it is out of this mold that the field of public relations is formed.

The public relations counsel brings ideas to the “consciousness of the public” while trying to secure “public support for them” (38). The public relations counsel is also concerned with “tangible things such as manufactured and raw products” (38). In Bernays’s terms, the public relations counsel functions as an adviser to his client “very much as a lawyer does,” but in these matters, the focus is on the “public contacts of his client’s business” (39). The propagandist’s task is to mold public opinion so that it is congruent with the client’s interests. Bernays is clear in stating that the counsel on public relations is “not an advertising man” but will advocate advertising when necessary and call in an advertising agency to “supplement its work on behalf of a client” (39). The public relations counsel first must analyze the client’s “problems” and make sure that the client’s product is something that the “public accepts or can be brought to accept” (39). The propagandist next analyzes the public to determine which groups must be addressed and to find the leaders who will be useful in this endeavor. Once this research has been concluded, the propagandist manages each point of contact between the client and the public.

Bernays maintains that the first time a public relations counsel became necessary was during the era of muckraking magazines that tried to raise public awareness about corporate practices. Business leaders realized that they needed a liaison to manipulate the relationship between the public and the companies. Bernays argues that “the counsel on public relations must maintain constant vigilance because inadequate information, or false information from unknown sources, may have results of enormous importance” (43). In other words, the public relations propagandist seeks to counteract information that might cause the public to lose trust in said client. The goal of public relations is to portray the producer—“whether that producer be a legislature making laws or a manufacturer making a commercial product” (44)—as something that is in the public’s best interest. The objective of public relations as a profession is to be pragmatic in making certain that the public understands the objectives of the manufacturer or legislature and that the public knows what is being offered.

Chapter 4 Summary: “The Psychology of Public Relations”

The potentials of an “invisible government” were realized along with some of the first studies of mass psychology, or what Bernays terms the “group mind.” Bernays argues that the work of Gustave Le Bon, Walter Lippman, and others demonstrates that the psychology of the group mind exhibits mental characteristics different from those of the individual. The group mind is, in Bernays’s terms, “motivated by impulses and emotions which cannot be explained on the basis of what we know of individual psychology” (47). Bernays believes that by understanding the “mechanism and motives” of crowd psychology, one could then “control and regiment the masses according to our will” without the masses being aware of this influence (47). Bernays claims that even while mass psychology is not an “exact science,” one can still, in “theory and practice,” effectuate some change in public opinion with a certain level of accuracy “by operating a certain mechanism” (48).

One way to manipulate public opinion is through the influence on leaders—even if they are not conscious of this influence—because they hold sway over the public. Bernays claims that individuals behave as members of a herd, even in solitude. An individual’s mind will automatically retain the patterns of ideas “stamped on it” through the influence of the group. Bernays argues that when individuals make decisions on what to purchase or what kind of stocks to buy, they do so with the mistaken impression that said decisions were made according to their own judgment. The decisions are instead based on impressions accumulated from outside forces.

Bernays maintains that the group mind does not “think in the strict sense of the word” but responds with “impulses, habits and emotions” (50). The first impulse is to follow the example or opinion of a trusted leader, and in the absence of this direct influence, the “herd” responds with clichés or images that signify a “whole group of ideas or experience” (50). Bernays concludes that with the manipulation of an old cliché, the propagandist can shift a mass of shared herd emotions.

Drawing on Freud, Bernays concludes that the thoughts and actions of individuals are often “compensatory substitutes” for suppressed desires. People are drawn to certain consumer goods not because of their intrinsic value but because they unconsciously see them as a symbol for some other repressed desire. Bernays applies this idea to crowd psychology. Only by understanding the repressed desires driving the movements of the masses can the propagandist begin to manipulate society.

Bernays explains that the old forms of propaganda relied on this mechanistic view of the public, believing that the public would respond to an idea if the idea were reiterated enough times. The newer style of propaganda works more indirectly through the processes of association. For example, one might urge doctors to make positive statements about the consumption of a particular food, knowing that most people would follow the advice of a doctor and not necessarily respond to an advertisement for said food. By indirectly touching on the psychological and emotional currents of the group, the propagandist sets forth ideas and outcomes that will appear to individual consumers to be their own ideas or choices.

When the propagandists enlist leaders to support their cause, this cause must benefit both the leader and fit with the prevailing public interest, thereby making the work of the propagandist appear disinterested. Bernays explains that “it is one of the functions of the public relations counsel to discover at what points his client's interests coincide with those of other individuals or groups” (59). In Bernays's conception, the propagandist sells the interests of the client and the community to give the appearance of mutual interaction and benefit.

Chapters 1-4 Analysis

In the first four chapters of Propaganda, Bernays explains the necessity of propaganda in American life, details the methods by which it functions, and lays the foundation for Bernays’s arguments. In Chapter 1, he asserts that the true “ruling power” in the United States is an invisible organization of elites who control the masses by manipulating public opinion. This belief gives way to The Myth of the Invisible Government, Bernays’s prevailing notion that a small but mighty group of propagandists shape the beliefs of a nation. He reasons the necessity of this invisible government is based on the “logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized” (9). However, the view that to preserve democracy, a small cadre of propagandists must wield power over a “democratic society” runs contrary to the very idea of democracy itself and stands as An Endorsement of Elitism. So, Bernays seeks to establish the absolute necessity of propaganda as the organizing principle of a democratic society. Even though the citizens living in a democracy would like to think that they make decisions on their own, Bernays claims that people would “find it impossible to come to a conclusion about anything” if it weren’t for propagandists who simplify and disseminate information (11). Bernays frames the contrasting visions of America with repetitive use of the introductory clauses “in theory” and “in practice” (11). In theory, he argues, Americans make their own decisions about commodities and matters of social conduct, but “in practice,” modern life would be far too confusing without the oversight of propagandists.

Bernays embraces a complicated view of modern society and frames propaganda as a populist endeavor. He compiles an ostentatious array of “groupings and affiliations” that are propaganda sources (13). These subdivisions are amplified through Bernays’s use of accumulation, a literary device where a list of items is cataloged or enumerated to emphasize a point. Bernays provides a long list of propaganda sources chosen at random from the World Almanac and a list of periodical publications from the American Newspaper Annual and Directory. None of the names in the list are important in terms of his argument, but they serve instead to portray the chaos of modern American life. Even after including paragraphs of the names of random organizations, Bernays insists that these lists “can only faintly suggest the multitude” of complexities that exist in society (15). By creating confusion about the many divisions and subdivisions in society and outlining the difficulties in choosing commodities or political leaders, Bernays depicts democracy as too complicated for most people and thus wholly dependent on the manipulation of this invisible government of propagandists. Without propaganda, Bernays argues, there would be no organization of chaos. Curiously, Bernays also attempts to corroborate his argument regarding the crucial importance of propaganda by suggesting that only an immature or deluded person would not blithely accept the function of societal manipulation, which is counterintuitive.

In his explanation of “The New Propaganda,” Bernays considers the challenge the common people might present to the bourgeoisie. He directs his attention to a "reaction" that has set in, perhaps in response to the gradual advancements of the common people. A minority, he concludes, will proceed to influence the majority, and Bernays assumes himself to be part of this elite minority. Bernays argues that “universal literacy was supposed to educate the common man to control his environment,” but he is skeptical that this development has left people with “a mind fit to rule” (20). Indeed, Bernays seems to disparage the “democratic doctrine” in which one would find confirmation about the advancement of the common people. Universal literacy has left the people not with a mind but with “rubber stamps,” meaning that they simply accept what is given to them in terms of slogans and editorials without thinking at all. He uses florid prose as he details the superficial interests of the common man, remarking on “the trivialities of the tabloids and the platitudes of history” (20). The portrayal of the rubber stamps as “duplicates of millions of others,” all of which are “exposed to the same stimuli,” is suggestive of a mechanical register (20). A common person is not an individual but a cog in the machine or a product. In fact, Bernays uses the metaphor of the commodity to describe how people produce ideas in “wholesale fashion.”

While Bernays clearly advocates for the skillful use of propaganda, he does so in a reserved, detached manner like that of the scientist observing phenomena, examining Propaganda as a Technical Endeavor. His portrayal of propaganda as an inevitable, purely rational endeavor betrays his ambivalence toward alternatives to invisible government propaganda and, indeed, to democracy itself. Bernays frames propaganda as value-neutral and claims that whether it is “good or bad depends upon the merit of the cause urged, and the correctness of the information published” (20). He points to the “technical meanings,” writing in a technical language register that implies that he is dealing with facts and empirical reality and not persuasion. He builds logos by citing a Scientific American article in which the author seeks to restore the definition of propaganda, free of the negative connotations. The article compares propaganda to a set of beliefs about politics or religion and the necessity of making these beliefs known to the world. Bernays quotes several paragraphs from the article, which argues that propaganda is the dissemination of “a valuable truth,” and if one comes across such a truth, then it is one’s duty to share it. By conflating propaganda with an observable fact or “just a plain forceful statement of truth” (23), he nullifies any alternative to communicating through propaganda.

With regard to “The New Propagandists,” the author leads with a question regarding “the men who, without our realizing it, give us our ideas” (31), which continues the metaphor of the invisible government comprised of shadowy figures who plant ideas in the minds of citizens. The first paragraph is a single sentence that begins with that question, and Bernays uses the repetitive technique of anaphora so that each consecutive phrase begins with “about” or “what” as in the following example: “[W]hat to believe […] about the price of rubber, about the Dawes Plan, about immigration; who tell us how our houses should be designed, what furniture we should put into them, what menus we should serve on our table” (32). This ostentatious list is used to portray a sense of chaos and confusion, but it also demonstrates elitism about the capability of the average person to make decisions on their own.

Bernays suggests a list of people who create public consensus, beginning with the President of the United States and descending along the hierarchy until he reaches “amateurs of sport” (33). The list is extensive (consisting of more than 20 lines) and, not unlike the speculation in the first paragraph, is deliberately repetitive. The items in the list aren’t as important as the sheer quantity Bernays wants to express, rhetorical flourishes such as these are a method of propagandizing while advocating for propaganda. Bernays declares that “such a list would comprise several thousand persons” (33). However, that the invisible government is a myth becomes clear when the author shrouds the invisible governors in mystery but then is very specific when he describes the “half a dozen men sitting around a table in a hotel room” (33). He continues with this metaphor in the following passage, referencing the “power of the invisible cabinet which deliberated at the poker table in a certain little green house in Washington” (34). Again, the specific detail about the poker table suggests that these are fictions and that the invisible government is a myth that serves as a narrative device corroborating Bernays’s argument. (Incidentally, the reference to “John Smith of Topeka” is also fictitious [35].)

Bernays is advocating for this intellectual minority to hold sway over the masses, yet he continues to portray the shadowy cadre in ominous terms. Bernays asks the reader what types of persons would “typify in the public mind the type of ruler associated with the phrase ‘invisible government’” (34). He then suggests that there are “dictators in other fields whose influence is just as decisive as that of the politicians I have mentioned” (34). The narrative persists, and the author references the conspiracy: “There are invisible rulers who control the destinies of millions” and “We are ruled by dictators exercising great power” (35). The reference to dictators and unseen domination would seem to detract from his advocacy of the intellectual minority and their propaganda.

Bernays then offers a more toned-down, rational explanation with regard to the myth of the invisible government. The reason that the invisible government is concentrated in the hands of an intellectual minority, Bernays explains, is “because of the expense of manipulating the social machinery which controls the opinions and habits of the masses. To advertise on a scale which will reach fifty million persons is expensive” (37). He maintains that it is just as expensive “to reach and persuade the group leaders who dictate the public's thoughts and actions” (37). These are the first seemingly concrete details in the text regarding the myth of the invisible government if they can be taken at face value.

Regarding the public relations counsel, Bernays writes that it “is the agent who, working with modern media of communication and the group formations of society, brings an idea to the consciousness of the public” (38). The public relations counsel advises his “client,” which might be the government, a business, or some other entity needing to sway the masses. Bernays confirms that the public relations counsel “is not an advertising man but he advocates advertising where that is indicated. Very often he is called in by an advertising agency to supplement its work on behalf of a client” (39). Bernays is talking about propaganda not as an invisible government connected to the United States but as a public relations entity working between the corporation and the public. He thus conflates capitalism and business with the federal government. When Bernays addresses the need for propagandists to assist the “promulgators of new enterprises and ideas” in communicating their message and for the public to accept the ideas through sheer force of all the means of communication (37), he is referring to businesses. The fact that the propagandist is concerned with “tangible things such as manufactured and raw products” would suggest that this entity works primarily with companies and corporations (38). The two converged in Bernays’s personal work as a publicist in the 1950s, when he worked with the United Fruit Company to influence the CIA-orchestrated coup in Guatemala.

Bernays projects a positive image of propaganda at various points in the text, especially with his argument that the “profession of public relations counsel is developing for itself an ethical code” not unlike the “legal and medical professions” (45). He also attempts to project companies as making every attempt to facilitate the “immense and scientific care” with which to “choose clearly understandable and distinguishable exchange names” so that the public understands the information disseminated (44). The public is then in a position to “appreciate the effort that is being made to give good service” (44). These descriptions of “medical professions,” “scientific care,” and “good service” are part of the technical language register that Bernays employs to provide a veneer of authority and suggest a rigor associated with science.

Bernays addresses “The Psychology of Public Relations” by speculating on whether the manipulation of public opinion is a science. He states that mass psychology is “as yet far from being an exact science” and admits that “the mysteries of human motivation are by no means all revealed” (47). However, he then suggests that “theory and practice” have been coordinated with such success that we can “know that in certain cases we can effect some change in public opinion with a fair degree of accuracy by operating a certain mechanism” (47-48). The mechanism again touches on the technical language register, pitching propaganda as if it were some deterministic mechanism or part of an exact science. He writes that “propaganda is not a science in the laboratory sense but […] it is now scientific in the sense that it seeks to base its operations upon definite knowledge drawn from direct observation of the group mind” (48). It is “in the spirit of the laboratory” that the propagandist works “systematically and objectively” so that the propagandist can determine which commodities are losing their public appeal and in which direction public taste is turning (48). In this case, the sales pitch is compared to a scientific experiment.