zmag
Language of Persuasion
Randal Marlin. Propaganda and the Ethics of
Persuasion. Broadview Press Ltd.
library reference 303.3Mar
This book is a well researched, analytical, clearly written book examining
the nature of propaganda. I give the chapter headings below to give some idea
of its approach, and take some excerpts from it below. Eileen
Preface's Opening Comments:
"A primary purpose of this book is to arouse a critical spirit among
readers against being corralled by forces and emotions of the moment into
supporting actions that in conscience they will or should later come to regret.
There are many special interests skilful at manipulating circumstances and communication
in such a way as to benefit their own ends and not necessarily the public good.
" (9)
Contents
1. Why Study Propaganda?
2. History of Propaganda
3. Propaganda Technique: An Analysis [This chapter treats, with examples, many
of the deceptions of language, statistics, and logical fallacies dealt with in
Theory of Knowledge.]
4. Ethics and Propaganda
5. Advertising and Public Relations Ethics
6. Freedom of Expression: Some Classical Arguments
7. The Question of Controls
8. Propaganda, Democracy, and the Internet
• Selected Bibliography
excerpts from Chapter 3, Propaganda Techniques
DEVICES INVOLVING LANGUAGE MANIPULATION
Some Examples from Bolinger
Many forms of manipulation make artful use of language. The Harvard linguist
Dwight Bolinger, drawing on the work of others, has
provided some interesting examples, to which he has given useful names. [The
list below is a series of excerpts, pages 100 - 102. The numbering on the list
is mine. E.D.]
1. the deleted agent of the passive
In this we rephrase a sentence from active to passive voice and delete the suject of the the first sentence.
Instead of "Jane kicked the ball," the sentence is written "the
ball was kicked." Instead of "Willy broke the window at
2. experiencer deletion
Experiencing verbs are those such as believes, knows, feels, senses,
touches, and so on. If we say, for example, "it is believed that over
10,000 people appeared at the demonstration," and leave out the relevant
fact that the belief was held only by some wishful-thinker in the sponsoring
organization, who did not attend the meeting and who notoriously exaggerates
the numbers, we give a false impression. . . . Of course, the experiencer deletion can be replaced by an equally
misleading substitute. For example, a foreign correspondent reporter may write,
"Seasoned observers here feel that . . ." when the reference is only
to a taxi driver, himself, or other journalists holed up in some hotel bar,
with no real access to what is going on outside.
3. deletion of a qualifying performative
People with some expertise in a particular field of knowledge may be called
on by the media to express their views to the public. Wanting to be helpful,
they may say things like, "Well, I haven't looked into the matter, but my
guess would be . . . ." It is a case of deleted qualifying performative if
the report gives the rest of the sentence without including the first part. . .
. Perfomatives such as "I think . . ." or
"I feel . . ." are included precisely in order to signal to the
listener that the speaker is giving only limited endorsement to what follows.
To omit these qualifiers can mislead people, in some cases seriously and
unfairly.
4. naming
Bolinger views the act of naming along with "favorable or unfavorable
overtone" in the terms selected as "the favorite
device of the propagandist and the ultimate refinement in the art of
lying." Here we are reminded of Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four and the
naming of the ministry where lies are continually reinvented as the
"Ministry of Truth." Among examples Bolinger
takes from Henry Steele Commager are the use of terms
such as "surgical strikes" for precision bombing (often not so
precise, nor so healthy), "pacification centers"
to apply to concentration camps, "incontinent ordnance" for bombs
that miss their target, and "friendly fire," which kills innocent
civilians by mistake. A government may choose to title legislation that
drastically cuts back on funding for education, as "An Act for the
Improvement of Education," treating as a truth what is, at best, only
debatably so. A great deal of effort and expense is often required to
counteract impressions so formed.
Name-calling in general is a powerful force for influencing opinion because
names are easily remembered. Words like "Uncle Tom,"
"demagogue," "racist," "sexist,"
"traitor," and the like carry powerful emotional overtones, but they
also cause perceptions of the individual so named to be warped. It is sometimes
said of such powerful terms that a person is "guilty if charged,"
such is the tendency of people to believe that there's "no smoke without
fire," and that denials are only to be expected and not to be believed
without further evidence."
Examples from the Institute for Propaganda Analysis
A compact, frequently reproduced list of "tricks
of the trade" was furnished in 1939 by the New York-based Institute for
Propaganda Analysis. In addition to name-calling, there are six common tricks,
examined below. [Again, I quote excerpts, pages 102 - 106. E.D.]
1. Glittering Generality
This is defined as "associating something
with a 'virtue word' . . . to make us accept and approve the thing without
examining the evidence." Glittering generalities "mean different
things to different people; they can be used in different ways." A prime
example of such a word is "democracy," which in our day has a
virtuous connotation. but what exactly does it mean? .
. . The ambiguity of the term is such that Nazis and Soviet Communists both
felt they could claim it for their own system of governance, despite the fact
that many in the West saw these systems, with reason, as the antithesis of
democracy. . . . The expression "free speech" is another glittering
generality, which can be used to deny free speech to others.
2. Transfer.
The Institute defines this term as follows: "Transfer carries the
authority, sanction, and prestige of something respected and revered over to
something else in order to make the latter acceptable." . . . Transfer is
a very common device. A younger, aspiring politician has a photograph taken
with a senior political icon in order to share the latter's prestige. Photographing a politician against the background of a revered
institution, such as Parliament, can have the same effect. Having the
flag as background is a frequent form of transfer. Always, the aim is to be
seen in the company of persons, places, or things that will resonate well in
the minds of voters.
There are legitimate and illegitimate uses of transfer. It is legitimate when
transfer is used to represent fairly what a candidate stands for. It is
illegitimate when this or any other propaganda device is used unfairly, to
pretend that the candidate favours something which he or she does not.
3. Testimonial.
In the Institute's definition, "Testimonial consists in having some rspected or hated person say that a given idea or program
or product or person is good or bad." This appeal to authority encourages
us to accept ideas without subjecting them to critical examination. . . .
Deception occurs when the supposed authority never said what is attributed to
him, her, or it; when the views of the authority are distorted; or when the
authority is untrustwothy. A popular film star may
lack the expertise to speak competently on scientific, economic, or complicated
political issues, or a famous scientist may pronounce on something outside his
or her field, without the lack of competence being communicated to the
audience.
4. Plain Folks.
This device is defined as "the method by which a speaker attempts to
convince the audience that he and his ideas are good because they are 'of the
people', the 'plain folks'." In practice, it is put into action by
presenting oneself to the public as a homey type, "just like you";
for North American politicians, it may involve such things as showing devotion
to little children and pets, attending church services, pitching hay, and going
fishing. Aristotle understood the reasons for such a device: people will vote
for a friend, someone who values the same kinds of things they do, not for an
enemy.
5. Card-stacking.
This is defined as "the selection and use of facts and falsehoods,
illustrations or distractions, and logical or illogical statements in order to
give the best or the worst possible case for an idea, program, person or
product."
. . . The complaint is often heard that radical viewpoints are left out of
political reporting and that, with only a few non-threatening exception,
speakers are chosen because they support the existing power structure.
Alternatively, voices on the right will often complain that the reporters are
on the whole more "liveal" than the
mainstream population. By choosing an appropriate mix of speakers, one can
ensure that a given viewpoint will be likely to emerge as strongest in debate.
It is card-stacking to ignore or under-represent important positions on issues
with a view to preordaining that one's own favoured view will be dominant. . .
. What is true of choosing speakers or experts is true also of scholarly
sources. It is card-stacking to select as evidence only those writings that
agree with certain of one's preconceptions and to ignore contrary opinions, no
matter how well argued they may be.
6. Band Wagon.
This is the attempt to persuade based on the premise that "everybody -- at
least all of us -- is doing it." The idea is that the group addressed
should therefore accept the propagandist's program, follow the crowd and
"jump on the bandwagon."
Mass rallies and demonstrations give people the sense of overwhelming support
for the party, program, cause, etc., on whose behalf the rally is being held.
This will help undecided people to join, on the grounds that the movement is
unstoppable and that it is better to share in the benefits of joining than to
be left out. . . . To combat this form of propaganda, the Institute recommends
asking, first, precisely, what is the program that the propagandist wants us to
accept? Second, what is the evidence for and against the program? And third,
does the program serve the interests of one's group? One might also question
the motives of others who show up to a rally. Has free beer, pizza, or other
benefit been promised? Are they going because they like the music, the colour,
and the excitement, rather than because they
have a strong commitment to the cause?
Rallies have a legitimate role to play in a democracy. . . . It becomes
propaganda when efforts are made to artificially boost the numbers by
extraneous inducements or hinted threats of some kind.
Use of a term like "American," when addressing an American audience
is often calculated to promote bandwagon effects. To say that Communism is
un-American is to promote a herd mentality, "us" versus
"them." Such an appeal is insidious, because there is no single set
of characteristics that defines an American as American, or a Canadian as a
Canadian, and so on with other nationalities. . . . There is no good reason to
define [dissenters] as not belonging to the given nationality merely because
they do not share the prevalent views. The defense
the Institute offers against this propaganda, as with the other devices is
simple: "Don't let yourself be stampeded, beware of your own prejudices,
suspend your judgement until more sides of the issue are presented, and analyse
them."
(The remainder of this chapter deals with further tricks of persuasion, logical
fallacies, and manipulation of statistics, covering material we deal with in
class in ToK.)
home
Critical
Thinking Skills main page (with readings on media
Should I
believe it?: A Guide to Evaluation
bias and manipulation of language
bias
and manipulation of photographs
bias and
manipulation of statistics
bias
and manipulation of maps
logical
fallacies