Propaganda didn’t used to be a dirty word. Far from the half-baked lies (or truth) that the majority of us associate propaganda with today, it, in fact, had a pure, Pope-y origin. Yes… to bring peace on earth. Or, er, to keep Protestantism from spreading.
It came from Pope Gregory XV in 1622. He said of the sheep who were wretchedly straying that “it is to be desired that, inspired by divine grace, that they should cease to wander admist heresies through the unhappy pastures of infidelity, drinking deadly poisonous water, but be placed in the pasture of true faith, that they may be gathered together in saving doctrine, and be led to the springs of the waters of life.”
He really did have good intentions. The rather long sentence itself sounds rather negative but really, he was projecting good thoughts and love-thy-neighbor sentiments. He is the Pope, after all.
So how did it become such a dirty word? I’m thinking when propaganda transitioned from religion to politics is when it started to get a little dirty. Who’d have thought? Politics being dirty?! Say it ain’t so, Joe.
Think of Hitler and the Nazis and every single war we’ve been in. Each one used different techniques in brainwashing, I mean propaganda… but it was there.
So that leads me to another question: is propaganda bad?
Most people would answer yes. However, Sheryl Tuttle Ross in “Understanding Propaganda: The Epistemic Merit Model and Its Application to Art” (Yes, that’s quite a mouthful) says that propaganda doesn’t necessarily have the negative connotation every one generally believes it to have.
She says that if you believe in what you’re preaching, then it isn’t bad. Then again one person’s “bad” is different from the next.
Let’s take this another step. So if you believe in your propaganda, is your propaganda automatically credible?
I think I could go in circles here. Thoughts? Is “propaganda” a dirty word?
2 responses so far ↓
mctheory09 // December 2, 2008 at 2:29 am
One of the interesting things about the history of propaganda is that, even though we associate the beginnings of propaganda’s bad reputation with the Nazi’s and WWII, Joseph Goebbels’ stated goal with the Ministry for Popular Enlightenment and Propaganda was to due away with the negative connotations of propaganda. The government made no attempt to hide the fact that they were using propaganda and the public largely accepted this. Goebbels’ information machine was highly effective and churned out some of the leading examples of propaganda with which we are familiar today, including Leni Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will, a powerful film documenting the Nuremburg rally of 1934.
Just a little bit of irony there. Maybe if he had not been associated with the Nazi’s we would have had fonder memories of Mr. Goebbels.
Scottie // December 3, 2008 at 5:49 am
I don’t think propaganda is necessarily a dirty word. Pretty guile if I may say so. Think back to Sinclair’s “The Jungle” and how they got the immigrants to come over. Remember the “I want You” poster with Uncle Sam. Watch “the truth” commercials. Straight up propaganda. Do I agree with it? Maybe or maybe not, but I do know that in order to succeed in this world, one may need to “whatever it takes” attitude. Whether it’s “dirty” or “clean”, each individual will have a different interpretation which will eventually change the propaganda meaning. According to the article, it’s “dirty”…to me it’s “guile”…to someone else maybe “pointless”…who knows!