- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Quote:
“Every day we are bombarded with one persuasive communication after another. These appeals persuade not through the give-and-take of argument and debate but through the manipulation of symbols and of our most basic human emotions. For better or worse, ours is an age of propaganda.” Pratkanis and Aronson: The Age of Propaganda
“Our abilities will be blunted if we are constantly protected from error. We should actively engage in the process of filtering truth from error and should not rely on someone else do do it for us” John Milton (qtd. in Marlin 207).
Persuasion has traditionally been associated with winning an argument using emotional or logical reasoning. Responsible rhetoric endorses the use of persuasion when the rhetor provides accurate and truthful information that contributes to an informed decision by its intended audience. Propaganda, on the other hand, is a persuasive form of rhetoric that attempts to influence human behavior without consideration for the needs of its audience. While both attempt to persuade our behavior, opinion, and attitude propagandists do so to only satisfy the needs of the propagandist. In contrast, responsible persuasion takes into consideration the mutual benefit of both the rhetor and the audience being persuaded. More on responsible rhetoric can be found in Jennifer Rahm’s, Rebecca Greenberg’s, and Rebecca Saxer’s essays.
Our purpose in this discussion is to explain, analyze, and review the impact propaganda has had on society over time. Our aim is to inform the readers by pointing out different propaganda techniques they might encounter in the various media and suggest ways to guard against its influence in their lives.
Quote:The Purpose of Propaganda
Propaganda is the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person. The early Greeks and Romans used discourse to clarify a position. This persuasion could come in the form of an argument, debate, or discussion with a goal of trying to discover the truth that would impart wisdom and knowledge to all parties involved. Persuasion in this sense refers to winning or conquering with the use of emotional or logical reasoning. Aristotle recognized that an appeal to emotion was useful in persuasive rhetoric. Rhetoric, as Aristotle noted, is “the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion. The available “means” of persuasion for Aristotle are called: ethos: the perceived trustworthiness, credibility, and reliability of the speaker; pathos: the appeal to the audience’s most basic and deeply held beliefs; logos: the appeal of evidence; finding compelling reason for your audience to accept your argument or solution.
Because people are responding to your message, the role of the responsible rhetor is to create a persona that is persuasive but reliable, trustworthy, and credible to the audience (Lay et al.107). Propagandists misrepresent credibility for their own ends. “Credibility is a condition of persuasion. Before you can make a man do what you say, you must make him believe what you say. A necessary condition for gaining his credence is that you do not permit him to catch you in a lie. Hence the constraint on all propagandists to accurate reporting of matters which are subject to verification by the audience”
(Rhodes 287).
Propagandists try to influence by deliberately manipulating logic to promote their cause. Used appropriately, logical reasoning enhances the effectiveness of an argument and the ethos of the speaker or writer. Errors in argument, or rhetorical fallacies, indicate that your thinking is not well reasoned and entirely trustworthy. Propagandists deliberately use errors in argument to appeal to the emotions of their audience. Look at the following example to see how propagandists can twist logic for their purpose (Propaganda Critic>Logical Fallacies):
Premise 1: All Christians believe in God
Premise 2: All Muslims believe in God
Conclusion: All Christians are Muslims
Test the logic of an argument like this is to see if the conclusion makes sense. The premise may be correct, but the conclusion is false.
Quote:Propaganda Techniques
Edward Filene helped establish the Institute of Propaganda Analysis in 1937 to educate the American public about the nature of propaganda and how to recognize propaganda techniques. Filene and his colleagues identified the seven most common “tricks of the trade” used by successful propagandists (Marlin 102-106: Propaganda Critic: Introduction). These seven techniques are called:
Name Calling
Glittering Generalities
Transfer
Testimonial
Plain Folks
Card Stacking
Band Wagon
These techniques are designed to fool us because the appeal to our emotions rather than to our reason.The techniques identified by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis are further refined by Aaron Delwich in his website, Propaganda where he “discusses various propaganda techniques, provides contemporary examples of their use, and proposes strategies of mental self-defense.” By pointing out these techniques, we hope to join with others who have written on this topic to create awareness and encourage serious consideration of the influence of contemporary propaganda directed at us through the various media and suggest ways to guard against its influence on our lives.
Name Calling: Propagandists use this technique to create fear and arouse prejudice by using negative words (bad names) to create an unfavorable opinion or hatred against a group, beliefs, ideas or institutions they would have us denounce. This method calls for a conclusion without examining the evidence. Name Calling is used as a substitute for arguing the merits of an idea, belief, or proposal. It is often employed using sarcasm and ridicule in political cartoons and writing. When confronted with this technique the Institute for Propaganda Analysis suggests we ask ourselves the following questions: What does the name mean? Is there a real connection between the idea and the name being used? What are the merits of the idea if I leave the name out of consideration? When examining this technique try to separate your feelings about the name and the actual idea or proposal (Propaganda Critic: Common Techniques 1).
Return to Top
Glittering Generalities: Propagandists employ vague, sweeping statements (often slogans or simple catchphrases) using language associated with values and beliefs deeply held by the audience without providing supporting information or reason. They appeal to such notions as honor, glory, love of country, desire for peace, freedom, and family values. The words and phrases are vague and suggest different things to different people but the implication is always favorable. It cannot be proved true or false because it really says little or nothing at all. The Institute of Propaganda Analysis suggests a number of questions we should ask ourselves if we are confronted with this technique: What do the slogans or phrases really mean? Is there a legitimate connection between the idea being discussed and the true meaning of the slogan or phrase being used? What are the merits of the idea itself if it is separated from the slogans or phrases?
Return to Top
Transfer: Transfer is a technique used to carry over the authority and approval of something we respect and revere to something the propagandist would have us accept. Propagandists often employ symbols (e.g., waving the flag) to stir our emotions and win our approval. The Institute for Propaganda Analysis suggests we ask ourselves these questions when confronted with this technique. What is the speaker trying to pitch? What is the meaning of the thing the propagandist is trying to impart? Is there a legitimate connection between the suggestion made by the propagandist and the person or product? Is there merit in the proposal by itself? When confronted with this technique, question the merits of the idea or proposal independently of the convictions about other persons, ideas, or proposals.
Return to Top
Testimonial: Propagandists use this technique to associate a respected person or someone with experience to endorse a product or cause by giving it their stamp of approval hoping that the intended audience will follow their example. The Institute for Propaganda Analysis suggests we ask ourselves the following question when confronted with this technique. Who is quoted in the testimonial? Why should we regard this person as an expert or trust their testimony? Is there merit to the idea or product without the testimony? You can guard yourself against this technique by demonstrating that the person giving the testimonial is not a recognized authority, prove they have an agenda or vested interest, or show there is disagreement by other experts.
Return to Top
Plain Folks: Propagandists use this approach to convince the audience that the spokesperson is from humble origins, someone they can trust and who has their interests at heart. Propagandists have the speaker use ordinary language and mannerisms to reach the audience and identify with their point of view. The Institute for Propaganda Analysis suggests we ask ourselves the following questions before deciding on any issue when confronted with this technique. Is the person credible and trustworthy when they are removed from the situation being discussed? Is the person trying to cover up anything? What are the facts of the situation? When confronted with this type of propaganda consider the ideas and proposals separately from the personality of the presenter.
Return to Top
Bandwagon: Propagandists use this technique to persuade the audience to follow the crowd. This device creates the impression of widespread support. It reinforces the human desire to be on the winning side. It also plays on feelings of loneliness and isolation. Propagandists use this technique to convince people not already on the bandwagon to join in a mass movement while simultaneously reassuring that those on or partially on should stay aboard. Bandwagon propaganda has taken on a new twist. Propagandists are now trying to convince the target audience that if they don’t join in they will be left out. The implication is that if you don’t jump on the bandwagon the parade will pass you by. While this is contrary to the other method, it has the same effect: getting the audience to join in with the crowd. The Institute of Propaganda Analysis suggests we ask ourselves the following questions when confronted with this technique. What is the propagandist’s program? What is the evidence for and against the program? Even though others are supporting it, why should I? As with most propaganda techniques, getting more information is the best defense. When confronted with Bandwagon propaganda, consider the pros and cons before joining in.
Return to Top
Card Stacking: Propagandist uses this technique to make the best case possible for his side and the worst for the opposing viewpoint by carefully using only those facts that support his or her side of the argument while attempting to lead the audience into accepting the facts as a conclusion. In other words, the propagandist stacks the cards against the truth. Card stacking is the most difficult technique to detect because it does not provide all of the information necessary for the audience to make an informed decision. The audience must decide what is missing. The Institute for Propaganda Analysis suggests we ask ourselves the following question when confronted with this technique: Are facts being distorted or omitted? What other arguments exist to support these assertions? As with any other propaganda technique, the best defense against Card Stacking is to get as much information that is possible before making a decision.
Quote:Other Techniques
Modern communication constantly assails us with thirty to sixty second messages and images designed to catch our attention and influence us. Catchy slogans and phrases are substituted for well-reasoned arguments. Audiences become so overwhelmed with these messages that they begin to automatically accept the explanation offered without taking the time or good judgment to notice what is being directed towards them or how it might be influencing them. Propagandists employ these other techniques, including them logical fallacies, to influence our opinion and behavior (Hacker 44).
Fear: Propagandists play on an audience’s fear that something bad will happen to them unless they do what has been suggested to them.
Humor: Humor is another powerful tool of persuasion. If you can make people laugh you can persuade them.
Repetition: Propagandists use this technique to drum the message into the target audience’s subconscious by repeating keywords or phrases over and over until resistance to the message weakens. The target audience eventually accepts the message often without even realizing it. Adolph Hitler emphasized the need for repetition in propaganda. “Now the purpose of propaganda is not continually to produce interesting changes for the few blasé little masters, but to convince; that is, to convince the masses. The masses, however, with their inertia, always need a certain time before they are ready even to notice a thing, and they will lend their memories only to the thousand fold repetition of the most simple ideas” (qtd. in Rhodes 139).
Return to Top
Red Herring: Propagandists use this diversionary tactic to draw one’s attention away from the real subject. Guard against this technique by showing how the argument has gotten off track and bring it back to the issue at hand.
Symbols: Propagandists use words, designs, place, ideas and music to symbolize ideas and concepts with emotional content.
Faulty Cause and Effect: Propagandists claim that the use of a product creates a positive result without providing any supporting evidence.
Compare and Contrast: Propagandists lead the audience to believe that one product is better than another without offering real proof. This technique is similar to Faulty Cause and Effect.
Return to Top
Loaded Words: Propagandists use powerful words like peace and patriotism because they arouse a strong emotional response.
Hyperbole: Propagandists use exaggeration or “hype” to create impressive sounding words that are nonetheless meaningless and vague.
Slogans: Propagandists use catchy slogans or phrases that are easily remembered in place of a complicated and perhaps more accurate explanation.
Simple Solution: Propagandists use this technique to provide simple solutions for complex answers. Facts are reduced to right and wrong, good or evil. Propagandists attempt to get people to accept information because it appears to be concise and goes straight to the heart of the matter. This makes it easy for people to make a decision without having to have to think about important issues or verify the facts.
In both techniques pages, we have outlined the most common methods used by propagandists to influence their audience. We believe that the best way to guard against persuasive techniques is to be aware of these methods and how they work. In other words, information is the best defense. The more we know about propaganda techniques and how they work the better we can resist its influence. To paraphrase, if it sounds too simplistic, too one-sided, or too slanted to be true, it probably is.
Once armed with the information used for good or bad one can learn to filter it and program themselves or consciously program themselves but first they should know when they are being subjected to it, which is pretty much almost evrywhere and almost all the time in today’s age, be it “white” or “black”. Thus armed a person can filter through it and decide what they want for themselves. Similarly I likes DBmormon talks on methodsnofna critics but this takes it several steps further to recognize all methods used by just about every business, government, social group, and religious institution be it for the good or bad everyone should conclusion know when they are hearing it and decide for themselves before it bypasses thier critical thinking and goes straight to the gut to motive which is what it is designed to do for good or bad. I believe: 1) Communal sociality is a process of filtering back and forth what is best for the individual and what is best for the society.
2) Social leadership is, by definition, the position of determining where groups draw the line between the pursuit of those two ideals in a very practical way.
3) “Zion” is the idea that there is an ideal balance between the two – a condition of community (commnual unity) that serves BOTH ideals properly, where unity exists despite differences.
4) My role in creating Zion is to strive to find the type of individual balance between the two general ideals in my own, internal life and work to help others find that type of individual balance in their own, internal lives. If I am a “leader” of some sort, obviously I have more potential to help more people, but I don’t see my role as “attacking” or “changing” anyone; rather, I see it as being a “helper” or “servant” of anyone and everyone.
5) Thus, all I can do is “offer” – consistently and humbly and without expectation. I can’t “demand” or “command”. I also must be willing to learn from everyone I’m trying to serve – and, in practical terms, sometimes that is the hardest aspect of Zion of all.
Old-Timer wrote:I believe:
1) Communal sociality is a process of filtering back and forth what is best for the individual and what is best for the society.
2) Social leadersihp is, by definition, the position of determining where groups draw the line between the prusuit of those two ideals in a very practical way.
3) “Zion” is the idea that there is an ideal balance between the two – a condition of community (commnual unity) that serves BOTH ideals properly, where unity exists despite differences.
4) My role in creating Zion is to strive to find the type of individual balance between the two general ideals in my own, internal life and work to help others find that type of individual balance in their own, internal lives. If I am a “leader” of some sort, obviously I have more potential to help more people, but I don’t see my role as “attacking” or “changing” anyone; rather, I see it as being a “helper” or “servant” of anyone and everyone.
5) Thus, all I can do is “offer” – consistently and humbly and without expectation. I can’t “demand” or “command”. I also must be willing to learn from everyone I’m trying to serve – and, in practical terms, sometimes that is the hardest aspect of Zion of all.
I feel the same way. Summed up with these 2 quotes.
Quote:I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn’t learn something from him.– Galileo Galilei
“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever does”–Margaret Mead
It doesn’t start with “some other guy in authority or power” it starts with us individually. We obtain the knowledge, then the will to do what we each can do with our own personal indivual unquie time and god given talents. None of us need permission or authority to start “Zion” or establish a “Zion like” place. When a person is criticized for drinking a “coke” each can stand up and repudiate with “that is your personal interpatation and belief. I’d someone wants to say the earth is 6000 years old ok, if that’s what you want to believe after reading the proper information, but if someone wants to criticize others for not think of a 6000 yo earth we don’t need to wait for a official deceleration to repudiate that indivually. It is each everyone’s responsibility to share and distribute information on what they have leaned to be true and demonstrate it to the next person just as Galileo did.
GBSmith wrote:wayfarer wrote:because the LDS schema fully connects everything we are taught to the primal emotions, we have built a tree of knowledge of good and evil, a dogma structure connected to
lizard-mind fear-comfort dualismthat effectively blocks rational thought.
Lost me on the lizard thing, dude.
wayfarer wrote:GBSmith wrote:wayfarer wrote:because the LDS schema fully connects everything we are taught to the primal emotions, we have built a tree of knowledge of good and evil, a dogma structure connected to
lizard-mind fear-comfort dualismthat effectively blocks rational thought.
Lost me on the lizard thing, dude.
http://www.instantbrainstorm.com/lizard_brain.html Splitting or black and white thinking is so basic an instinct it is prevalent all around us it seems to be normal or justified. Worse still as that world culture encourages it, from governments to work places, to advertising to even family or friends that shun those that don’t. It’s everywhere, present in each and everyday. It is wise to call them out on it in a polite way. I do that with my friends and family and if I make the same mistake I expect them to call me out. I limit my time with those that do. Which brings a interesting conflict when you here it at church sometimes. I must quietly back away and return when it stops, even if I have to tempera.ly walk outside the building until the talk is over. Since I in every other situation call people out on it politely and preent evidence for it and don’t do this at church I have created a paradox for myself. Created dual standereds which I loath myself for since I loath dual standereds. After I became fully aware of the part of the world that purposely creates black and white thinking with card stacking to sell thier products and ideas I couldn’t go with the flow any longer. It’s best to quietly educate people that will listen so hopefully they don’t add to the way of life. In trying to understand beliefs it is best to look at all the information available past and present to rule out card stacking. When a person says something or hears something over and over they will believe it no matter how ridcicualous or wrong it seems. Growing up we believe what ever our parents tell us repeatedly usually without examining all the evidence available to us first befor coming to a conviction that its true. The same is true with us, the same true old beliefs of the church we harbor. Why critical thinking and reasoning is so important in today’s world. To develop understanding on all the nuances of how it came to be and is it actually true or harmful or positive. Before declaring and adhering to absolutes.
Old-Timer wrote:I believe:
1) Communal sociality is a process of filtering back and forth what is best for the individual and what is best for the society.
2) Social leadership is, by definition, the position of determining where groups draw the line between the pursuit of those two ideals in a very practical way.
3) “Zion” is the idea that there is an ideal balance between the two – a condition of community (commnual unity) that serves BOTH ideals properly, where unity exists despite differences.
4) My role in creating Zion is to strive to find the type of individual balance between the two general ideals in my own, internal life and work to help others find that type of individual balance in their own, internal lives. If I am a “leader” of some sort, obviously I have more potential to help more people, but I don’t see my role as “attacking” or “changing” anyone; rather, I see it as being a “helper” or “servant” of anyone and everyone.
5) Thus, all I can do is “offer” – consistently and humbly and without expectation. I can’t “demand” or “command”. I also must be willing to learn from everyone I’m trying to serve – and, in practical terms, sometimes that is the hardest aspect of Zion of all.
Hey Ray. Are familiar with Nyal from the Mormon Expression podcast crew? Years ago I heard him rant about his beliefs of Anarchy. I thought he was crazy at the time. I’m not so sure anymore. His faith in “Anarchy” really makes sense to me today.
InquiringMind wrote:You know what’s strange about this demythologizing process that is part of Fowler’s Stage 4? I can’t just say to myself, “The Church probably isn’t what it claims to be, so it’s all partially bunk and partially true, and that’s that, so now I’ll move on with my life.” No. When a certain worldview has dominated my life so powerfully and has come to influence the way I see the world in everything from astronomy to Chinese politics to the structure of DNA to supernatural claims to neurology to romantic attraction, I have to go through the lines of code of my mental programming ONE BY ONE, challenge my old beliefs, and replace them with new ones based on my own observations, my own feelings, and the available evidence…
It’s basically learning to think for oneself.
It’s “putting off childish” thinking that is based on one’s parent or parental figures (ie church authorities).
I think this repudiating old beliefs is what the gospel, baptism & repentance are about… being born again to new & better perspectives.
Be careful… the herd mentality dies hard.
Many switch one group dictated belief system for another’s.
It’s not easy to truly worship God, because God is “the most active verb of all” & can’t be nailed to one group’s definition.
It gives us this “empty” feeling, not knowing exactly what’s ahead, or what to cling to for dear life…
red1988 wrote:…I used to feel so sure about things. I used to feel like there was a plan and there was so much comfort in the idea that there was this heavenly father that was guiding me on this path. Now I feel like Lehi in the dream where he follows a person in a white rob and he gets lost in the dark before finding the tree. Right now I am in the dark playing Marco Polo with the person in the white robe. Right now in the dark I am wondering where in the hell this person went. I swear I was following a person and I was not hallucinating. Now after being in the dark for so long I am beginning to wonder if the person in the white robe even exists. It is a scary thought that I got myself lost in the dark for nothing.
turinturambar wrote:Yep. It took years to build, and might take years to rebuild. Stage 5 is so worth it, though.
It’s statements like this that are giving me faith/hope to keep on stumbling through the dark. I hope to make it to stage 5 and possibly just like Lehi’s dream taste of the fruit (which I compare to stage 5).
I related with how you put that, Red.I don’t think we ever really “arrive” – but we find “functional illusions” to believe in, inspire & motivate us.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.