A Sociological Analysis of Propaganda

EVEN a cursory examination of the term "propaganda" will reveal the fact that it is used in a variety of ways by a great many people. It occurs in newspapers, casual conversation, and in scientific discussions with a readiness that bespeaks complete understanding of the word. But as soon as comparisons are made of the definitions which are stated or implied, it becomes clear that there are many different ideas regarding what is meant by propaganda. The result is that consideration of it by one individual may be confusing to another unless he happens to have a similar conception of the term. In ordinary discourse the view which is most consistently held and the one which is increasing in popularity is that propaganda constitutes a nefarious influence in human society and that its use should be discouraged. The popular usage of the term, however, need not concern us at the moment for our interest is in description and definition from a scientific point of view. Seemingly the most general idea of propaganda in what purport to be scientific discussions is propagation or promotion. The term came into general usage when the Catholic Church in the fifteenth century organized a commission of Cardinals for the propagation of the faith. Persons adhering to this original view consider all stimuli which involve a change in attitude in a predetermined way as propaganda. Thus music, education, lectures, fiction,-anything in factthat has a possible influence on human behavior, is propaganda. Psychologists especially seem to be disposed to accept this view since they are interested in the responses which individuals make to stimuli of various kinds. For example, Professor Doob defines propaganda as the employment of nonlogical or effective appeals in the public dissemination and modification of ideas and beliefs.' "The more useful sense of the term," states Dunlap, "is in its designation of every attempt to influence the opinion of another, or of others, in respect to accepted conventions, laws. or standards of conduct; or to influence any other opinion affecting organization of society, or the interrelations and adaptations of members generally."2 Other definitions of a similar nature could be cited. It is interesting to note that the definition made by the Institute of Propaganda Analysis is similar to the one just quoted and may be considered as representative of those made by persons thinking primarily about the stimulus aspect of propaganda. As printed in the initial announcement, "propaganda is expression of opinion or action by individuals or groups deliberately designed to influence opinions or actions of other individuals or groups with reference to predetermined ends."3 The limitation of the view which makes promotion of predetermined ends a criterion of propaganda is its inclusiveness. If all attempts to influence human behavior are propagandistic in nature, then an analysis of propaganda is futile. The term becomes even more general in meaning than education which would be only one phase of propaganda. According to this definition, teaching, preaching, and writing would be propaganda and all teachers, preachers, and writers, propagandists. As an alternative to considering all responses to stimuli as propaganda, some writers choose to speak of "good" propaganda and "bad" propaganda, or occasionally modify the term by using the word "false." Obviously these descriptions are subjective in nature and only add to the confusion and misunderstanding regarding the term. When the sociologist attempts to study propaganda he, like a psychologist or any other investigator, is confronted with an intricate mass of material which does not readily permit classification or analysis. He recognizes at once, however, that much more than mere stimuli designed to promote certain ends are involved. Social values embedded in the culture, group relationships, and