Classical Propaganda Theory Walter

Classical Propaganda Theory

Walter Lippmann (1922) introduced and described what has come to be known as classical propaganda theory with his work Public Opinion (E. S. Herman & Chomsky, 1988). Walter Lippmann worked for the Committee on Public Information (Creel Commission) during World War I. The purpose of the commission was to reduce German morale and create anti-German sentiment in the United States (E. S. Herman & Chomsky, 1988; Patrick & Thrall, 2007). Other key figures in the development of classical propaganda theory were Harold Lasswell and Edward Bernays (Bernays, 1928, 1942; Lasswell, 1927a, 1927b). These studies of propaganda held pragmatic implications. Bernays (1942) cites propaganda theory as the guiding framework for his founding of public relations. Instead of trying to protect the public from the ills of propaganda (as seen in later years), these researchers were concerned with explicating techniques that could be used to influence. Early analyses uncovered three main components of classical propaganda theory. These non-mutually exclusive elements are mobilization of mass hatred, manufacturing public consent, and emphasizing practical considerations rather than ideological differences (Patrick & Thrall, 2007). In an explication of mobilizing mass hatred, Harold Lasswell (1927a) wrote:

So great are the psychological resistances to war in modern nations that every war must appear to be a war of defense against a menacing, murderous aggressor. There must be no ambiguity about whom the public is to hate. The war must not be due to a world system of conducting international affairs, nor to the stupidity or malevolence of all governing classes, but to the rapacity of the enemy. Guilt and guiltlessness must be assessed geographically, and all the guilt must be on the other side of the frontier. If the propagandist is to mobilize the hate of the people, he must see to it that everything is circulated which establishes the guilt of the enemy. Variations from this theme may be permitted under certain contingencies which we will undertake to specify, but it must continue to be the leading motif. (p. 47)

There are certainly some similarities with Burke’s (1973) dramatistic criticism of Hitler’s Mein Kampf. Similar to what Lasswell wrote about mobilizing mass hatred, Burke noted that, “men who can unite on nothing else can unite on the basis of a foe shared by all” (p. 191).