From the titles of their respective articles,
both Gregor and Bernays have written about very different issues. “The Idealogy
of Fascism” and “Propaganda” respectively for both authors. A casual reader may
go through the two texts without noticing any connections. The reality,
however, is that the two pieces are similar in more than one way.
Similarity in the two papers begins with the
issues each is dealing with. Each author successfully conceptualizes the issue
for analysis. Perhaps this could an attempt by the respective authors to avoid
a misunderstanding of what they are trying to explain. Bernays comes to the
discussion of Propaganda as a concept with the knowledge that the common
understanding of that word is out o touch with the actual meaning.[1]
He thus sets out to dissociate the phrase from the negative connotations that
it has come to exemplify in the time period for which he was writing.
Propaganda for Bernays is simply a means through which a group pushes their
agenda into the public domain. It is in the same vein that Gregor manages to
render a meaning of Fascism as a concept. He notes to the effect that Fascism
was an idea that rejected the notion of individualism. In shared certain
features with other persuasions such as Marxism.[2]
An even more striking similarity in the two
articles their dealing with group psychology. In detailing the origins of
Fascism, Gregor notes that Mussolini had already understood the power of
‘sentiment’ earlier on in his career.[3]
Sentiment in this case is used to denote the manner in which human beings tend
to work in some form of group. The paper goes ahead to specify the organizing
groups as far as the budding Fascists understood it were social classes. Bernays
also discusses this concept of group psychology in relation to how those people
intent on influencing public opinion can utilize it to their advantage.[4]
The author goes ahead to recommend the
need to direct any form of propaganda to groups as human beings are disposed to
identifying as such even when in their own houses as individuals. In support of
their respective positions on group psychology, both authors mention Lebon who
was a prominent authority in the area of group psychology.
Both authors are also similar in respect to
how they conceive the source and drivers of social change. Bernays looks at the
issue of universal literacy what allowed the masses to participate in public
discourse.[5]
Much as technology in the form of mass media by way of the printing press
allowed the masses to pass their opinion, Berneys goes ahead to note that the
masses have simply been reduced as conduits to stamp the views of some opinion
shapers. These are the people who actually decide on what becomes the public
agenda. This view is not different for what Gregor presents. For him, it is the
intelligent elite of the society who direct social change. As with the minority
in Bernay’s ‘Propaganda,’ the elite are in the minority.[6]
It is only that they can shape the direction of the societies in which they
live.
Lastly, both texts are similar with respect
to the time periods in which they were authored. The article by Bernays is
dated 1928.[7]
There no similar mention of an exact date in the article by Gregor although one
can gather that it was also written in the 1920s. This time period is important
in understanding the articles given that it was the time immediately after the
First World War. Several alignments were taking places in Europe and other
parts of the world.
Bibliography
Bernays, Edward L.Propaganda.1928.
Gregory,
James.The Idealogy of Fasci
[1] Edward L. Bernays, Propaganda (1928),
19.
[2] James Gregor, The Idealogy of
Fascism, 256.
[3] Gregor,258.
[4] Bernays,92-100.
[5] Bernays, 19.
[6] Gregor,260
[7] Bernays,1
0 comments:
Post a Comment