How Propaganda Works is the title of philosopher Jason Stanley’s book released in 2015 by Princeton University Press. I got it while on a trip to New York in 2017 and although it took me a few years to finish reading it, I think it may still be useful to share a review that, hopefully, can help those worried about the continuous erosion of democracies and the democratic ideal.
While Stanley’s focus is the United States and how this country grapples with the issue of propaganda when confronting uncomfortable historic events or entrenched power, I personally found this book to be intellectually stimulating for other political contexts too, thanks to Stanley’s analytical framework that I believe is valid for any biased political rhetoric.
Another strength of this book is that it is filled with examples that allow the readers to go back in history and develop a critical thinking approach to identify propagandistic discourses nowadays.
Propaganda defined!
When introducing the concept of propaganda, Stanley digs deep into its philosophical roots. I was captivated by the connection made by the author between Plato’s conception of an ideal state and the challenges of contemporary governance. Plato, a staunch critic of democracy, posited that a society needed to be managed by experts (modern day technocrats) whose primary objective would be the efficiency of society. As Stanley highlights, Plato’s skepticism towards democracy principles is still used today as a justification for the existence of hierarchical structures, where few people manage society’s resources in the name of efficiency. That is one of the reasons why, argues the author, a usurpation of democratic language exists nowadays to disguise an antidemocratic managerial vision in practice. A compelling example is the European Union’s governance structure, which embodies the tension between the efficiency imperative regarding debt handling by European states (as documented by Yanis Varoufakis’s book Adults in the Room about the « bailout prison » that Greece was) and the democratic values that are emphasized in the founding texts of the EU. This contradiction illustrates Stanley’s general definition of propaganda: « the use of a political ideal against itself. »
Other definitions of propaganda include the one found in classical literature: « a flawed ideology that’s false and insincere. » Against that, Stanley argues that propaganda can be both « true and sincere ». He thus introduces the concept of « undermining propaganda » that could be summarized as a flawed ideological belief that is part of the epistemic factors related to the production of a propagandistic discourse.
As illustrations for this notion, Stanley mentions the abuses surrounding religious beliefs. When American Televangelism « truthfully and sincerely » proclaims that wealth and prosperity are the signs of Jesus’s favors, for example, this spreads materialist capitalist values disguised as Christian doctrine. When Hitler claimed that « Jews are black death » framing Jews as a public health threat, it succeeded because it exploited existing irrational beliefs.
Stanley does not omit to mention the use of counter-propaganda as a way of resistance. He recalls W.E.B. Dubois’s book Criteria of Negro Art, published in 1926, celebrating blackness to fight institutionalized racial discrimination and racism in general. The author describes this approach as « a novel and powerful rhetorical suggestion, » which reminded me of Fanon’s similar considerations regarding Algeria’s war of independence. Parallel to his « apology » for the use of violence, Fanon also defended the idea that propaganda was needed to win the war. In his book A Dying Colonialism, published in French in 1958, four years after the start of the war and a few years before its end in 1962, Fanon aimed at countering the colonialist propaganda by showing that « Algerians definitively won the war. » The use of this tactic though, needs to be time-limited, as per my understanding of Fanon’s later writings which showed his awareness about the dynamics of the power race inside the nationalist movement.
Language as a mechanism of control
In the chapter « Language as a mechanism of control », Stanley explains, through the notion of the « not-at-issue content », how language is used to manipulate opinion. Defined as a manipulative association of a word and an image, the author cites as an example, the word welfare and the images of urban Blacks, which, when associated, create the «not-at-issue content» that Blacks are lazy.
Reading this made me think about the use of the expression « foreign hands » by Algerian officials and how they associate it with the image of Algerian activists defending human rights, which were first proclaimed in France. Based on this rhetoric, anything French or coming from the West is a form of foreign re-colonization. This creates the « not-at-issue content » that human rights activists are traitors, which in itself is a reference to the Harkis. This propagandistic discourse is based on the flawed ideological belief that Algeria’s independence leaders/ »fathers » who laid down the country’s founding principles could only have created a political system that’s just, fair and undiscriminating, because of the collective long-suffering. Algerians adhering to this narrative are the true nationalists who are needed to build the country. Those questioning it are the traitors in favor of a foreign reconquest.
This points out the need for the two norms suggested by Stanley: one of objectivity defined as «systematic openness», a deliberative practice questioning whether one has been unknowingly influenced by bias. The other is a «capacity to be sensitive» to the consequences of a flawed belief system. In Algeria’s case, both are lacking, and the consequences have been terrible with the harassement, prosecution and imprisonment of many activists.
Other mechanisms of control
Whatever the context, a dominant political group always strives to maintain its dominance, using different control mechanisms that Stanley helps us clarify. To add to the manipulative use of language, ideology, defined as « a social script that governs one’s expectations, normative and practical » is also used to achieve social control. For example, patriarchy and its flawed expectations, made of the harassment of women by men, a non-existent concept for a long time. Thus, ideology is problematic because it is a barrier to the acquisition of knowledge, which is also part of the mechanisms of the control sphere.
Outlining the barriers for oppressed people who strive for political action against those controlling them, Stanley explains that the « knowledge-action » principle is hindered by the « interest-relativism » of knowledge. If a worker in a company, for instance, wants to set up a union because he/she believes that workers are being exploited, he/she would have to risk losing his/her job, because to convince people to join the union, he/she will have to discuss working conditions. The « interest-relativism » of knowledge here is related to the risk assessment one would make because of his/her position in the hierarchy structure. It might be less risky to follow the propagandistic narrative of the employer than to be exposed to his/her wrath in case he/she hears about the employee’s action.
One last aspect of the control mechanisms that I find important to mention relates to the notion of « motivated reasoning », which in social psychology, is the non-rational beliefs created by a group for social control. Since Stanley’s main study case is the elite in the United States, he describes how highly privileged people have been able to use the vague notion of « merit » to give justification for their « superiority » over negatively privileged people. Creating this « motivated reasoning » still hinders today’s democratic deliberation about the production and redistribution of wealth.
Conclusion
As someone living between several cultures and frequently engaged in debates – both as a recipient and a participant-, I find Stanley’s book to be an essential reading because he demonstrates that propaganda is not an Orwellian fantasy or a problem confined to autocraties or dictatorships—it is a present and persistent threat to the democratic ideal worldwide.
This book also helps you transform intuitive understandings into clearly articulated concepts, providing analytical tools for a more effective argumentation. In that sense, there is something in Stanley’s book that is actively calling to action, in the most practical sense.