Propaganda: An Historical Perspective

David Welch, University of Kent

Although propaganda is thousands of years old, it really came of age in the 20th century, when the development of mass media (and later multimedia communications) offered a fertile ground for its dissemination, and the century’s global conflicts provided the impetus needed for its growth. In many societies, as electorates and audiences became more sophisticated, they also began to question the nature and uses of propaganda, both in the past and in contemporary society. With rapidly changing technology, definitions of propaganda have also undergone changes. Propaganda has meant different things at different times, although clearly the scale on which it has been practised has increased in the 20th century. What are the characteristic features of propaganda, and how can it be defined?

Investigating the history of propaganda necessarily invites consideration of what the word itself means. It has largely become a portmanteau word, which can be interpreted in a variety of ways, so ‘propaganda’ has never been a static term, especially at a time of rapidly changing methods of communication. Nevertheless, there are some basic descriptions that can be applied. If we exclude purely religious and commercial propaganda (advertising), it is a distinct political activity and it is one that can be distinguished from related phenomena such as information and education. The distinction lies in the purpose of the instigator. Put simply, propaganda is the dissemination of ideas intended to convince people to think and act in a particular way and for a particular persuasive purpose.

Although propaganda can be unconscious, it is most often the conscious, deliberate attempt to employ the techniques of persuasion for specific goals. More precisely, it can be defined as the deliberate attempt to influence the public opinions of an audience, through the transmission of ideas and values, for a specific persuasive purpose that has been consciously thought out and designed to serve the self-interest of the propagandist, either directly or indirectly. Whereas ‘information’ presents its audience with a straightforward statement of facts, propaganda packages those facts in order to evoke a certain response. Whereas education, at least in the liberal tradition, teaches people how to think and how to make up their own minds, propaganda normally tries to tell people what to think. Information and education are concerned to broaden the audience’s perspectives and to open their minds, but propaganda strives to narrow and preferably close them. The core distinction lies in the purpose.

Modern synonyms for propaganda frequently include 'lies', 'deceit' and 'brainwashing'. In recent years, unfavourable comparisons have been made with 'spin-doctors' and the manner in which they (allegedly) control the image of politicians and refract the political agenda to simplistic 'soundbites'. Thus a widely held belief is that propaganda is a cancer on the body politic that manipulates our thoughts and actions and should be avoided at all costs.

Is this really the case, and should we fight shy of the word? It is my contention that such assumptions should be challenged and that propaganda is not necessarily – and was often not, historically – a practice motivated by evil intent.

[This is an extract of an essay. The full essay is accessible to subscribers and purchasing institutions]