Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes

by Jacques Ellul

This seminal study and critique of propaganda from one of the greatest French philosophers of the 20th century is as relevant today as when it was first published in 1962. Taking not only a psychological approach, but a sociological approach as well, Ellul’s book outlines the taxonomy for propaganda, and ultimately, it’s destructive nature towards democracy. Drawing from his own experiences fighting for the French resistance against the Vichy regime, Ellul offers a unique insight into the propaganda machine.

Genres: Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Nonfiction, Sociology, History, Theory

352 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 1962

About the author

Baptised Catholic, Ellul became an atheist and Marxist at 19, and a Christian of the Reformed Church at 22. During his Marxist days, he was a member of the French Communist Party. During World War II, he fought with the French Underground against the Nazi occupation of France.

Educated at the Universities of Bordeaux and Paris, he taught Sociology and the History of Law at the Universities of Strausbourg and Montpellier. In 1946 he returned to Bordeaux where he lived, wrote, served as Mayor, and taught until his death in 1994.

In the 40 books and hundreds of articles Ellul wrote in his lifetime, his dominant theme was always the threat to human freedom posed by modern technology. His tenor and methodology is objective and scholarly, and the perspective is a sociological one. Few of his books are overtly political -- even though they deal directly with political phenomena -- and several of his books, including "Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes" and "The Technological Society" are required reading in many graduate communication curricula.

Ellul was also a respected and serious Christian theologian whose 1948 work, "The Presence of the Kingdom," makes explicit a dual theme inherent, though subtly stated, in all of his writing, a sort of yin and yang of modern technological society: sin and sacramentality.

Reviews

[Trevor · Rating 5 out of 5]

Probably best you make yourself comfortable – as this is going to take some time. A friend of Nell’s recommended this book when she shared my review of The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, ironically enough, on Facebook. I’d never heard of Ellul before – at least, I don’t think I had. He is a French Christian sociologist, but his ideas are much more interesting than those three adjectives might imply.

We tend to think of propaganda in much the same way that we think of advertising. We know it works on some people (and perhaps even worry that it might be terribly impolite to call those people dumb) but we, ourselves, would never fall for that rubbish. So, while we quite understand that really, really bad things come from propaganda, that is mostly because is overflowing with dumb people. Propaganda is believed to be about telling lies to gullible people, and doing so with lots of conviction, generally also by appealing to their prejudices, so as to bring about some change in their beliefs. In large part this book is seeking to help us see that propaganda doesn’t work like this at all (or advertising for that matter).

Propaganda is much more insidious than that. And this is where I’m going to have to highlight something that I had to disagree with the author about. He says a couple of times that democracies engage in propaganda in reaction to totalitarian propaganda. The line being that ‘if they are doing it, we need to do it too, however reluctantly’. That this is not the case ought to be clear to a contemporary reader of this book. Really, Soviet and Nazi propaganda are of little more than historical interest today – but to think that the end of these totalitarian societies has brought about the end of propaganda would be a very bold belief indeed. I think his central thesis in this book really goes a long way to undermine the view that ‘democracies’ are fundamentally repulsed by propaganda and that they only do it because they are made to by otherwise anti-democratic forces.

In fact, the rest of his argument makes it clear that propaganda is a necessary condition of modern society, rather than an added extra forced upon the good guys by the bad guys.

Propaganda is a problem for the modern world created by it being a modern world. It requires a certain level of the development of ‘civilisation’ to even be possible, and once it is possible, it basically becomes inevitable. For propaganda to become part of our world people need to live in large societies, probably even nation states composed of multiple cities, they need to be literate (most of the modes of distributing propaganda are only available if people can read) and they need to live in a mass society that is also confronted by other mass societies – even if mass propaganda tends to talk to individuals as individuals, if, individuals as representatives of groups. I want to go through these ideas in turn.

So, why do they need to be in a large, mass society for propaganda to work? Well, if you are in a tribal society you have virtually direct access to all of the news that your tribe generates, and community input into the decisions and more or less direct contact with the leaders of your community. That pecking order doesn’t necessarily require a complicated system of voting – rather, authority and leadership develop through interactions within the tribe itself – they are lived, rather than needing to be indoctrinated via texts. This intimacy of interaction is denied to those living in a mass society. I kept thinking of that line, probably apocryphal, that someone was supposed to have said when the first telegram cable was laid between Europe and America: Oh, fabulous, now we won’t have to wait to learn how Princess Alexandra’s whooping cough is coming along. The point being that most ‘news’ today is about matters that really don’t matter to us. I’ve even started telling people that I’ve stopped believing that US actually exists – that it is either a fiction devised as a warning to the rest of us of the dangers of Presidential forms of democracy, or it is, what I actually believe, a kind of sit-com that got totally out of hand once the writers started taking LSD.

It is truly remarkable how much attention we Australians pay to US and UK politics. And it isn’t at all clear to me why we might do that. As sad as it is that it seems impossible to change US gun laws, as long as US citizens are shooting their own kids, it isn’t clear why I should get so upset about it. Now, if I was in Iraq, or Iran, or Yemen, then clearly the US would seem much more real to me. But as it is, the US simulacrum is such that any time I spend thinking about Trump’s latest absurdity (has he gone back to having sex with Stormy Daniels yet? Have US Evangelicals started grabbing women by the genitals as a form of metaphorical support for their Commander in Chief?) is basically time wasted. But it is almost impossible to really think like that. We need to believe that this is all real and all consequential to our lives and that by following the latest twists and turns somehow makes us ‘informed’. All the same, many people I know have given up watching any news whatsoever. This is because it makes them feel completely helpless and therefore depressed and anxious. About that which you can do nothing, learning that fools and thieves are making matters worse is hardly the most direct pathway to mental health.

The point being that in a mass society people are, by necessity, removed from what they take to be the key decision-making centres – and, although these may well be ultimately consequential to their lives, mostly they can go to work, buy stuff at the supermarket, and watch television for months on end without ‘needing’ to pay any attention at all to the machinations for ‘higher politics’. Something which often upsets people like me when I mention something to people about the latest insanity (Scott Morrison denying his government used $250 Million in grants for sporting facilities in marginal to buy the last election for example) only to be met with glazed-over eyes or bewildered silence.

For this level of ignorance about what is going on to be the case a society must be large enough so that crowds are composed mostly of strangers. You can only really safely ignore the ramblings of the powerful when you feel yourself to be a safe-ish cog in an otherwise impersonal machine.

But such a society also requires modes of communication that allow all members of that society to be reached if they need to be. This obviously means newspapers in the first instance, but also radio, films, television, magazines – and clearly now social media also has an essential role in this ‘mass media’. For someone to be able to interact with any of these modes they need a certain level of cultural education – and so a school system that indoctrinates (yeah, I know, a harsh word – but clearly certain forms of indoctrination are essential to the educative process) children by giving them the cultural tools they will need to properly navigate the society they have been born into.

As he says at one point, for a society to become a mass society you need to be sure that the things that society mass-produces are going to be things that the masses are going to want to buy – here the distinctions between propaganda and advertising start to break down. And that is a large part of the point. Propaganda isn’t effective because it tells you a big lie often enough that you start believing it – it is effective when it makes a worldview seem pure common sense.

Mass societies often find themselves in competition with other mass societies. This was truer, I feel, when the author was writing than it is now. We live largely in a mono-pole world – books like Capitalist Realism make this all too clear. But the need for an enemy is interesting here, since an enemy is often the quickest and easiest way to unite people within a group. And because people tend to segment themselves according to their life experiences, including the forms of culture they expose themselves to, the newspapers they read, television channels they watch, the social media sites they visit. This means both that propaganda needs to be appropriate to each of these segments, but also that it can be significantly different depending on membership of those segments too.

Years ago I read a statistic I found utterly fascinating and then could never find it again. It was in some book I was reading about the mass media. It compared the growth of people employed as journalists with those employed as public relations professionals. The authors pointed out that both of these professions require very similar skills – in fact, since newspapers have stopped being able to afford to employ enough journalists to fill their newspapers, often copy is provided by public relations professionals. Those employed in public relations not only vastly outnumber those employed as journalists, but they are also much more highly paid. This tells us interesting things about our society in relation to propaganda – of all the things you can say about public relations professionals, and I’m certainly not saying that they are all evil, but what is clear is that they are not employed to ‘tell the truth’ but rather to ‘spin the truth’ so as to make their organisation look good. He says repeatedly throughout this that Soviet and Chinese propaganda, despite what we were generally told in the west, was mostly based on facts. The point being that facts themselves are meaningless outside of a context – and propaganda creates the context that gives meaning to the facts.

This is such an important point. You see, how we generally assess the effectiveness of propaganda often confirms our belief that propaganda is mostly ineffective. And this is much the same with how we think about advertising. We think that because millions of dollars are spent during an election campaign and the opinion polls hardly shift at all throughout that campaign then that must mean that the propaganda must have been ineffective. But propaganda rarely needs to work on such short time frames. Propaganda is sociological – that is, it creates a world view over years that is constantly reinforced by virtually all channels of the mass media in a society until it becomes the water we all swim in.

He mentions research that ‘proved’ how ineffective Nazi propaganda had been. They asked returning German soldiers questions on details on Nazi propaganda, and found many of them had no real idea what Nazi policies were on various topics. They also asked them what their opinions where on these topics, and often the returning soldiers held opinions that were virtually the opposite of the Nazi position. So far, so good. Clearly, decades of Nazi propaganda had been mostly ineffectual. Thank goodness for that, aye?

And this is one of his major points. Don’t tell me about public opinion – tell me what people do. Did the soldiers’ lack of understanding of the intricacies of Nazi policies stop them killing Gypsies? Did it encourage them to surrender to the advancing Allied forces? The fact is that the Germans fought twice as fiercely when all hope was lost. This seems a much more interesting proof of the effectiveness of Nazi propaganda than a soldier’s understanding of some obscure point of public policy. Or to quote Ellul himself:

“The most serious fault of all these investigations seems to be the following: they preserve the old notion that the effect of propaganda manifests itself in clear, conscious opinions and that the propagandee will respond in a specific way according to the propagandist’s slogans. But this is less and less true. One must understand that just as there is dissociation between private and public opinion, there is dissociation between opinion and action. Propaganda works in that direction. It is not because some individual holds clearly defined Nazi or Communist convictions that he will behave for the benefit of the Nazi or Communist regime. On the contrary. It is increasingly understood that those who have clear, conscious convictions are potential heretics who discuss action in the light of doctrine. Conversely, because a man cannot clearly express his war aims does not mean he will comport himself less well on the battlefield if he is properly indoctrinated with propaganda—or fail to exterminate Jews just because he is not an articulate racist, or fail to be a devoted militant because he cannot formulate the dogma of the class struggle. What matters to the propagandist is to have a good soldier…”

This book is showing its age – this is inevitable – but see past the examples and look for the deeper sociological questions investigated here, and it really does still have lots to offer.

[Brian · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the third book concerning technology and society that really changed the way I think about the world. As with The Technological Society and Mumford's Pentagon of Power, this book contains many ideas and concepts that turn our normal worldviews upside down. He states that Propaganda is necessary for modern societies to function and that they play an integral part in the power structures that run them. This is all the more true for our modern, so-called Democracies. He also states that the more highly educated and up-to-date one is the more one is a victim of Propaganda. This runs contrary to what most people think, but if you read the book I think you will agree. The more exposure one has to mass media the more one will be propagandized. It is necessary to read his notion of what Propaganda is in order for this to make sense - it is not the simple thing most people think it is. It is part of current complex social relations involving media and the political, economic and technological forces which influence and control them. The end result is that we ourselves are influenced and controlled to a far greater extent than we realize. What we view as normal and right and even possible is contained within a construct that both uses and requires Propaganda to function. Like The Technological Society, it can be rather depressing, but then one must look for the holes in the net and seek out ways to counteract these influences.

[Michael Perkins · Rating 5 out of 5]

We are awash in propaganda from all directions. The author explains how and why.

"An exhaustive catalog of horrors. It shows how modern, committed man, surrounded and seized by propaganda, more often than not surrenders himself to it only too willingly, especially in democracies--because he is educated for his rule as dupe."

--Los Angeles Free Press

=================

“The rational brain is not good at being rational, but instead is good at simply rationalizing what the emotional brain has already decided to do, and this happens non-consciously.”

"The most favorable moment to seize a man and influence him is when he is alone in the mass; it is at this point that propaganda can be most effective. This is the situation of the 'lonely crowd,' or of isolation in the mass, which is a natural product of modern-day society, which is both used and deepened by the mass media."

“Those who read the press of their group and listen to the radio of their group are constantly reinforced in their allegiance. They learn more and more that their group is right, that its actions are justified; thus their beliefs are strengthened. At the same time, such propaganda contains elements of criticism and refutation of other groups, which will never be read or heard by a member of another group...Thus we see before our eyes how a world of closed minds establishes itself, a world in which everybody talks to himself, everybody constantly views his own certainty about himself and the wrongs done him by the Others - a world in which nobody listens to anybody else.”

=====

An expert concisely breaks down an example of the propaganda techniques of Tucker Carlson..

https://www.justsecurity.org/77078/th...

[Emiliya Bozhilova · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bulgarian review first, followed by the English translation below



След тази книга ми е трудно да не заключа, че почти всичко в глобализирания ни свят е пропаганда. Тя е страничният продукт или скритият хак в почти всеки масов информационен поток, закрепена като паразит. Каналът за информация и технологията му са без значение - въпросът е да е изобилен и да достига до голяма аудитория.

Пропагандата е неизбежна, защото - на първо място - хората се нуждаят от нея. В комплексен свят (а кой свят не е?) сглобяването на общата картина е непосилно за обикновения човек (никой не е специалист по всичко, нито има времето и достъпа до всички факти). И опростяването, структурирането, прегледността, лазерно-режещата интерпретация/ анализ и очевидните решения са просто необходимост. Всеки обича да “знае” и “да е прав”. Монополът над непоклатимата истина, която нищо и никой не може да обори, е сладко изкушение и доставя радостта на моралната извисеност над тривиалното, грешното, престъпното, бъркотията… В крайна сметка нито един факт не може да обори сръчната пропаганда. Хората не вярват на фактите (които са много и са сложни), а на митовете (които са малко и са прости). Оттук до сектантската екзалтация и (само)изолация разстоянието е малко, а до програмираното от пропагандата действие също не е далеч. Всеки щастливо заживява в своя си изолиран балон.

Държавата също неизбежно прибягва да пропаганда - за да сплотява народа вътре и да разбива врага навън, или да разбие вражеските групи вътре. Да обяснява, да изисква реакция и действие. Елюл не ограничава пропагандата само до тоталитарните държави, а до всички. Както и не само авторитарно устроеният индивид се поддава, а - кажи-речи - всеки, според заложения мит и идентифицираната потребност.

Единствено силно сплотените и недопускащи външна информация консервативни групи, или разпръснати индивиди без особени технологии биха се измъкнали или устояли. И не е сигурно дали ще е за добро. Защото за да прокараш и религиозен фанатизъм, и граждански права, и авторитаризъм пак ще опреш до добрата стара пропаганда… Пропагандата (поне добрата) не си измисля факти (“Истината си струва”), тя “само” ги интерпретира, насочва, създава проблемите и…дава решенията за тях. Като че ли единствената разлика при по-демократичните режими е, че дадена пропагандна линия действително секва, след като се изчерпи, а и из обществото има обмен на различни гледни точки и, да, на различни пропаганди. Choice is yours…

Човек просто не разполага с достатъчно време и способности да е рационално същество през цялото време… А и не иска.

——
Елюл все още е актуален поради фокуса си към ефектите и същността (сърцевината) на пропагандата, а не толкова към начина на техническото и осъществяване (опаковката). От 1962 г. насам, когато е публикувана книгата, доста технологии са се доразвили или отпаднали. Същото обаче не важи за принципите на този често използван и фино или грубо въздействащ инструмент за масово поразяване.

Като недостатък за себе си мога да посоча размиването и липсата на ясно очертаване на периметъра на пропагандата като явление. “Всеобхватна” и “навсякъде” е добро приближение, но е твърде общо все пак. Друга погрешна точка за мен е реферирането единствено към 19-ти век за рождена дата на пропагандата. Елюл неглижира влиянието на религиите, а те в институциалния си формат ползват чисто и просто пропаганда. Да, обхватът им предвид старите технологии е по-различен. Но съвсем не би бил по-малък като пропорция сравнено с днес. Изобщо, религията също е замесена, и то в ролята си на веща кукловодка. И накрая - Елюл не дава ключ кое “бори” пропагандата освен упоритата склонност към нюансиране, проверката на фактите по възможност и диалогът между различните гледни точки без хващане за гушите. Но сигурно и това е добро начало…

——————————————————————————
▶️ Цитати:

🎙️ “Показаните факти не накърняват вярването. […] ако пропагандата иска да проникне в съзнанието на масите в чужбина, тя може да го направи само с помощта на мит.”

🎙️”Целта на модерната пропаганда вече не е да се променят идеи, а да се предизвика действие. Целта вече не е да се промени принадлежността към дадена доктрина, а някой да бъде включен рационално в действен процес. Не да се доведе до определен избор, а да се отключат рефлекси. Не да се промени мнение, а да се постигне активно и митично вярване.”

🎙️”И така, очевидно е, че пропагандата не бива да се съобразява с най-възвишеното у човека, най-високите
цели на човечеството, най-благородните и най-рядко срещаните чувства; тя няма за цел да взвиси човека, а да го накара да служи […]. Омразата, гладьт и горделивостта са по-лесни пропагандни лостове от любовта и безкористито.”

🎙️“Има фундаментално противопоставяне между това да имаш мнение и това да вярваш.”

🎙️“На факта не се вярва.”

🎙️“…съчетаването на ефикасността [на пропагандата] и уважението към човека изглежда невъзможно.”

🎙️“…няма такова нещо като “демократична” пропаганда. Има неефикасна, парализирана, посредствена пропаганда.”

🎙️“…колкото повече пропаганда има, толкова повече я изисква публиката.”

🎙️“Човекът, подложен на енергична пропаганда, определя новите идеи като пропагандни.”

🎙️“Пропагандата е постигнала при [човека] система от възгледи и стремежи, които не подлежат на критика.”

🎙️С пропагандата “Човекът може да отхвърли всякакво чувство за вина, …всякакво усещане, че може да стори зло, или всякакво чувство за отговорност…”

🎙️“Чрез процеса на интензивна рационализация пропагандата изгражда монолитни индивиди. Тя премахва вътрешните конфликти, напреженията […]. И […] се стреми да изгради едностранчиво същество без дълбочина и многолики възможности.”

🎙️“И тъй като най-често обектът на новината е инцидент […], човекът придобива катастрофическа визия за света.”

🎙️“…общественото мнение винаги е в крайна сметка “мнението на некомпетентните”…”

🎙️“пропагандата се впива в човека и го принуждава да влезе в играта и чрез неукротимото му желание да бъде прав.”

🎙️“…пропагандата…предлага обект на омраза…, не срамна или лоша омраза, която трябва да се скрие, а легитимна омраза…”

🎙️”…в най-пълна степен пропагандата е работа за изкривяване на значението на събитие и лъжливо деклариране на намерения.”

🎙️“Тя [пропагандата] е истинска терапия срещу самотата.”

🎙️“Човекът се оказва двойно успокоен от пропагандата: първо, защото вижда лесноразбираема причина за случващите се събития, второ, защото получава обещание за сигурно решение на проблемите…”

🎙️“Трябва да вземем предвид и леността на индивида (която е решаваща за пропагандата), и невъзможността за реална информация, като отчетем бързината на явленията в съвременния свят.”

🎙️“Пропагандата може да има ефект само ако потребността [на индивида] е налице…”

🎙️“простата информация е безсилна срещу съвременните пропагандни техники.”

🎙️“общественото мнение е толкова по-възприемчиво за пропагандата, колкото повече е информирано (казвам “повече”, а не “по-добре”).”

🎙️“Пропагандата е създадена за индивид, разполагащ с известен жизнен стандарт.”

🎙️“Читателят сам поднася гърлото си на ножа на пропагандата, която си избира.”

🎙️“Обикновено омразата е най-печелившата карта.”

🎙️“[Пропагандата] няма за цел да възвиси човека, а да го накара да служи. Следователно тя трябва да използва най-обичайното чувство, най-разпространената идея, най-грубата схема […]”

🎙️“Всяка пропаганда […] съответства на дадена потребност.”

🎙️“…пропагандата се ограничава до това да използва наличния материал; тя не го създава.”

🎙️“…само след като в човека са създадени условни рефлекси и е заселен да живее в колективен мит, той става лесен за мобилизиране.”

🎙️“Този, който действа в зависимост от пропагандата, вече не може да се върне назад. Сега той е принуден да вярва на тази пропаганда […]”

🎙️[Целта на пропагандата] “не е да се доведе до определен избор, а да се отключат рефлекси. Не да се промени мнения, а да се постигне […] митично вярване.”

🎙️“[…] непрестанна[та] пропаганда надхвърля капацитета за внимание или адаптация на индивида и по този начин надскача способността му за съпротива.”

After reading this book, it is hard for me not to conclude that almost everything in our globalized world is propaganda. It acts as a byproduct or a hidden hack in nearly every mass information stream, latched on like a parasite. The channel of information and its technology do not matter—what matters is that it is abundant and reaches a massive audience.

Propaganda is inevitable because, first and foremost, people need it. In a complex world (and which world isn't?), piecing together the big picture is an overwhelming task for the average person (nobody is an expert on everything, nor does anyone have the time and access to all the facts). Therefore, simplification, structuring, clarity, laser-sharp interpretation/analysis, and obvious solutions are simply a necessity. Everyone loves to "know" and "be right."

The monopoly over an unshakeable truth that nothing and no one can refute is a sweet temptation; it delivers the joy of moral superiority over the trivial, the erroneous, the criminal, the chaos... In the end, no single fact can debunk skillful propaganda. People do not believe in facts (which are numerous and complex), they believe in myths (which are few and simple). From there to sectarian exaltation and (self-)isolation, the distance is short, and it is not much further to the action programmed by propaganda. Everyone happily settles into their own isolated bubble.

The state also inevitably resorts to propaganda—to unite the nation within and smash the enemy abroad, or to break up hostile groups inside. To explain, to demand reaction and action. Ellul does not limit propaganda to totalitarian states; it applies to all of them. Likewise, it is not just the authoritarian-minded individual who succumbs, but pretty much everyone, depending on their embedded myth and identified need.

Only tightly-knit, information-blocking conservative groups, or scattered individuals without access to significant technology, could escape or resist it. And it is highly uncertain whether that would even be for the better. Because whether you want to push religious fanaticism, civil rights, or authoritarianism, you will still end up relying on good old propaganda... Propaganda (at least the good kind) does not invent facts ("Truth pays off"); it "only" interprets them, directs them, creates the problems, and... provides the solutions for them. It seems that the only difference in more democratic regimes is that a given propaganda line actually ends when it burns out, and there is an exchange of different viewpoints—and, yes, of different propagandas—within society. Choice is yours...

Man simply does not have enough time and capacity to be a rational being all the time... And frankly, he doesn't want to.

Ellul remains relevant today due to his focus on the effects and the very essence (the core) of propaganda, rather than its technical execution (the packaging). Since 1962, when the book was published, many technologies have evolved or become obsolete. The same, however, cannot be said for the principles of this frequently used and subtly or crudely impactful weapon of mass destruction.

As a personal critique, I can point out a certain blurring and lack of clear boundaries regarding the perimeter of propaganda as a phenomenon. Describing it as "all-encompassing" and "omnipresent" is a decent approximation, but it remains too broad.

Another flaw, in my view, is tracing the birth of propaganda solely back to the 19th century. Ellul downplays the influence of religions, yet in their institutionalized formats, they utilize pure and simple propaganda. Granted, their reach was different given the older technologies, but as a proportion, it was by no means smaller compared to today. Generally speaking, religion is deeply involved, and it plays the part of a masterful puppeteer.

And finally—Ellul does not provide a key to what "fights" propaganda, other than a stubborn inclination toward nuancing, fact-checking where possible, and engaging in dialogue between different viewpoints without ripping each other's throats out. But surely, even that is a good place to start...

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wow. My biggest take-away from this book is a question - what would Ellul say today? Because the way he talked about the power of propaganda, what it does to people and the threat it is to democracy and thought seems incredibly relevant to today. Ellul books are always a bit tough, but certainly worth it. He defies many definitions of propaganda, saying that propaganda actually uses facts, not lies as most think. Also, rather than uneducated people being susceptible to it, it is the most educated who are. It is not that propaganda seeks to convince you to believe something knew, instead it focuses on action. And it also hardens your commitment to a group more than seeking to get you to believe something new. Finally, it is everywhere - from movies to TV to newspapers to, if Ellul was living today, social media. Propaganda is so powerful because it is nearly everywhere. It is scary because it influences all of us, those of us most certain we are not propagandized are perhaps just tricking ourselves.

Two of my favorite quotes from the book are:

"Those who read the press of their group and listen to the radio of their group are constantly reinforced in their allegiance. They learn more and more that their group is right, that its actions are justified; thus their beliefs are strengthened. At the same time, such propaganda contains elements of criticism and refutation of other groups, which will never be read or heard by a member of another group...This double foray on the part of propaganda, proving the excellence of one's own group and the evilness of the others, produces an increasingly stringent partitioning of our society...Thus we see before our eyes how a world of closed minds establishes itself, a world in which everybody talks to himself, everybody constantly views his own certainty about himself and the wrongs done him by the Others - a world in which nobody listens to anybody else, everybody talks and nobody listens"

“To the extent that propaganda is based on current news, it cannot permit time for thought or reflection. A man caught up in the news must remain on the surface of the event; be is carried along in the current, and can at no time take a respite to judge and appreciate; he can never stop to reflect. There is never any awareness -- of himself, of his condition, of his society -- for the man who lives by current events. Such a man never stops to investigate any one point, any more than he will tie together a series of news events...And, in fact, modern man does not think about current problems; he feels them. He reacts, but be does not understand them any more than he takes responsibility for them. He is even less capable of spotting any inconsistency between successive facts; man's capacity to forget is unlimited. This is one of the most important and useful points for the propagandist, who can always be sure that a particular propaganda theme, statement, or event will be forgotten within a few weeks. Moreover, there is a spontaneous defensive reaction in the individual against an excess of information and -- to the extent that he clings (unconsciously) to the unity of his own person -- against inconsistencies. The best defense here is to forget the preceding event. In so doing, man denies his own continuity; to the same extent that he lives on the surface of events and makes today's events his life by obliterating yesterday's news, he refuses to see the contradictions in his own life and condemns himself to a life of successive moments, discontinuous and fragmented"

[Lynn Waddell · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is the most influential of my career in journalism, and one of the top 10 of my life. I read it almost 20 years ago, and I often reflect on it. It changed the way I analyze news media, politicians, and marketing. Although written in the 1960s, the components essential to propaganda that he outlines hold true. Given the weighty subject matter, it isn't a quick read, more one to pause and contemplate over coffee before moving to next chapter. Even still, Ellul's extreme passion for his theories at times made me chuckle.

[Jeff · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is, put quite simply, a MUST read. It was written shortly after WWII and focuses on the propaganda machine of Goebbels. It is shocking how much of what is described in this book is the norm in today's "quality" of discourse. Truly prophetic.

[Eduardo Goye · Rating 1 out of 5]

Despite having a few moments of clarity and interesting analysis, this book can only be a real red-pill text if you are utterly convinced that what you see on the media is the absolute truth. If you have any kind of ability to question your environment, most of Ellul's claims will seem obvious. The repetitive style in which is written forces you to read the same ideas over and over, dragging through a text that could have been several hundred pages shorter.

The author's anti-communist sentiment is so strong that inevitably permeates into terrible philosophical inaccuracies and the author's impossibility to analyse Marxism without the USSR dictatorship and its propaganda. Anybody who is a bit versed on the topic will experience many facepalm moments. Ellul was a self-proclaimed "Christian anarchist" which could nowadays be translated as a conservative liberal: The main discourse of the book is a praise of the individual (being an individual is "the only way" to stand against propaganda, for him.) Thus supporting one part of a dichotomy: individual vs collective. By praising the individual, Ellul is ditching the most important aspect of the anarchist tradition: Mutual aid. Ellul's ideas go against anarchism itself, and emerge in close proximity with neoliberal propaganda, where individual reigns supreme.

Ellul is so blinded by his own ideology, that the 'solution' he poses to the problem of propaganda is, actually, just another result of the propaganda machinery he imagines himself being immune to. Ellul blindly accepts the capitalist mode of appropriation and State violence, instead of questioning and dismantling the propaganda that conditioned him to support and believe in such a model in the first place.

[Vivian]

I had every intention of reviewing this, but time started to get away from me, I couldn't read it all before returning it, but I decided to skim the contents to see if I wanted to request it again at a later time. And what I found was something completely unexpected, a story within a book. Shared spaces allow for intersections, sometime across space and time.

The book contained significant handwritten notes, marginalia, throughout the text and it told a story. Clearly a critique, but also a voice that would never know if it found an audience. This page was the one that propelled me to read all the notes.



If you're interested, please see the following link for the complete story: A Story Within a Book

[Davis Smith · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you were to read one book to understand America today, it would be this one. This is the definitive analysis and critique of mass culture and herd mentality, yes, but it's so much more than that: it's a devastating delineation of the gap between the materialist and the spiritual life, the pragmatic and the virtuous, the therapeutic and the beautiful, the manipulative and the cultured. I really can't recommend this book highly enough—it may be one of the most important ones of the century.*

*OK, OK, there is one significant flaw in Ellul's argument: similar to his obsession with "technique" in The Technological Society, he fails to distinguish adequately between the functions of a healthy culture and a propagandistic one. His discussion of how propaganda functions sounds quite similar to how any and all values are disseminated in society, and he fails to provide viable/normative alternates. This is a problem, but it doesn't detract too much from his points.

[Todd · Rating 5 out of 5]

Despite its age, it remains a penetrating, insightful must read for how people's actions are influenced by deliberate and even incidental propaganda, and how this propaganda becomes (even without design) essential to adapting people's behavior to mechanized mass society. Typical of Ellul, his work is filled with sweeping statements not specifically supported by empirical evidence (though he cites legion other works for more technical analysis of specific subjects), but when one considers most of his propositions critically, one may be able to quibble around the edges, but finds the substance to be worth considering. Also, as normal, the work is not prescriptive and does not tell the reader "what is to be done" about the problem of propaganda and its negative impact on human dignity.

Ellul defines propaganda as "a set of methods employed by an organized group that wants to bring about the active or passive participation in its actions of a mass of individuals, psychologically unified through psychological manipulations and incorporated in an organization." (p 61) Along the lines of his The Technological Society, Ellul notes "Ineffective propaganda is no propaganda," and therefore effectiveness becomes the supreme criteria (p x) and "propaganda has decided to submit itself to science and make use of it" showing its evolution alongside technological society. (p 4) Ellul examines propaganda in the broad sense, not of lies, but facts presented to those living in a world of information, aiming at psychological action, psychological warfare, re-education/brainwashing, and public/human relations. (p xiii) Ellul's avoidance of empiricism stems, in part, from his own analysis of it: "Modern man worships 'facts'--that is, he accepts 'facts' as the ultimate reality. He is convinced that what is, is good...which he somehow connects with the idea of progress...Consequently it is assumed that anyone who states a fact (even without passing judgment on it) is, therefore, in favor of it." (p xv) He later explodes the use of statistics, especially in evaluating the effects of propaganda (p 275).

Ellul states he is in favor of democracy and notes the danger propaganda poses to it (and propaganda's effectiveness within it, despite the illusions of some): "man is terribly malleable, uncertain of himself, ready to accept and to follow many suggestions, and is tossed about by all the winds of doctrine...I can only regret that propaganda renders the true exercise of [democracy] almost impossible." (p xvi)

He notes propaganda's work within mass society: people share in newspapers, television, movies, etc., individually yet as part of a mass of people doing the same thing. If propagandists address people as a mass, the individuals reject it; "On the contrary, each one must feel individualized, each must have the impressions that he is being looked at, that he is being addressed personally." (p 8)

He also focuses extensively on propaganda's reliance on creating and manipulating myths to influence people's actions on a basic level: "It furnishes him with a complete system for explaining the world, and provides immediate incentives to action...Through the myth it creates, propaganda imposes a complete range of intuitive knowledge, susceptible of only one interpretation, unique and one-sided, and precluding any divergence...by its very nature, it excludes contradiction and discussion." (p 11) Propaganda incorporates itself into education and the rewriting of history (p 14). Although Ellul defines propaganda in terms of actions (vice alleged beliefs or attitudes) from propagandees, he notes the importance of pre-propaganda to make people more open to the propaganda of action, things which depict the targeted messages in favorable light (p 15).

Given propaganda's reliance on myth, which draws from existing ideas and attitudes of a group, Ellul notes the difficulty in targeting a group from outside (propaganda against an enemy population in wartime, for instance) and the superiority of working from the inside, as through locally-established chapters or parties, much the way the Soviet Union worked through indigenous Communist parties in democratic countries.

Ellul notes action commits a person to a given propaganda, "He who acts in obedience to propaganda can never go back. He is now obliged to believe in that propaganda because of his past action. He is obliged to receive from it his justification and authority, without which his action will seem to him absurd or unjust, which would be intolerable...Often he has broken with his milieu or family; he may be compromised." (p 29)

Throughout the work, Ellul notes the harmful effect of propaganda per se on man, regardless of its specific goals or content. Perhaps he best explains this effect here:

Propaganda does not aim to elevate man, but to make him serve. It must therefore utilize the most common feelings, the most widespread ideas, the crudest patterns, and in so doing place itself on a very low level with regard to what it wants man to do and to what end. Hate, hunger, and pride make better levers of propaganda than do love or impartiality. (p 38)

Ellul points out the superficiality of propaganda, its need to stay abreast of current terms, ideas, and fads to motivate people. In reciprocal manner, propaganda seeks to keep people moving with the current, so as to prevent reflection, "To the extent that propaganda is based on current news, it cannot permit time for thought or reflection. A man caught up in the news must remain on the surface of the event; he is carried along the current...Such a man never stops to investigate any one point, any more than he will tie together a series of news events." (p 46) Propaganda relies on presenting facts that may be true but difficult to verify, or facts that lack context, i.e., an increase of 15 percent (compared to what? when?) (p 55).

Busy people do not think too much and are the easier to manipulate, "those who think, establish the schedules, or set the norms, never act--and those who act must do so according to rules, patterns, and plans imposed on them from outside. Above all, they must not reflect on their actions. They cannot do so anyhow, because of the speed with which they work...According to propaganda, it is useless, even harmful for man to think; thinking prevents him from acting with the required righteousness and simplicity." (p 180)

Ellul stresses the importance of education and culture for people to be susceptible to the more developed forms of propaganda; the poor and uneducated being susceptible mainly to only short-term agitation propaganda. But the educated people tell themselves, "'Of course we shall not be victims of propaganda because we are capable of distinguishing truth from falsehood.' Anyone holding that conviction is extremely susceptible to propaganda, because when propaganda does tell the 'truth,' he is then convinced that it is no longer propaganda; moreover, his self-confidence makes him all the more vulnerable to attacks of which he is unaware." (p 52) So while Ellul ties modern propaganda into the industrial era, as part of technological mass society, I would go back at least as far as the Protestant Reformation. The idea that any one person can read for himself and decide (the Bible, in that instance) being preposterous--what one person could in one lifetime? First of all, what he reads has been collected, edited, decided upon, and translated by others, meaning the person's conclusion is all but foregone by those that assembled the "facts" upon which the person "decides for himself." The Reformation also came hand in hand with a gradual rise of a middle class in Europe, which was precisely the group of people that felt confident enough to read and decide and go on doing so today (in all topics), even when they hopelessly lack the skills or the time to penetrate beyond what has been carefully presented to them by others.

Ellul observes "the propagandist must insist on the purity of his own intentions and, at the same time, hurl accusations at his enemy...he will accuse him of the very intention he himself has and of trying to commit the very crime that he himself is about to commit. He who wants to provoke a war not only proclaims his own peaceful intentions but also accuses the other party of provocation." (p 58)

He notes the relative simplicity of using agitation propaganda (agitprop), especially that based on hatred, as "hatred once provoked continues to reproduce itself." (p 73) It is integration propaganda that is much harder to achieve and usually requires the elevation of a population's level of education and culture in order to be effective (p 106). "The vast majority of people, perhaps 90 percent, know how to read, but do not exercise their intelligence beyond this...As the people do not possess enough knowledge to reflect and discern, they believe--or disbelieve--in toto what they read. And as such people, moreover, will select the easiest, not the hardest, reading matter, they are precisely on the level at which the printed word can seize and convince them without opposition. They are perfectly adapted to propaganda." (p 109)

Yet Ellul shows that an individual in mass society actually demands integration propaganda as a coping tool (along the lines of the "Everything is Awesome" scene in the Lego Movie). He explains, "the first move toward liberation of the individual is to break up the small groups that are an organic fact of the entire society...a mass society can only be based on individuals--that is, on men in their isolation, whose identities are determined by their relationships with one another." (p 90) He even notes those organs of traditional society try to hang on by use of modern propaganda and so negate themselves (p 98). "We are thus face to face with a dual need: the need on the part of regimes to make propaganda, and the need of the propagandee...Propaganda is needed in the exercise of power for the simple reason that the masses have come to participate in political affairs." (p 121)

Ellul posits public opinion cannot drive government policy, so government propaganda must mold public opinion to policy:

Does the State then obey and express and follow that opinion? Our unequivocal answer is that even in a democratic State it does not. Such obeisance by the State to public opinion is impossible--first, because of the very nature of public opinion, and second, because of the nature of modern political activities...no sooner would government begin to pursue certain aims favored in an opinion poll, than opinion would turn against it...Ergo: even in a democracy, a government that is honest, serious, benevolent, and respects the voter cannot follow public opinion. But it cannot escape it either...Only one solution is possible: as the government cannot follow opinion, opinion must follow the government. (p 124-126)

In this process, Ellul lays out his criticism of Liberalism generally, "a great difference nevertheless exists between them [theory and practice of individualism]. In individualist theory the individual has eminent value, man himself is the master of life; in the individualist reality each human being is subject to innumerable forces and influences, and is not at all master of his own life." (p 91) Nor does Ellul accepts that a plurality of propagandas leave an individual to choose, rather likening it to a boxer hit by a left hook becoming groggier, not normal, when then hit by a right. (p 181) The assault of propaganda upon the dignity of man is such that in a democratic country "the citizen can repeat indefinitely 'the sacred formulas of democracy' while acting like a storm trooper," (p 256) a phenomenon we can see at work today in the vitriol and even violence of our debates.

Ellul shows that in modern mass society, people rely on intermediaries for their information (hearkening back to the problem of the Reformation that I pointed out earlier), they can only express their opinion through channels (elections, parties, associations, media, etc.), and public opinion "is formed by a very large number of people who cannot possibly experience the same fact in the same fashion, who judge it by different standards, speak a different language, and share neither the same culture nor the same social position...This is possible only when all these people are not really apprised of the facts, but only of abstract symbols that give the facts a shape in which they can serve as a base for public opinion...Therefore, public opinion always rests on problems that do not correspond to reality." (p 101)

Ellul observes the need for "concentration in a few hands of a large number of media" for propaganda to be effective, whether state or private monopoly (p 103), along the lines of C.S. Lewis' That Hideous Strength. One might question how the horizontal expansion of media via the internet might change this situation, but thanks to government censorship and control, whether the Great Firewall of China or submitting the internet to the control of the FCC via "net neutrality" (aka telephone regulations from 1934), this dilemma seems to have been eliminated already.

The modern citizen is caught between his desire to participate and his practical inability to do so competently, and therefore demanding and accepting propaganda helps him bridge this gap, "the individual wants to participate in other ways than just elections...He wants to form an opinion on foreign policy. But in reality he can't...Public opinion surveys reveal that people have opinions even on the most complicated questions, except for a small minority...The majority prefers expressing stupidities to not expressing any opinion...The more complex, general, and accelerated political and economic phenomena become, the more do individuals feel concerned, the more do they want to get involved...the individual does not want information, but only value judgments and preconceived positions." (p 139-140) Further:

nor can he accept the idea that the problems, which sprout all around him, cannot be solved, or that he himself has no value as an individual and is subject to the turn of events. The man who keeps himself informed needs a framework in which all this information can be put in order; he needs explanations and comprehensive answers to general problems; he needs coherence. And he needs an affirmation of his own worth. (p 146)

Continuing his other work on mass society, Ellul depicts it so: "That loneliness inside the crowd is perhaps the most terrible ordeal of modern man; that loneliness in which he can share nothing, talk to nobody, and expect nothing from anybody...Propaganda is the true remedy for loneliness...propaganda is the signal to act, the bridge from the individual's mere interest in politics to his political action. It serves to overcome collective passivity." (p 148)

Ellul not only examines propaganda's role and function in democracy, but examines its use and role in Nazi Germany and Communists states. His inquiry into Mao's use of it led to this explanation of the "democratic" method used by Communists:

a man knows the absolute truth. He poses problems for which there are solutions. He encourages objections (in a limited circle). The discussion that follows does not have as its aim the common search for truth or a plan based on the opinions of all, which will take shape gradually. The aim of the discussion is to use the opposition and to drain the opponents of their energy and their convictions. Its aim is to "work over" every member of the group until, fully and of his own free will, he adheres to a proposition declared to be the absolute truth by the leader. (p 309)

In this one is reminded of the conclusion to George Orwell's 1984.

As for heroes, "The cult of the hero is the absolutely necessary complement of the massification of society...The individual who is prevented by circumstances from becoming a real person, who can no longer express himself through personal thought or action, who finds his aspirations frustrated, projects onto the hero all he would wish to be." (p 172)

Propaganda is durable precisely owing to its irrational character: "The individual now has a set of prejudices and beliefs, as well as objective justifications...Every new idea will therefore be troublesome to his entire being...Propaganda has created in him a system of opinions and tendencies which may not be subjected to criticism...He feels personally attacked when these certainties are attacked...the man who has been successfully subjected to a vigorous propaganda will declare that all new ideas are propaganda." (p 166) Which is not to say that a person cannot be successively won over from one group to another via propaganda, Ellul lays out that process as well (p 190).

Ellul is sharp about the qualifications of the propagandist himself, the need to stand aloof from belief, "He cannot even share that ideology for he must use it as an object and manipulate it without the respect that he would have for it if he believed in it." (p 197)

Ellul shows that propaganda can be effective even when only a skeleton, hardening opinion on just a few key points, but over time, groups crystallize around these key points, opinions become more general and lose detail and nuance (p 204-205). He shows, along these lines, how the needs of propaganda tend to lead to binary arrangements in public opinion, like two-party systems, both because the massive resources required for successful propaganda eliminates a multitude of organizations, and opinions tend to become boiled down to yes-no, for-against, etc. (p 219).

In short, an excellent (if sometimes challenging and dry) work, a guide not only to modern propaganda, but a penetrating insight into modern society more broadly. Read The Abolition of Manthen read this!

[Darwin8u · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read this about 27 years ago in college. Reading it again. Amazing at how relevant this is to the Tiktok, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, FoxNews world we live in. I'd love to see him reincarnated to update his thoughts about social media. I think I have a pretty good idea of the things he would focus on isolation, group propaganda, anxiety, inability for Churches to keep up. He would probably be able to write a whole damn book on it. Who knows? Maybe someone has already done the work.

[Jake · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is among the few books to alter how I think of how the world presents itself. Ellul has a talent for presenting complex ideas in readable text. The book focuses on the conditions, uses, mediums, structures and belief systems needed for propaganda to flourish. In addition, he identifies a working definition of propaganda that is repeated throughout the text to remind the reader of its ever-present influence in our daily lives. This is as much a dissection of propaganda as it is a warning against homogenized idealistic constructions such as "western democracy" and its supposed infallibility - well done on all fronts.

[Jed · Rating 5 out of 5]

Parts of this book are amazing, even today. While portions of it are a little dated or too caught up in the Cold War or focused on the forces which brought about the second world war, the insights he draws from them are not. I've never read a description of just what propaganda is or why it is so dangerous and effective that was close to this good. Ellul's background in Theology shines through in a lot of places and he is also concerned with understanding how the modern state and the ideologies competing for control of it have evolved to play the role once played by Christianity.

[Ki Seung · Rating 5 out of 5]

A dense (with some technical jargon) philosophical work on the nature of man in a technical society, whether it be democratic or fascist. To consider that propaganda (as described by Ellul) is not only necessary, but also a natural outcome in a large and diverse modern society, is a rather bitter concept to swallow, but for me, Ellul makes an excellent case as to its diverse means and forms.

[Erin · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'm actually reading this right now, so I'll update this as I am amazed and transformed by this highly underappreciated and brilliant Frenchman.

[Jason Friedlander · Rating 5 out of 5]

Read this slowly over the course of a year. Although it was written in 1962, it’s still extremely relevant and insightful today, perhaps even more so. Genuinely one of the best books I’ve read in the last few years. Not much else to say, if you have any interest at all in propaganda and how it manifests in the world, you must read this book.

[Maria · Rating 3 out of 5]

Да започна с това, че намирам книгата за суховата. Разбирам смисъла на текста, но в никакъв случай не бих могла да се изкажа с думите на автора. Лично за мен четенето беше предизвикателство, а останаха и неща, които не успях съвсем да възприема.
На първо място не съм свикнала и не мога да свикна думата „пропаганда“ да се употребява без оценка. В наше време пропагандата е лошо. Жак Елюл обаче настоява, че пропагандата може да е всякаква и следователно той няма да дава оценка на мотивите и целите й. Затова разглежда определението за пропаганда, методите и ефектите й върху хората и обществото.
Не мога добре да осмисля и да свикна с идеята, че хората всъщност не стигат до определени идеи сами, а тези идеи трябва да се проповядват, да се обясняват, да се пропагандират. Но понеже четох книгата твърде дълго време, имах възможност да помисля. Може би все пак успях да схвана противоречието с демокрацията и пропагандата. Сериозно обмислям възможността голяма част от вярванията ми да са именно продукт на пропагандата на концепцията за демокрация. Съдя по нетърпимостта, която проявявам, особено през последните години, към мненията и хората, които я критикуват. А нетолерантността към различно мнение е един от основните признаци, че човек се е поддал на пропаганда. От друга страна демокрацията не може да се защити от пропагандата, която постоянно се води срещу нея, ако не използва оръжията на „враговете“ си. Тази дилема ми е доста интересна, при това не от сега.
Други теми от книгата, за които си мисля все още:
- Хората, които живеят в условия на някакъв тоталитарен режим имат нужда да освобождават социалното напрежение. Затова всяка успешна диктатура позволява известна критика през медиите и културата (кино, книги, публикации). Тази критика не води до промяна в самия режим, но създава усещане у хората, че нещо зависи от тях. Какъв по-добър пример от свободните избори, в които аз вярвам от сърце? Всички ни убеждават, че гласът на всеки има значение и все пак реалността не се променя, колкото и да гласуваме;
- Често съм се чудила дали хората, които през последните години разпространяват очевидна пропаганда, вярват в това, което говорят или го правят за пари. Според Жак Елюл успешният пропагандист не вярва в това, което проповядва. За да е наистина ефективен, той трябва да се отдели от обекта на пропагандата и спира да е ефективен в момента, в който вземе, че си повярва. Така че моят въпрос получи отговор – правят го за пари. Или за други облаги;
- Какво ли щеше да напише авторът, ако можеше да изследва днешните социални мрежи? Според него успешната пропаганда е възможна най-вече заради масовите комуникации, а по-масови от днешните няма накъде. По негово време са били вестници, радио и някаква мижава телевизия, а той се е притеснявал за вредното им влияние върху хората.
Нещата, за които пише Елюл отдавна са ни известни. Книгата може би изглежда пророческа, защото почти всичко в нея е вярно и се случва постоянно. Може би е сгрешил само за това, че пропагандата не е възможна когато човек е добре материално и е спокоен – в наши дни тя процъфтява, а до преди три години си живеехме прекрасно, охолно, та чак скучно. Но пропагандата минава през създаване на първични страхове и съответните спасители, а точно това го наблюдаваме ежедневно, като по учебник. Така че книгата е интересна и показва как някои неща не се променят, а предимно се усъвършенстват.

[Sydney Johnson · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was dense but excellent. Ellul discusses propaganda, its use, purpose, and where it takes shape in the individual, intrapersonally, in society and in religion. There are applications to the US, Soviet Union, and the Congo among other countries (specific to the 1960s when this book was written). I also loved how even though the psychological theories used have been redefined and deepened, its still incredibly accurate in the descriptions of how propaganda takes root. The sociological lens of propaganda in the final chapter is incredible as well, breaking down group relationships and societal effects. Cannot stress enough that this is a must read.

[Mark Gring · Rating 4 out of 5]

Jacques Ellul's book is what I consider the definitive work, thus far, on propaganda. I have not found another text that covers this topic so well as he. The work is comprehensive, thoughtful, subtle, and historical-philosophical.
First, Ellul himself is an interesting enigma. He is born into a historic (reformed) Christian home but accepts a more neo-orthodox (Karl Barth, et al) perspective along with an extreme libertarian political perspective. He ends up with what he defines as "Christian Anarchy" but not the nineteenth century type of anarchy that most of us presume--he is very adamant that he does not accept that political perspective. As such, I would contend that he is both theologically neo-orthodox and politically libertarian (extreme) but with a nod toward a classical Marxist perspective on the problems faced by 20th century societies. All of these larger perspectives are brought to bear on how he understands and interprets propaganda.
Ellul contends early in the text that there is no way to study propaganda in an academic, social science, experimental, or controlled way. There are too many sociological, philosophical, interpersonal and economic dimensions that come into play all at once to ever be able to replicate it in a controlled academic setting. Thus, he examines it from an historical and philosophical (with a sociological twist) perspective.
Do not get this text if you want a simplistic (either too positive, like Edward Bernays, or too negative--a grand conspiracy) view of propaganda. You will not get that from this French sociologist-philosopher. Ellul's is a complex and subtle view of propaganda that operates both overtly and covertly on multiple levels. He defines propaganda (p.62) "Propaganda is a set of methods (technique) employed by an organized group that wants to bring about the active or passive participation in its actions (praxis) of a mass of individuals, psychologically unified through psychological manipulations and incorporated in an organization." This is the dark side of persuasion--in fact I would argue that is is NOT persuasion because it is overt and covert manipulation that attempts to remove agency from its audience.
Ellul's understanding of propaganda cannot be understood apart from his idea of "technique." This idea is explained in his prior book that is mistranslated and mis-titled as "The Technological Society." Ellul argues that societies have given up religion as the way to organize and thus we give ourselves over to various techniques, various systems, that organize life for us. Since these systems are incomplete, we need to "lubricate them" via the controls from propaganda. In fact, he contends, 20th century society cannot operate and survive without some form of propaganda. Ellul argues that there are also 3 major, and very different, types of propaganda that come from the 3 major systems of his day: Soviet Union, China, and the United States. All three of these have very different types of propaganda but they all serve their various subsistent countries in the needed ways to maintain the "technique"--the particular way of seeing and acting in the world.
I would love to see someone chart out the categories of propaganda (pp 61-87) that show how propaganda operates on various continuums (continui?) including: Political--Sociological (education); Agitation--Integration; Vertical--Horizontal; and Rational--Irrational.
Ellul's view of propaganda is complex, fascinating, and ultimately chilling. According to Ellul, propaganda is the system we have brought on ourselves because we have rejected the simple understanding of the Christian gospel that brings both freedom and restraint to the individual. Instead, we prefer our slavery because we always hope we can be the ones to manipulate others (my words, not his). Ultimately, Ellul sees that propaganda has a life-changing, devastating effect on those who live under its system. Freedom from it is a faint hint, at best.

[K · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book propagandized me to understand the importance and dire need of propaganda. That's how good it is. One important theme of this book: "propaganda" is not what you think it is. It is precisely the moment when you scoff at the notion of oppositional propaganda, that you lower your defenses for others, and that you are already under the influences of another set of propaganda.

A very eye-opening read.

[Peter J. · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have mixed feelings on this work. Ellul provided much valuable information about the psychological milieu that modern man finds himself in. He also provided much insight about effects of propaganda. However, I am left confused as to the scope of propaganda’s definition.

[Emily Maly · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5⭐️

I started this book in my rhetorical theory class and finally finished it. It’s a very impactful book and really makes you think. It is scary to think that despite reading this book and others like it, being aware of the propaganda that is everywhere, and constantly questioning what I read in media, I am no less susceptible to propaganda as anyone else. While I understand the very nature of propaganda doesn’t leave much room for resistance, I do wish he would’ve outline possible strategies for dealing with it—other than try your best to identify it.

I do think my favorite part of this book is that he starts off clearly stating he will not attempt to define propaganda, but then very clearly defines it on page 61 (even italicizing it lol).

[Stephen Rose · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fantastic deep dive into forms of Propaganda and its effects on various groups.

It’s not as short and direct as Bernays’, but stands more as a next step in one’s research. It particularly focuses on regimes and conflicts of the early and mid-20th century; Germany, Soviets, United States, etc. Its historical references can not be understated as even in the post-cold war/war on terror era, there is still so much to be seen and understood in hindsight.

The techniques are timeless and this book presents an academic evaluation. I particularly enjoyed Ellul's gravitation to church and religious effects throughout, as well as his focus on uses and effects in Democratic societies vs. Communists and socialists.

⚠️Parental Warnings ⚠️
None. Academic in nature “erotic response” was used a few times in describing effects of forms of propaganda.

[Sestius · Rating 3 out of 5]

Modern readers, especially perhaps readers in the Anglosphere, might face a few hurdles caused by Propaganda's time and place of origin. (I know I did.) Ellul draws on French experiences of the Second World War, of the first decade of the Cold War and of the end of empire in Indochina and Algeria which seem distant now. He is also much less concerned with evidence than I imagine (and hope!) modern theorists of media and politics are. But this only means that reading Propaganda is a chance to step back from and get a bit of perspective on the present.

Ellul doesn't examine the content of various propagandas (he uses a broad definition which includes more than the obvious, posters-on-the-wall propaganda) so much as the beliefs that underpin propaganda, its processes and its effects — on propagandees and on the propagandists who come up with the stuff in the first place. He suggests that the wealth of information available to the modern citizen actually creates a desire and need for propaganda on the part of its recipients, while states and other groups find it necessary to use propaganda if they are to achieve anything. Once propaganda is underway it inevitably alters the citizen's pyschology and the propagandising group's nature for the worse. It is, he says, 'comparable to radium' ('and what happens to the radiologists is well known'). The appendices unpick the problems inherent in attempting to assess propaganda's effectiveness and describe Mao Zedong's propaganda efforts in China.

Ellul displays a knack for ideas which are initially surprising, but also rather plausible, usually because he's busily puncturing some simpler, instinctive thought: for example, he argues that, if being propagandised has certain effects independently of its content, then equal amounts of propaganda from two opposing sides don't cancel each other out but have a cumulative effect on the propagandee's mind.

Propaganda is a thought-provoking, if dry, read for anyone interested in its subject, or in speech's power to change both audience and speaker. It is certainly not the last word on the subject, but it's a good book to bounce against your own ideas, and still a useful corrective to some of the woollier things believed in the world's richer democracies. It is a little old, but its age simply invites us to apply its ideas to more recent phenomena — like the internet on which you're reading this.

[Wedma · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ein sehr lesenswertes Werk, das an seiner Aktualität heute kaum etwas eingebüßt hat. Ganz im Gegenteil. Es ist top aktuell. Gerade heute.
Besonders empfehlenswert/nützlich ist das Werk für diejenigen, die glauben, dass sobald sie den sog. Leitmedien ihre Aufmerksamkeit schenken, diese sie sogleich mit der Wahrheit letzten Schlag beglücken. Was oft dazu führt, dass man die eigene Meinung der Meinung der Massenmedien prompt angleicht, a lá „Was soll’s, die wissen‘s eh besser, was weiß ich schon…?“
Ellul gibt dem Leser das nötige Basiswissen in die Hand. So erhält jeder die Chance zu verstehen, wie Propaganda entsteht, wie und warum sie wirkt, weshalb sie eingesetzt wird, uvm.
Man bekommt einen umfassenden Eindruck, welche Mechanismen und auf welche Art in Gang gesetzt werden, um die Meinung der Massen zu formen und diese zu dauerhaft beherrschen.
Dass Ellul sich dabei manchmal so detailliert in die Materie vertieft, manchmal entsteht de Eindruck, man könnte ihm beim Denken zusehen, zeugt davon, dass ihm das Thema sehr am Herzen lag, dass er sein Wissen mit den Lesern teilen wollte, da er als enorm wichtig ansah, dass die Menschen die Wirkung der Propaganda verstehen.
Es ist eine sehr gute Idee, dieses Buch kennenzulernen. Kann zum Augenöffner werden, insb. wenn man sich noch nie mit dem Thema befasst hatte.
Elluls Ausführungen schärfen u.a. den Blick für die Anwendung der Propaganda heute. Mit diesem Werkzeugkasen in der Hand, sieht man die Dinge deutlich anders, klarer, und kann etliche Beispiele aus der Beleuchtung des heutigen Tagesgeschehens durch sog. Leitmedien ausmachen.
Das Vorwort von Rainer Mausfeld erklärt so einiges für den heutigen Leser. Habe mich gefreut, seinen Beitrag in diesem Buch zu finden. Mausfelds Bücher „Warum schweigen die Lämmer“ und „Angst und Macht“ bleiben nach wie vor die Must reads.

Man kann seitenweise über Elluls „Propaganda“ referieren. Besser: Sie lernen das Werk selbst kennen und machen sich Ihre eigenen Gedanken.
Ich freue mich, diesen Klassiker in meinem Bücherregal zu wissen. Hochwertige Ausstattung trägt auch ein Quäntchen dazu bei: Festeinband, Umschlagblatt aus glattem, hochwertigem Papier. Die Zitate auf dem Buchrücken spiegeln den Inhalt sehr treffend wider.

Fazit: Eine sehr lohnende Lektüre.

[Ietrio · Rating 1 out of 5]

As probably most products of the French educational system Ellul proves to be an intellectual fraud. Like Bergson who used to base his ramblings about life on popular drama characters he had seen in a play the night before, Ellul describes life on what he has seen on TV the night before. E. g. the last annex that describes as real an imaginary technique of "brainwashing." No wonder France is a top consumer of Homeopathy. Yet, somehow, his literary and rhetoric technique are good enough to convince other equally qualified people that his blend of TV and newspaper virtual reality are THE reality. Not surprising, given how many people debate the Government's best path to achieve protection from anything ranging from fleas to terrorist attacks.

[Josh Ryan · Rating 4 out of 5]

In Propaganda Jacques Ellul provides a detailed outline of what propaganda is, the conditions for its existence, the necessity present in both individual and state, and its psychological and sociopolitical effects. Equal parts dated and prophetic, I found myself glossing over paragraphs detailing little known historical events likely important in 1965, only to be riveted by sections on psychological effects I formerly attributed as unique to modern mass media.

The idea that the man who views himself as rational, intelligent, and immune to propaganda is the most vulnerable to it is something I find very interesting. Were Ellul alive today, my question would be where he positions himself along that spectrum.

Some favorite quotes for me to come back to:

"The individual is seized, manipulated, attacked from every side; the combatants of two propaganda systems do not fight each other, but try to capture him. As a result, the individual suffers the most profound psychological influences and distortions. Man modified in this fashion demands simple solutions, catchwords, certainties, continuity, commitment, a clear and simple division of the world into good and evil, efficiency, and unity of thought. He cannot bear ambiguity. He cannot bear that the opponent should in any way whatever represent what is right and good... The individual will escape either into passivity or into total and unthinking support of one of the two sides."

"The more his needs increase in the collective society, the more propaganda must give man the feeling that he is a free individual. Propaganda alone can create this feeling, which, in turn, will integrate the individual into collective movements. Thus it is a powerful boost to his self esteem. Though a mass instrument, it addresses itself to each individual. It appeals to me. it appeals to my common sense, my desires, and provokes my wrath and my indignation. It evokes my feelings of justice and my desire for freedom. It gives me violent feelings, which lift me out of the daily grind. As soon as I have been politicized by propaganda, I can from heights look down on my daily trifles. My boss, who does not share my convictions, is merely a poor fool, a prey to the illusions of an evil world. I take my revenge upon him by being enlightened; I have understood the situation and know what ought to be done; I hold the key to events and am involved in dangerous and exciting activities. This feeling will be all the stronger when propaganda appeals to my decision and seems to be greatly concerned with my action. 'Everything is in the clutches of evil. There is a way out. But only if everybody participates. You must participate. If you don't, all will be lost, through your fault'... Thanks to such propaganda, the diminished individual obtains the very satisfaction he needs."

“To the extent that propaganda is based on current news, it cannot permit time for thought or reflection. A man caught up in the news must remain on the surface of the event; he is carried along in the current, and can at no time take a respite to judge and appreciate; he can never stop to reflect. There is never any awareness -- of himself, of his condition, of his society -- for the man who lives by current events. Such a man never stops to investigate any one point, any more than he will tie together a series of news events. We already have mentioned man's inability to consider several facts or events simultaneously and to make a synthesis of them in order to face or to oppose them. One thought drives away another; old facts are chased by new ones. Under these conditions there can be no thought. And, in fact, modern man does not think about current problems; he feels them. He reacts, but be does not understand them any more than he takes responsibility for them. He is even less capable of spotting any inconsistency between successive facts; man's capacity to forget is unlimited. This is one of the most important and useful points for the propagandist, who can always be sure that a particular propaganda theme, statement, or event will be forgotten within a few weeks. Moreover, there is a spontaneous defensive reaction in the individual against an excess of information and -- to the extent that he clings (unconsciously) to the unity of his own person -- against inconsistencies. The best defense here is to forget the preceding event. In so doing, man denies his own continuity; to the same extent that he lives on the surface of events and makes today's events his life by obliterating yesterday's news, he refuses to see the contradictions in his own life and condemns himself to a life of successive moments, discontinuous and fragmented."

“Propaganda ceases where simple dialogue begins.”

“We must not think that a man ceases to follow the (official) line when there is a sharp turn. He continues to follow it because he is caught up in the system. Of course, he notices the change that has taken place, and he is surprised. He may even be tempted to resist — as the Communists were at the time of the German-Soviet pact. But will he then engage in a sustained effort to resist propaganda? Will he disavow his past actions? Will he break with the environment in which his propaganda is active? Will he stop reading a particular newspaper? Such breaks are too painful; faced with them, the individual, feeling that the change in line is not an attack on his real self, prefers to retain his habits.”

"We are living in a time when systematically — though without our wanting it so — action and thought are being separated. In our society, he who thinks can no longer act for himself; he must act through the agency of others, and in many cases he cannot act at all. He who acts cannot first think out his action, either because of lack of time and the burden of his personal problems, or because society's plan demands that he translate others' thoughts into action. And we see the same division within the individual himself. For he can use his mind only outside the area of his job — in order to find himself, to use his leisure to better himself, to discover what best suits hint, and thus to individualize himself, whereas in the context of his work he yield to the common necessity, the common method, the need to incorporate his own work into the overall plan. Escape into dreams is suggested to him while he performs wholly mechanized actions.”

[Claudio Rodrigues · Rating 5 out of 5]

What an incredible reading. This book goes deep in the analysis of Propaganda and sometimes it's hard to believe it was written in the 1960s and not by someone looking at our current state of affairs.

The author emphasizes the importance of technology in the works of propaganda and I just wonder what he would say today about the influence of social media in the political arena.

He foresees the polarization and radicalization of those under constant influence of propaganda, as well as the destruction of their moral compass and blind adherence to whatever the propagandists promote.

Definitely a must read if you are into this topic and get ready to highlight a lot - I mean, A LOT! - of passages, sometimes entire pages.

[Flutlicht · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brilliant book about the philosophy of propaganda, much more general than Bernays or Lippmann, but also more difficult to read. The translation from French is good, but complex, the font is rather small and the print wasn't the best, either.
In the end I am happy I finished reading this important book, but it is not the right book to start studying the topic of propaganda. You should certainly have some basic knowledge about the topic, before starting this work.

The excellence of Ellul's thoughts is reflected in the numerous brilliant quotes which you can also find on goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes...