Abstract
Propaganda is a centuries-old term, and yet scholars and practitioners are still having a hard time defining it and pinpointing what makes propaganda unique. Many existing definitions fail to distinguish between propaganda and marketing, public relations, advertising, or even mass communications, in general. This essay proposes to define propaganda through psychoanalytical research pioneered by Erich Fromm on symbiotic relations. Symbiotic relations, when transferred from biology to psychology and sociology, describe a process of allowing a person to merge with something big and important, therefore creating meaning beyond an individual’s life. As a result, following its religious roots, propaganda acts similar to religion—asking for a sacrifice of individualism in the name of something bigger—god, country, society, or political party. In the end, people willingly engage in propaganda because, although sacrificing something, they receive unity with the bigger powers of other people, organizations, political parties, countries, and so on. As a result, such persons are not alone against the world; they are now a part of a bigger and stronger union.
Vague definitions of propaganda
Propaganda is a centuries-old term, and yet scholars and practitioners are still having a hard time defining it and pinpointing what makes propaganda unique (Welch, 2017). Many existing definitions fail to distinguish between propaganda and public relations as well as advertising, persuasion, political campaigning, or even psychological warfare (Brown, 1958; Carey, 1997; Gordon, 1942; Jowett & O’Donnell, 2012; Lasswell, 1995; Linebarger, 1948; Lumley, 1933; Murty, 1968; Winkler, 1978). Many book-length interpretations of propaganda have been published with attempts to “nail” the meaning of propaganda and its characteristics, yet the term remains elusive of a commonly accepted connotation (Wilke, 1998).
This essay’s significance lies in its contribution to a better understanding of what propaganda is and what propaganda is not. Indeed, understanding and defining propaganda is important for society and academic research. In fact, the United Nations, other international organizations, non-governmental organizations, and governments of many countries tried to control propaganda by various regulations, but failed to do so due to its undefined meaning, especially in different languages: “The term propaganda is susceptible of so many definitions that it is hard to make it the subject of a law” (Martin, 1958, p. 10).
Although the definition of the word is not clear, common folks, social scientists, and politicians use the word “propaganda” casually in their everyday life. Martin (1958) explains, “Propaganda is a term that has become so commonplace, hardly a day passes that it is not mentioned in the newspapers or tossed about in conversations” (p. 3). At the same time, academic research focused on understanding propaganda has slowed down. In fact, today propaganda may have become an “I-know-it-when-I-see it” phenomenon. As a result, because of the term’s casual usage and lack of agreed upon definition “the word propaganda dropped out of use in communication study” (Rogers, 1994, p. 216). But if the word dropped out of use, does it mean that propaganda itself disappeared? Could it mean that there is no specific phenomenon of propaganda and the term should be simply forgotten? Or does this mean perhaps that propaganda is not easily distinguishable from advertising, public relations, or persuasion?
This essay, however, advances an argument that the term propaganda deserves to exist in scholarly and popular vocabulary and that it is possible to identify propaganda among other types of communication activities, such as public relations or public diplomacy. In fact, Jowett and O’Donnell (2006) suggest that it would be “premature to declare that the study of propaganda is now an accepted part of all communication studies or political science programs” (p. xiii). As a result, this article is a call to concentrate efforts on understanding what propaganda is and what it does. This essay begins with a brief history of propaganda and then proposes a unique characteristic of propaganda that would define and distinguish it from other forms of communications.
Propaganda’s history
Propaganda activities were carried out probably as long as human beings lived on this earth. Dodge (1920) notes, “Propaganda of some kind is doubtless as old as human society” (p. 241). Early tribes executed propaganda and ancient civilization employed it to advance political, military, or cultural causes. “The antiquity of the practice of propaganda, as distinguished from its name, is apparent from the fact that much classical Greek and Roman literature is the more or less accidental residue of propaganda” (Lasswell, 1995, pp. 13–14). Martin (1958) agrees calling propaganda activities “as old as history itself” (p. 5). Pratkanis and Aronson (2001) provide an example from the Mayan civilization that often manipulated historic data, life spans of rulers, astronomical cycles, and real events to place a current ruler in a favorable light—for example, aligning the birth date of a current leader with the birth date of a stronger leader of the past to suggest the old leader’s reincarnation. (pp. 11–12)
The rise of propaganda, and the appearance of the term itself, is closely related to religion. The history of the actual term “propaganda” dates back to 17th century when in 1622 Pope Gregory XV established the Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide. This Sacred Congregation for propagating the faith of the Roman Catholic Church was in charge of delivering “the only true religion” from Vatican across the globe in the times of the great geographic discoveries.
This congregation was based on a “cardinalitial commission” Pope Gregory XIII (1572–1585) organized earlier in order to re-conquer by spiritual arms, by prayers and good works, by preaching and catechizing, the countries . . . lost to the Church in the debacle of the sixteenth century and to organize into an efficient corps the numerous missionary enterprises for the diffusion of the gospel in the pagan lands. (Jackall, 1995, p. 1)
Pope Gregory XV (1621–1623) makes this commission permanent issuing papal bull that established the congregation consisting of 13 cardinals and two prelates (Jackall, 1995).
Lumley (1933) suggests that traditional Christian religion, essentially, is propaganda in itself: If we come on down, following the Biblical order, to the prophetic era—the era of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the rest—we have in the way of method a great deal which corresponds in many particulars to what we now call propaganda. These men announced things to the people; they led the people; they thought for the people; they manipulated public opinion. (p. 51)
The religious background of propaganda is indeed quite important to understanding the roots and mechanisms of propaganda. The propaganda brings into the civic life its religious arsenal.
More recently, propaganda received a significant boost and developed new tactics during the two world wars of the 20th century. In fact, “within a week of the congressional declaration of war on Germany on 6 April 1917, President Woodrow Wilson established the Committee on Public Information” (Jackall & Hirota, 1995, p. 137). The Committee was charged with a task to “sell America’s Crusade to the American public and the idea of America to the world” (Jackall & Hirota, 1995, p. 137). The usage of the word “crusade” in this context is quite symbolic and once again reminds us of the religious roots of propaganda.
Lambert (1939) observes that propaganda made its way into the popular vocabulary largely due to the World War I: the pre-war edition of the Encyclopedia of Britannica in 1911 does not mention the term propaganda, while propaganda makes its appearance in the post-war edition, published in 1929. Lambert (1939) concludes, “The age of the Great War saw for the first time propaganda elevated to the position of a branch of government” (p. 22).
Modern propaganda research is largely connected with the names of Harold Lasswell. In fact, Rogers (1994) in his History of Communication Study maintains that “Lasswell led the study of propaganda” (p. 203). Lasswell’s dissertation supported by his mentors, Charles E Merriam and Harold Godnell, focused on the analysis of World War I propaganda. Later, during World War II, Lasswell himself already actively participated in creating propagandistic messages as well as analyzing and combating enemies’ propaganda. During World War II, propaganda became an essential part of the battlefield and saw the whole countries coming together into the war of words as well as the war of swords. Radio, television, movies, and newspapers carried unified message and focused people’s attention on one task only. Fussell (1989) observes that in World War II, “the various outlets of popular culture behaved almost entirely as if they were creatures of their governments . . . They spoke with one voice” (p. 180).
The Cold War became, by definition, entirely the war of words. Domestic and international propaganda grew exponentially. The domestic propaganda, although less researched, nevertheless was treated quite seriously by government officials. For example, Oakes (1995) studied “emotion management” plans developed by the American military to protect citizens against nuclear attack panics. However, international propaganda has been extensively researched (see, for example, Bernays & Hershey, 1970; Bogart, 1995; Jowett & O’Donnell, 2012; Stanley, 2015). And, although today the Cold War is over, the propaganda “is surely here to stay” (Lasswell, 1995, p. 22).
Yet, despite such a long history of practice and research, the propaganda still does not have a clear place among other communication activities; some scholars and practitioners keep using the words like propaganda, public relations, public diplomacy, or advertising interchangeably, while others refer to propaganda as something bad, negative, and inherently evil, that should be avoided at all costs.
In fact, it is pretty common to define propaganda on morality approach, labeling all deceptive communications as propaganda. Lippmann (1929) elucidates, “I include under the term ‘deception’ the whole art of propaganda, whether it consists of half-truths, lies, ambiguities, evasions, calculated silence, red herrings, unresponsiveness, slogans, catchwords, showmanship, bathos, hokum, and buncombe” (p. 281). To label a communication activity as propaganda if this activity is false and misleading is a popular notion in the studies of propaganda (Bogart, 1995; Combs & Nimmo, 1993; Davidson, 1941; Fraser, 1957; George, 1959; Green, 1988; Havighurst, 1967; Jowett & O’Donnell, 2012; Lippmann, 1929; Lumley, 1933; Murty, 1968; Whitton & Larson, 1964; Winkler, 1978). As a result, “propaganda is invariably associated with solely pejorative associations” (Welch, 2017, p. xi).
This approach contains a certain danger; however, labeling propaganda as something bad and evil does not allow people to recognize their own activities as propaganda, as it is common for human beings to believe in their own goodness. Martin (1958) explains, “The politician has an uneasy feeling about using the word to describe the activities of his own group; he discredits the activities of his opponents by calling these activities propaganda” (p. 3). Although these activities may denote the same communication acts, their connotations are quite distinct. In fact, usage patterns show that people tend to think of their own activities as promotion, public information, public diplomacy, or anything else but propaganda. At the same time, the very same activities when performed by others may be labeled as propaganda. In this context “words frequently used as synonyms of propaganda are lies, distortion, deceit, manipulation, mind control, psychological warfare, brainwashing, and palaver” (Jowett & O’Donnell, 2012, p. 2).
As a result, such approach to defining propaganda fails, as it is impossible to label the same activities as propaganda or not simply based on our relation to a propagandist.
The opposite approach looks at propaganda as a mass communication tactic designed to provide information to people (Myers, 2015). In this context, propaganda is not equated with something evil, deceptive, or misleading; actually, propaganda in this case serves to inform domestic or foreign populations and is, in fact, quite useful and positive. Alfred McClung Lee (1952) says “the many popular notions about propaganda may make you assume that it is something largely evil, but it is not. Propaganda can be best thought of as a way of conveying ideas rapidly to many people” (p. 2). Bernays (1928/2004) in his famous propaganda manuscript presents similar view on propaganda as a necessary part of a society as it creates shared perceptions of the events and introduces structure into otherwise chaotic human relations.
Furthermore, on the global scale, the sinister associations of the term propaganda are not universal. Lambert (1939) suggests that since propaganda grew out of the Roman Catholic Church, countries that were revolting against these doctrines now have negative association of the word propaganda itself, while the countries which remained loyal to Roman Catholicism do not have negativity toward the term propaganda in their languages. Lambert (1939) concludes, And so the word propaganda came to have sinister association among the nations of Northern Europe that broke away from Rome; while among the Latin nations which remained on the whole faithful to Rome, it had no such associations, nor has it to this day. (p. 8)
This approach to defining propaganda, however, has its own problems. In this context, a concept of propaganda becomes almost indistinguishable from many mass communication activities such as public relations, marketing, advertising, public diplomacy, or strategic communication, in general. Rogers (1994) notes, “What was called propaganda in courses like Lasswell’s would be called mass communication today” (p. 216). Indeed, today it is not unusual to find the definitions that would equate propaganda with public relations and advertising (Miller & Dinan, 2008). But are these activities really the same? Can we define propaganda and distinguish it from other strategic communication activities?
Psychoanalysis of propaganda
Since “the term ‘propaganda’ has distinctly religious origins” (Jackall, 1995, p. 1), it is important to include this fact into consideration when defining propaganda. And, indeed, sacrifice of own private benefits is an essential component of many religions, including Christianity. Following its religious roots, propaganda acts essentially in the same way—asking for a sacrifice of individualism in the name of something bigger—religion, country, society, democracy, and so on. One of the most extensive uses of propaganda was found in Nazi’s Third Reich where one of its main propagandists claimed: What statesman would gamble this invaluable unity of national thinking and feeling for the sake of liberal individualism? Here, the freedom of choice ends . . . because of responsibilities toward the nation and the community whose life stands far above the freedom of the individual. (Hadamovsky, 1933/1972, pp. 68–69)
Or “agitprop” developed in the Soviet Union—a combination of agitation and propaganda that stated that “social is above private.” Compare it also with the US President Kennedy’s “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country”—this statement becomes the quintessence of propaganda.
People are constantly targeted by such propaganda messages from governments, international organizations, organizations they work for, and even their communities. Propaganda becomes an essential component of building a nation, building a business enterprise, or building a community. The fascist leader Adolf Hitler, whose Ministry of Propaganda is believed to be one of the most successful propaganda organizations in human history (Burke, 2006), once noted that “every organization composed of individuals presupposes some measure of common belief and a common perspective towards mutual interests” (as cited in Hadamovsky, 1933/1972, p. 4). Take away propaganda and people will realize that they wasted their lives doing something they never even wanted to do.
Propaganda’s ambition is to make people sacrifice their personal wishes and even their own lives for something bigger and, presumably, more important. Once again, this reminds us of propaganda’s religious background, references to a supreme being, and references to sacrificing private interests in the name of something bigger. Therefore, the same way as religions, many governments demand their citizens to sacrifice profits, health, even lives for the sake of democracy, freedom, country, or some other bigger goal no matter how real or illusory it might be. But why does such propaganda work? What mechanisms allow modern propagandists make people sacrifice their personal interests and advance propagandists’ goals the same way as religious organizations make people submit their personal desires in the name of a future heaven? Why these approaches make people sacrifice themselves in the name of religious, political, business, or any other illusions?
The explanation could lie in the fact that such approaches utilize the psychoanalytical idea of symbiotic relations. The concept of symbiosis, although very familiar to biologists, is not widely recognized in social sciences. However, Erich Fromm, described by Hausdorff (1972) as prominent “psychoanalyst, social theorist and critic, ethical philosopher, teacher and best-selling author” (p. 3), developed a social concept of symbiotic relations. Initially, the idea of symbiotic relations came from the psychological analysis of individual’s neurotic syndromes, sadism, and masochism: Psychologically, however, both tendencies [sadism and masochism] are the outcomes of one basic need, springing from the inability to bear the isolation and weakness of one’s own self. I suggest calling the aim which is at the basis of both sadism and masochism: symbiosis. Symbiosis, in this psychological sense, means the union of one individual self with another self (or any other power outside of the own self) in such a way as to make each lose the integrity of its own self and to make them completely dependent on each other. The sadistic person needs his object just as much as the masochistic needs his. Only instead of seeking security by being swallowed, he gains it by swallowing somebody else . . . In both cases individuality and freedom are lost. (Fromm, 1941, pp. 157–159)
Fromm (1947, 1950, 1955, 1992) later transferred this psychological theory of symbiotic relationships into a philosophical and sociological theory that he used initially to explain the phenomena of the Third Reich. However, this theory was never used as a foundation for the phenomenon of propaganda, despite the fact that it seems to be quite an appropriate characteristic of propaganda and quite distinctive from advertising, public relations, marketing, or other forms of mass communications. In fact, applying symbiotic relations to propaganda, one can explain why people are willing to engage in propaganda activities—although sacrificing something, they receive unity with the bigger powers of other people, organizations, political parties, countries, or religions. Consequently, such person is not alone against the world; the person is now a part of a bigger and stronger union.
The basic assumption of this theory of propaganda is the aloneness of the human being in the modern world. Fromm (1955) explains, Man is torn away from the primary union with nature, which characterizes animal existence. Having at the same time reason and imagination, he is aware of his aloneness and separateness; of his powerlessness and ignorance; of his accidentalness of his birth and of his death. He could not face this state of being for a second if he could not find new ties with his fellow man which replace the old ones, regulated by instincts. Even if all his psychological needs were satisfied, he would experience his state of aloneness and individuation as a prison from which he had to break out in order to retain sanity . . . The necessity to unite with other living beings, to be related to them, is an imperative need on the fulfillment of which man’s sanity depends. (p. 30)
People lost many of their ties with nature and with each other and that made people realize their weakness. As a result, new ties have to be created: humans want to become part of some greater power. If a human being realizes that his or her life does not have any meaning except to live and eventually die that might cause a personal crisis and, eventually, for the society. That is why people tend to look for the meaning in their lives, trying to become part of something bigger, something that would provide meaning to their lives. In other words, people “attempt to become one with the world by submission to a person, to a group, to an institution, to God” (Fromm, 1955, p. 30). Such submission maybe to a country as people become patriots, a church as people become religious, a business organization as people become workaholics, a sports team as people become sport fans, and many other organizations from sororities and fraternities to criminal gangs. In either case, a human being seeks refuge in joining other human beings as part of something bigger and more meaningful.
As a result, propaganda makes use of this individual human need to be a part of something. It uses a need in symbiotic relations, creating meaning in a human life, at the same time, reaching its own purpose; in other words, people often are happy to be “brainwashed.”
Propaganda research, in this sense, finds its roots not in Lasswell’s content analysis, but rather in Lewin’s studies on group dynamics. In this definition, propaganda is always a unifying force, integrating its targets into groups. Lewin (1976) elucidates, “Membership in a group is part of the ground upon which a person stands” (p. 128). Therefore, propaganda in exchange for sacrifice of own benefits, supplies meaning and group identity to a weak and scared individual; a person is no longer alone in the world, this person is now a member of the group. Such symbiotic relation with the group does not simply provide meaning of the world around and gives strength to survive in this world. It gives a person a self-meaning as well; a person develops own identity through the group as an American, a Christian, a Republican, and so on.
Ellul (1973) proposes that such propaganda can extend beyond deliberate communicative action into a sociological phenomenon. Such propaganda is most visible during war times. In fact, famous slogan of “support our troops” engages even people who are against the war. It is truly difficult to resist war-mongering propaganda when one’s own country is at war, when relatives, friends, and neighbors fight and die at the front lines. Governments, of course, tend to use this “us against them” theme to increase support for their own goals. But even without government’s campaigns, people themselves start propagating this theme so strongly and loudly with each other that it becomes their own. This could be explained through a phenomenon of a cognitive dissonance, an idea pioneered by Leon Festinger (1957). Cognitive dissonance is experienced when person’s feelings and attitudes conflict with this person’s behavior and actions. For example, when people are forced to perform a boring task they do not want to do, they experience cognitive dissonance. In order to overcome this dissonance, people tend to invent some meaning or significance for this task in order to make the task seem more important or fun, and, thus, resolve the dissonance of why they are performing this task in the first place.
Propaganda takes advantage of this phenomenon with inclusive and participatory rhetoric in order to cause anyone who opposes a propagandist to feel such a dissonance. In other words, people who disagree with the actions the government takes experience cognitive dissonance, when they face the fact that they are included in this decision and that this action is done for them. If a country goes to war, all citizens are at war, they all are included in this decision. Either they are troops and then they have to fight or they stay home and then they have to “support our troops.” To resolve cognitive dissonance citizens have to change their beliefs and opinions in order to “subscribe to the ideology, retain any material or emotional benefits, and reduce dissonance all at once” (Sandor, 2001, p. 128). This, in turn, fuels the certain side of propaganda message without allowing people to seek for competing interpretations.
This is similar to Burke’s dramatistic logic of “scene-act ratio”—the idea that people want to bring their actions and outcomes of these actions into the harmony with the scenic context (Burke, 1945). Burke’s idea could be developed further to find out that it is also quite possible to see that sometimes propaganda messages may be created not by an individual, an organization, or any other definite sender. “Social context produces persuasive messages and promotes receptiveness to those messages, somewhat automatically” (Shanahan, 2001, p. 6).
Similarly, Johnson-Cartee and Copeland (2004) draw propaganda from its reliance on “group’s normative configurations” (p. 7). Propaganda becomes a group mechanism; propaganda’s influence “rests not on the recipient’s perceived satisfaction of individual wants but on the recipient’s perceived satisfaction in participating and bringing about the ultimate satisfaction of group and societal goals” (p. 7). As a result, propaganda refers to common social ground, shared meaning, and unified understanding. And, as such, it closely related to the group or society.
Such relation with a group leads to another observation about the symbiotic nature of propaganda—the positioning of the result. People, as natural beings, should be interested in performing actions that benefit them. However, propaganda uses people as social beings and demands that personal benefit should be sacrificed in the name of some social or religious or any other benefit, something outside of the individual. Fromm explains this phenomenon as a human’s “indifference to himself.” He elucidates, It lies in the fact that we have lost the sense of the significance and uniqueness of the individual, that we have made ourselves into instruments for purposes outside ourselves, that we experience and treat ourselves as commodities, and that our own powers have become alienated from ourselves. We have become things and our neighbors have become things. The result is that we feel powerless and despise ourselves for our importance. Since we do not trust our own power, we have no faith in ourselves or in what our own powers can create. We have no conscience in the humanistic sense, since we do not dare to trust our judgment. We are a herd believing that the road we follow must lead to a goal since we see everybody else on the same road. (Fromm, 1947, p. 248)
In other words, propaganda ignores individual needs. Propaganda’s goals are always outside a receiver of the propagandistic message; the receiver is always asked to sacrifice, to do something for god, country, society, democracy, freedom, or organization. The purpose is always “above the clouds, in the past or in the future” (Fromm, 1947, p. 249).
For example, if a company asks consumers to buy American cars because of their drivability, price, or design, this would be an example of advertising or public relations. This would lead to a personal satisfaction as the benefits of these features are intended for a customer, for an individual. However, if a company claims that buying American cars helps the country, this would be an example of propaganda. The common personal purchase decision is turned into a nation savior. The logical solution to buy something more or better for less money gets turned upside down. The benefits are located outside of an individual customer. In fact, it would be impossible to track how the money for the car would be used and if, in fact, it would help the country at all.
Yet, propaganda is an essential part of any group. In fact, without propaganda, the world would descent into chaos as everyone would pursue their own goals without taking into consideration the needs of others. Propaganda’s “symbiotic nature of relatedness” (Fromm, 1955, p. 31) is an exceptional tool to make people work together as members of a group, a team, or some institution. Indeed, propaganda, as a tool to manipulate people, assigns greater meaning to the actions that it requires, and, as a result, cultivates collectivism and diminishes individualism. Eventually, this greater goal becomes a part of a personal goal, which does not allow the person to judge the actions of this bigger organization (state, company, or something else) objectively, at least to a certain degree. The ultimate ambition of a propagandist is a person unable to question propaganda, in other words, a person who adopts propaganda as a personal point of view and protects it fiercely, fighting with any other opposing ideas.
Propaganda, if successful, tends to lead to a groupthink as described by Janis (1982): when members of a group begin thinking similarly (Janis & Mann, 1977). The group tends to “overestimate its power and importance,” that makes a group “very close-minded” and finally imposes “great pressure in the group to reach consensus.” (Infante et al., 2003, p. 228)
These major symptoms of groupthink are at the same time the ultimate goals of the propagandist. Inclusive rhetoric of propaganda persuades people that the truth is on “our side” and that we should all unite in the presence of danger (Laskin & Palczewski, 2003). Propaganda, once again, is based not on Lasswell’s messages, texts, or techniques, but rather on Lewin’s cohesion, when individuality is lost and sacrificed in the name of the group. Differences are ignored; unity is overemphasized. The close inclusion of people into the group leads at the same time to exclusion of “the others,” with whom the situation in the opposite—any similarities are ignored and differences are overemphasized. So, propaganda begins to emotionally paint the world in black and white colors, and enforce the dichotomy of “us” versus “them” (Laskin & Palczewski, 2003).
The world is painted in black and white with an easily predetermined outcome: the side of a propagandist is always good, and the other side is always evil. No other colors are allowed. The challenge of propaganda is to unite everyone on one side, to create a common idea and common way of thinking. Propaganda does not admit bad things on a good side, nor does it give even the slightest credit to the opponents. Dr Goebbels, propagandist head of Nazi Germany, explained that there is only one truth: either we are lying, in which case the others are right—or we speak the truth and others are liars. That the truth is on our side is something we believe irrevocably within our blood. (As cited in Hadamovsky, 1933/1972, p. 14)
Perhaps, similar to New York Yankees versus Boston Red Sox dichotomy, propaganda makes you love your own group the more you hate the other group.
The propagandist insists on an unswerving faith in one’s cause. Propaganda is absolute and divides the world sharply. This position, however, leads to another implication. It is quite possible in the real world to agree on some issues and disagree on the others. Conversely, it is rather difficult to find something entirely good or absolutely evil, whether it would be products, people, policies, countries, or anything else. But symbiotic nature of propaganda ignores this fact; either you are with us or you are against us and there is nothing in between.
Propaganda emotions are dichotomous: both positive and negative emotions have to be present to make propaganda more successful. This could also be traced back to the early religion backgrounds of propaganda where “good God” is equally necessary as “evil Devil.” To influence people, they should be scared of hell and, at the same time, welcome of heaven. Symbiotic propaganda cannot avoid emotions as it appeals to a greater good such as liberty, democracy, religion, or similar; and such appeals cannot avoid being emotional. It is virtually impossible to discuss such matters without awe and admiration. They are equally impossible without dichotomy in these emotions. The great good requires the great evil. There is no reasoning with “evil,” no negotiations with the Devil, or an enemy, or a terrorist. The sharp dichotomy of propaganda does not allow a chance for an arguments or intellect. Blood and tears, joy and laughs, and hatred and love—these become the arguments of propagandists.
Propaganda as symbiotic relations
As a result, propaganda has an extremely important influence on our lives, yet it “has by no means been completely analyzed and illuminated” (Wilke, 1998, p. 3). This essay proposed a novel approach to understanding a phenomenon of propaganda by defining it through a psychoanalytical concept of symbiotic relations. Symbiotic relations, introduced to psychoanalysis by Fromm to initially explain sadism and masochism, later evolved into a larger theory of human relations within a society. Propaganda, in this definition, becomes a strategy of dissolving individuality and uniting people into homogeneous groups, sharply contrasted with other groups in us-versus-them dichotomy. The main goal of propaganda is creating a reason for an individual to perform an action outside of this individual’s direct benefit, for example, people may be required to sacrifice their personal benefit in the name of god, society, country, political party, and so on. This becomes the key characteristic of propaganda, distinguishing it from public relations, marketing, advertising, public diplomacy, or any other communication activity. The definition of propaganda may then sound like this: Propaganda is a persuasive communication activity that establishes symbiotic relations between an individual and a larger entity into which this individual is being dissolved.
