<b>The Many Forms of Propaganda</b>
Surely, we (modern, Americans) could not fall pray to the propagandizing techniques of malicious institutions. When advertisements attempt to produce us as loyal consumers, we are well aware. However, the propagandists arenât naïve. As Professor Rentschler points out, the marketing firms that try and sell various ideas and items to modern populations factor skepticism into their approaches, making the âpropagandaâ element of advertising all the more complex and difficult to detect. Although we may call attention to the overtly manipulative aspects of certain ads, these campaigns are themselves paper tigers, which conceal the fact that we are only contesting what is disagreeable. In his work on the diverse types of propaganda, Jacques Ellul suggests that there are far deeper forms of manipulation, which are perpetuated through what appear as commonsense understandings and aspects of our culture. Indeed, Ellul argues that the power of propaganda is the power to conceal itself. For an example of this type of propaganda, see the following advertisement.
What commonsense understandings are implied by the rhetoric of the ad? Does the ad merely reflect a neutral understanding of masculinity, or does it function to naturalize a particularly heteronormative view?
In this post, I would like to use a discussion of several of the modalities of propaganda highlighted by Ellul as a means of sharpening our understanding of the propagandistic function of the Nazi cinema. Did Nazi films present the same type of propagandistic message? Or did the purpose of propaganda change based on the historical circumstances? Speaking of purpose, did the Nazis have complete control in the process of producing propaganda? Or was the efficacy of propaganda largely determined by viewer responses, which could not be fully colonized or predicted?
Before seeking to address these questions, let us turn to the work of Jacques Ellul. In his definitive work on propaganda entitled Propaganda: The Formation of Menâs Attitudes, Ellul proposes a number of distinct, dichotomously opposed forms of propaganda, many of which are relevant to the function of Nazi cinema and the internal conflict regarding its goals. The first dichotomy of interest relates to propaganda of agitation versus propaganda of integration. <b>Agitation propaganda</b> is widespread, subversive, and often involves a call to action. <b>Propaganda of integration,</b> on the other hand, is a more long-term propaganda that seeks not temporary excitement, but the long term ordering of an individual into a given social configuration. Often these two forms of propaganda are sequenced. Propaganda of agitation is used to compel revolution, and after the rebellion propaganda of integration is deployed to stabilize a population into a new social order. Thus far, we have really only seen the former type of propaganda. Hitler Youth Quex, for example, could be understood as a means of agitating resistance to political resistance to the Naziâs top competitor for power, communism.
Another pertinent distinction made by Ellul, and eluded to in the last post, is that between rational and irrational propaganda. While<b> rational propaganda </b>uses reason, facts, and statistics to ground its claim to authority/truth, <b>irrational propaganda </b>addresses the populationâs feelings and passions. As mentioned last time, the Nazis primarily relied upon this latter method of propaganda. Rather than producing hatred (of communism, Jews, etc) through recourse to reason, a great deal of Nazi propaganda plays on (and indeed produces) the affective terrain of the viewers.
[NOTE: Although Ellul argues that irrational propaganda is fading due to modern populationâs demand for factual explanation, the Bush administrationâs recourse to religious themes as a justification for its actions, in the face of factual counter-evidence, seems to suggest that certain populations are still quite vulnerable to irrational propaganda that plays on passions (notions of patriotism, security, retribution) as opposed to reason.]
A final dichotomy I would like to touch on before addressing Nazi cinema specific is that between covert and overt propaganda. This one is fairly straightforward. <b>Overt propaganda </b>is open and explicit about its message. (Think Triumph of the Will). <b>Covert propaganda, </b>on the other hand, conceals its intentions and seeks to push populations towards certain views without their being aware of whatâs going on. Again, thus far we have primarily seen overt propaganda, such as Triumph of the Will and Hitler Youth Quex. However, I think it could be argued that Olympia was less about promoting the Nazi regime than it was about affirming a particular vision of natural beauty, which seems unrelated to Nazism upon first glance.
Keeping these dichotomies in mind, let us return to the propagandistic function of Nazi cinema. Importantly, Hitler and Goebbels disagreed on how cinema should function within the larger Nazi propaganda apparatus. Whereas Hitler believed that people should know they were watching a Nazi film, Goebbels thought the opposite. Overt propaganda could often ruin the fantastic experience of the cinema and the potential for a more subtle colonization of viewer affect. In opposition to Hitlerâs all overt all the time vision of Nazi propaganda, Goebbels promoted the orchestra approach. He did not want everybody (read: medium) playing the same instrument, and instead suggested the need for a blend of overt and covert propaganda that could surround the population on all sides. Within this framework, Goebbels generally felt that films should serve as a tool of subtle, affective integration, as opposed to overt propaganda. Thus, Goebbels challenge was to seamlessly combine seductive, pleasurable entertainment with propaganda. [NOTE: While many Nazi films succeeded in this regard, Professor Rentschler suggests the need to interrogate the common presumptions that (i) all propaganda was conscious design and (ii) that people like Goebbels had complete control over a filmâs interpretation] Given Goebbels desire to blend pleasure with concealed political purpose, one cannot argue that Nazi feature films were simply tools of distraction. Although many Nazi films played passionately on the viewersâ perceived fantasies, they also worked to subtly integrate propagandistic elements into these very fantasies. In this way, one could view much Nazi cinema as integrative propaganda. However, as Professor Rentschler laments, if such subtle mechanisms could be considered propagandistic, are there any elements of modern society that escape propaganda?
As this post comes to a close, let us return to the Hitler Youth Quex. What <b>vision of a better world </b>is the film trying to provide? Although the end of the film provides an obvious discussion of a beautiful, nationalist Germany, what more can we grasp? Professor Rentschler suggests that the final scene (linked in the previous posting) reveals more than simply a recourse to nationalism. The solemn, silent cut of Heiniâs body, followed by the dissolve of his body into the Nazi banner and the reemergence of the Hitler Youth anthem produce a feeling of the oceanic, infinity of Nazi symbols, which transcend even the physicality of the partyâs members. While this closing scene certainly, as Professor Rentschler suggests, has the effect of contrasting the tidy organization of Nazi society with the disorganized brutality of communism, it also reveals the unsettling position of death and martyrdom, not as aberrations, but as constitutive aspects of the Partyâs existence. The cult of death rolls onâ¦
Surely, we (modern, Americans) could not fall pray to the propagandizing techniques of malicious institutions. When advertisements attempt to produce us as loyal consumers, we are well aware. However, the propagandists arenât naïve. As Professor Rentschler points out, the marketing firms that try and sell various ideas and items to modern populations factor skepticism into their approaches, making the âpropagandaâ element of advertising all the more complex and difficult to detect. Although we may call attention to the overtly manipulative aspects of certain ads, these campaigns are themselves paper tigers, which conceal the fact that we are only contesting what is disagreeable. In his work on the diverse types of propaganda, Jacques Ellul suggests that there are far deeper forms of manipulation, which are perpetuated through what appear as commonsense understandings and aspects of our culture. Indeed, Ellul argues that the power of propaganda is the power to conceal itself. For an example of this type of propaganda, see the following advertisement.
What commonsense understandings are implied by the rhetoric of the ad? Does the ad merely reflect a neutral understanding of masculinity, or does it function to naturalize a particularly heteronormative view?
In this post, I would like to use a discussion of several of the modalities of propaganda highlighted by Ellul as a means of sharpening our understanding of the propagandistic function of the Nazi cinema. Did Nazi films present the same type of propagandistic message? Or did the purpose of propaganda change based on the historical circumstances? Speaking of purpose, did the Nazis have complete control in the process of producing propaganda? Or was the efficacy of propaganda largely determined by viewer responses, which could not be fully colonized or predicted?
Before seeking to address these questions, let us turn to the work of Jacques Ellul. In his definitive work on propaganda entitled Propaganda: The Formation of Menâs Attitudes, Ellul proposes a number of distinct, dichotomously opposed forms of propaganda, many of which are relevant to the function of Nazi cinema and the internal conflict regarding its goals. The first dichotomy of interest relates to propaganda of agitation versus propaganda of integration. <b>Agitation propaganda</b> is widespread, subversive, and often involves a call to action. <b>Propaganda of integration,</b> on the other hand, is a more long-term propaganda that seeks not temporary excitement, but the long term ordering of an individual into a given social configuration. Often these two forms of propaganda are sequenced. Propaganda of agitation is used to compel revolution, and after the rebellion propaganda of integration is deployed to stabilize a population into a new social order. Thus far, we have really only seen the former type of propaganda. Hitler Youth Quex, for example, could be understood as a means of agitating resistance to political resistance to the Naziâs top competitor for power, communism.
Another pertinent distinction made by Ellul, and eluded to in the last post, is that between rational and irrational propaganda. While<b> rational propaganda </b>uses reason, facts, and statistics to ground its claim to authority/truth, <b>irrational propaganda </b>addresses the populationâs feelings and passions. As mentioned last time, the Nazis primarily relied upon this latter method of propaganda. Rather than producing hatred (of communism, Jews, etc) through recourse to reason, a great deal of Nazi propaganda plays on (and indeed produces) the affective terrain of the viewers.
[NOTE: Although Ellul argues that irrational propaganda is fading due to modern populationâs demand for factual explanation, the Bush administrationâs recourse to religious themes as a justification for its actions, in the face of factual counter-evidence, seems to suggest that certain populations are still quite vulnerable to irrational propaganda that plays on passions (notions of patriotism, security, retribution) as opposed to reason.]
A final dichotomy I would like to touch on before addressing Nazi cinema specific is that between covert and overt propaganda. This one is fairly straightforward. <b>Overt propaganda </b>is open and explicit about its message. (Think Triumph of the Will). <b>Covert propaganda, </b>on the other hand, conceals its intentions and seeks to push populations towards certain views without their being aware of whatâs going on. Again, thus far we have primarily seen overt propaganda, such as Triumph of the Will and Hitler Youth Quex. However, I think it could be argued that Olympia was less about promoting the Nazi regime than it was about affirming a particular vision of natural beauty, which seems unrelated to Nazism upon first glance.
Keeping these dichotomies in mind, let us return to the propagandistic function of Nazi cinema. Importantly, Hitler and Goebbels disagreed on how cinema should function within the larger Nazi propaganda apparatus. Whereas Hitler believed that people should know they were watching a Nazi film, Goebbels thought the opposite. Overt propaganda could often ruin the fantastic experience of the cinema and the potential for a more subtle colonization of viewer affect. In opposition to Hitlerâs all overt all the time vision of Nazi propaganda, Goebbels promoted the orchestra approach. He did not want everybody (read: medium) playing the same instrument, and instead suggested the need for a blend of overt and covert propaganda that could surround the population on all sides. Within this framework, Goebbels generally felt that films should serve as a tool of subtle, affective integration, as opposed to overt propaganda. Thus, Goebbels challenge was to seamlessly combine seductive, pleasurable entertainment with propaganda. [NOTE: While many Nazi films succeeded in this regard, Professor Rentschler suggests the need to interrogate the common presumptions that (i) all propaganda was conscious design and (ii) that people like Goebbels had complete control over a filmâs interpretation] Given Goebbels desire to blend pleasure with concealed political purpose, one cannot argue that Nazi feature films were simply tools of distraction. Although many Nazi films played passionately on the viewersâ perceived fantasies, they also worked to subtly integrate propagandistic elements into these very fantasies. In this way, one could view much Nazi cinema as integrative propaganda. However, as Professor Rentschler laments, if such subtle mechanisms could be considered propagandistic, are there any elements of modern society that escape propaganda?
As this post comes to a close, let us return to the Hitler Youth Quex. What <b>vision of a better world </b>is the film trying to provide? Although the end of the film provides an obvious discussion of a beautiful, nationalist Germany, what more can we grasp? Professor Rentschler suggests that the final scene (linked in the previous posting) reveals more than simply a recourse to nationalism. The solemn, silent cut of Heiniâs body, followed by the dissolve of his body into the Nazi banner and the reemergence of the Hitler Youth anthem produce a feeling of the oceanic, infinity of Nazi symbols, which transcend even the physicality of the partyâs members. While this closing scene certainly, as Professor Rentschler suggests, has the effect of contrasting the tidy organization of Nazi society with the disorganized brutality of communism, it also reveals the unsettling position of death and martyrdom, not as aberrations, but as constitutive aspects of the Partyâs existence. The cult of death rolls onâ¦