Ideology and the Individual: The Use and Misuse of Labels in Political Propaganda

I d d i n s I d e o l o g y a n d t h e I n d i v i d u a l | 1

Ideology and the Individual: The Use and Misuse of Labels in Political Propaganda

James Michael IddinsValparaiso University Graduate Studies

The division of the political realm into “wings” is one oversimplification typical of

propaganda that both the “left” and the “right” have in common. These “wings” are imaginary

communities where some situate themselves in order to make meaning and belong. It is my

suspicion that these high order abstractions, which we often hear used to describe

combinations of views, necessarily obscure our real thoughts and opinions on real issues. It

seems that these labels are what we often refer to as over-generalizations or stereotypes. If this

is true, do current political labels not make coherent dialogue, and thus real progress,

impossible? It seems that present popular labels are essentially mislabels. I grant that general

labels are often useful and necessary. As Walter Lippman (1922) observed, “inevitably our

opinions cover a bigger space, a longer reach of time, a greater number of things, than we can

directly observe. They have, therefore, to be pieced out of what others have reported and what

we can imagine” (79). All the same, there is a line where over-generalization occurs. In order to

actually accomplish anything in a conversation, is it not first necessary that we be clear on what

we are discussing? While it is doubtless necessary for humans to group themselves and form

meaning, might we be unconsciously sabotaging ourselves through mislabeling or over-

generalization?

In this discussion of the subject matter, it will be helpful to utilize evidence from various

disciplines. One sociologist who provides a nice starting point is Howard S. Becker (1963), a


pioneer of labeling theory. While labeling theory in sociology primarily deals with labeling

someone or something as deviant in society, it is still highly applicable regardless of what label

is being applied in the grouping process. Becker explains that the process of taking sides is

actually the process of creating sides. Consciously or unconsciously this process evokes the very

traits which we claim existed prior to the grouping process. This then makes it all the more

easier to begin lumping the grey into categories of black and white. Becker believes that we

should “…direct our attention in research and theory building to the questions: who applied the

label…to whom? What consequences does the application of a label have for the person so

labeled? Under what circumstances is the label…successfully applied?” (Becker, 3). Becker

believes that individuals artificially create categories and sides by also making the rules as to

what constitutes being lumped in or out of a certain category. If we adopt this perspective, we

realize that a label is not based on “a quality of the act a person commits”, but rather the

application of manufactured rules to that individual’s act or belief.

Biologist Desmond Morris (1969) notes the human’s innate tendency to divide their

surroundings into groups so as to be able to make sense of large amounts of information. This is

a mental shortcut that makes human intelligence possible. Labels are the mental anchors for

grouping. He then says, “Biologically speaking, man has the inborn task of defending three

things: himself, his family, and his tribe” (125). With the disappearance of the traditional tribe

and the emergence of what Morris calls the super-tribe (the nation), man’s tribe is not as

obvious anymore, so man is always seeking to better define who is the ‘us’ and who is the

‘them’. This dualistic framing of the world, then serves as a sort of pragmatic shorthand to aid


the human in making decisions regarding what would otherwise be highly complex amounts of

information. From this we get the phenomenon of the in-group and the out-group.

Morris asks: “What is it that makes a human individual one of ‘them’, to be destroyed

like a verminous pest, rather than one of ‘us’, to be defended like a dearly beloved brother?

What is it that puts him into an out-group and keeps us in the in-group?” (130). He then notes

how it used to be easier to recognize, label, and lump ‘them’ when they belonged to an entirely

different culture, but that even sub-groups within a super-tribe, or nation, have enough

differences and common denominators to achieve this. Learning Seed, a company that

develops educational programs concerning diversity and psychology, explains a key distinction:

“Making categories is not prejudice. Prejudice is a preconceived judgment or opinion without

just grounds or before sufficient knowledge. Prejudice is one step further than simply making a

category – it is judging the “thems” or their behavior as somehow inferior to “us”” (6). Learning

Seed describes how we are taught these habits of judging different artificial categories from our

parents, teachers, and larger society, just as we are taught our language and other customs. We

end up thinking about our own situation in terms of particulars and the situations of others in

terms of generalizations, often over-generalizations.

Unfortunately the tendencies to group and form prejudices are often exploited by

propagandists, political and otherwise, and used to oversimplify complex issues to our

detriment. Public policy scholar Kathleen Jamieson and communications theorist Joseph

Cappella (2008) discuss the use of “insider language” and “disparaging labels” as means to

solidify the mental distinctions between in-groups and out-groups, noting that these tactics


often ridicule and contribute to “polarization and balkanization1” (183). They point out that

these moves “distance those who adopt the labels from those labeled” (184). Tactics such as

these solidify not only group boundaries, but also bring prejudice into the equation, often

unconsciously.

One of the first points to consider when we look at the social and political process of

labeling is the notion of framing. Jamieson and Cappella describe this tactic: “Frames focus on

some facets of a story and not others, invite the audience to accept some assumptions over

others, and imply some questions while ignoring others” (6). Jamieson and Capella tell us that

those common frames in reporting which concerns the political realm utilize the notions of

conflict and strategy. Psychologists Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman (1981) use a metaphor

to assist us in understanding how various media frame choices for us:

If while traveling in a mountain range you notice that the apparent relative height of mountain peaks varies with your vantage point, you will conclude that some impressions of relative height must be erroneous, even when you have no access to the correct answer. Similarly, one may discover that the relative attractiveness of options varies when the same decision problem is framed in different ways.

These scholars illustrate for us laymen how seemingly miniscule changes in formulations of

choices cause significant shifts in preference. Our perception of a mountain’s height varies as

we move up or down, forward or back, just as our choices do. Once our shifts in preference

have been made, we may actually lump ourselves since it is our natural tendency to do so and

categories have been conveniently suggested to us. This aligns with Becker’s assertion that

most people automatically assume the rules implied in the questions asked. Thus, we see what

1 Refers to the way customized media materials “…will allow, even encourage, individuals to live in their own personally constructed worlds, separated from people and issues that they don’t care about or don’t want to be bothered with” (191).


R. K. Merton (1948) refers to as a self-fulfilling prophecy, which occurs when “a perceiver’s false

belief influences the perceiver’s treatment of a target which, in turn, shapes the target’s

behavior in an expectancy-consistent manner” (193).

If some questions and options are excluded from discussion by the very framing of the

dialogue, how are we to know, unless we are abnormally vigilant which options are excluded

and why? The sad truth is that framers are well-aware most people have made decisions which

entail the sacrifice of the time needed to be so vigilant, such as raising a family or working full

time. As we will see, they often exploit this weakness. They frame issues as overly simplistic as

possible, packaging the world in terms of black and white, good and evil, us and them, thus

eliminating all grey area and the limitless amount of possibilities that come with it. Public

relations expert Edward Bernays (1928) elaborated on this topic: “In theory, every citizen makes

up his mind on public questions and matters of private conduct. In practice, if all men had to

study for themselves the abstruse economic, political, and ethical data involved in every

question, they would find it impossible to come to a conclusion about anything” (10-11) italics

mine. As Lippman adds, “…the attempt to see all things freshly and in detail, rather than as

types and generalities, is exhausting, and among busy affairs practically out of the question”

(88).

To carry out this sifting, simplifying, and packaging process which the political

propagandists undertake, they do not consult any moral compass, but instead consult the

weather vein of public opinion. This data can be gathered from self-report surveys, or, as is

now coming into fashion, control groups which can be psychoanalyzed2. Based on the results of

2 See PBS’s FRONTLINE documentary, The Persuaders


this polling, the persuaders can then come up with “…clichés, pat words or images which stand

for a whole group of ideas and experiences” (Bernays, 1928, 50). The propagandist can design

talking points around these results, so that the individual with little time to do his own research

feels that he or she has educated themselves. The individual then holds a string of neatly

packaged phrases with which they can demonstrate to their fellows that they are “in the

know”. Bernays admits that once public opinion has been manipulated and the public won over

to a “side” of an issue, it may then be misused tyrannically, but seems to take heart in the fact

that modern man has many avenues for making his changing opinion known (Bernays,

Manipulating…, 1928, 960). This seems a rather vague and inadequate treatment of such a

monolithic concern.

Look, if you will, at the American two-party system. Are we to believe that two parties

represent the diverse opinions from the larger part of a continent? Surely this is not so, though

we allow ourselves to be led into believing it is the case. Circle Research Group (2009) indicates

that in the 2008 election only 64% of those eligible to vote did so (Kirby, 2). Political science

scholar John Richard Petrocik (2009) then notes that 40% of that 64% identify with the

“independent” category, though he questions the number of people who will actually act

independently rather than resort to one of the two ready-made options. At any rate, it is clear

that there is no place in our current political system for a large number of opinions and that

many do not consider the system even worthy of attention. Faced with such a scenario, it

seems the function of political propaganda is to put walls up in our minds, to trap us on this

vast continent into Manichean worldviews, thus closing off creative and unpredictable options

for government or nongovernment. Historian Stephen Davies (2010) notes how this


phenomenon has been present throughout the history of America. He explains how, through

propaganda, those opposed to what was at the time known as a federalized government

successfully adopted the label “federalist” to utilize positive associations with the word, even

though technically the word meant something quite contrary to what the party stood for.

Through this successful maneuver, the group was able to evoke a popular stigma and defeat the

real federalists, who came to be seen only in the negative (anti-federalist). Not only did this

sleight of hand win the group popular support, but it changed the popular definition of the

word.

Davies then makes an observation with regard to the current use of the term

conservative in the United States. He says, “the problem is the identification of the word liberal

with what is broadly social democracy and progressivism. This has become so strong that the

term conservative is being picked up and used as the obvious counterpoint as a way of

resistance to this kind of intrusive managerialism” (Time to Revive…). He explains how this

makes the water significantly muddy in regard to accurately describing where one stands on

any given issue. This use of the word conveniently obscures the fact that in the past

conservatism has typically been associated with conserving tradition. He continues, describing

more broadly the way in which labels and assumptions operate to confuse real issues and make

dialogue difficult:

The labels which people apply to particular political positions or combinations of views tend to limit their conception of what the range of possible combinations is. [People] will tend to typically try and force you into one of the opposites that is there rather than think ‘oh, well there isn’t a label commonly available’ (Time to Revive…).


Being lumped into over-generalized opposites, is it any wonder that politics tends to move so

slow and be so inefficient? The American political system is locked in a stalemate, where

“democratic” policy looks strangely similar to “republican” policy, because we have placed

ourselves in contrived categories which are diametrically opposed to each other.

This is the common propaganda of the “left” and the “right”, that the grey area in life

can be divided into black and white. As Davies points out, this is the point at which a label

evolves into an ideology, a relatively coherent belief system. As French philosopher and

sociologist Jacques Ellul (1966) notes, “ideologies emerge where doctrines are degraded and

vulgarized and when an element of belief enters into them” (193 & 194). From this, one may

deduce that other doctrines outside the realm of ideology rest on reasoned principles or self-

evident truths. It also seems we may deduce from this statement that a shift into ideology also

constitutes a shift towards a civic or secular religion. Ideologies, in the popular sense of the

word, by their very nature include one group of ideas at the exclusion of all others. In fact,

change or adaption would destroy the relative coherency of the ideology. So what we see is a

type of all-or-nothing approach. What starts with a mislabel often ends with one tied to an

ideology that he or she may not necessarily agree with.

As Ellul further notes, this is actually the job of good propaganda, to obscure the issues

when needed, tell only partial truths, and frame issues so that other options are automatically

excluded from dialogue. He makes a sharp observation in regard to media outlets as

propaganda vehicles: “All propaganda has to set off its group from all other groups. Here we

find again the fallacious character of the intellectual communication media…, which, far from

uniting people and bringing them together, divide them all the more” (212) italics mine. To take


this analysis one more step, I would say it is important to note that even when these media

outlets bring people together, it is often under false pretenses. While this may prove to be

temporarily expedient, as in the case of elections, passing bills, and promoting war campaigns,

it is hardly effective in building sustained group solidarity or filling the void left vacant by real

convictions.

Two factors that are successful in building sustained group solidarity and creating real

conviction are socio-economic and political ills. Propagandists and ideologues are well-aware of

this fact. The unquestioning and faith-like acceptance of policy is the dream of the power-

hungry. Social psychologist Ellis Freeman (1964) gets to the heart of this matter: “The more

exhausted, degenerate, decadent, degraded, defeated, or sometimes simply bored a people

are, the less likely they will be inclined to deal with reality and the more they will resort to

wishful soothsaying” (33). He explains how propagandists play upon this tendency in the

promotion of their favored ideology and claims that this is possible because of the long-held

“human desire to control the world with speed and ease, to find a solution at once despite

ignorance of means” (33). With this knowledge under our belts, it seems it is of supreme

advantage to those in power not to correct social and political ills, but to compound them, thus

making the ground all the more fertile for sowing the seeds of blind faith and making real

dialogue further impossible.

Circling back around to answer Becker’s questions regarding labeling theory, we see that

propagandists and ideologues are the ones that attempt to make known what label should be

applied and to whom. Whether this be a news anchor, talk radio host, or a president’s speech

writer, these individuals make sure that any inconvenient labels are excluded from discussion


through framing. The consequence this type of labeling has for the person so labeled is a

removal from the creative process of forming the grey area into new options. He or she,

whether on the giving or receiving end, will most likely then form emotional stigmas and

assumptions based on the over-generalized options presented. While this process conveniently

simplifies political decisions for those who have little time, it is also a drastic misrepresentation

of reality, one which makes the nation, as an idea, possible. Thus from the imaginary

community created in the process of labeling, others follow. The circumstances under which

political labels are successfully applied are exactly what we see today – a populace too

distracted, busy, bored or disillusioned to remain vigilant.

With all this evidence at our feet, we come to see that we still have a few options. We

could, like Bernays embrace this trend towards media manipulation and propagandizing of

information, letting the so called “invisible government” of the media outlets sift information

for us. We could criticize and condemn the all-too-common moral corruption present in this

trend, but come to the conclusion that we still wish to live in the “modern” or technologized

world. In such a case, vigilance and self-education is the key. One must be aware that this

entails a significant time commitment and embrace this fact. Or we might come to the

conclusion, as many of our elders did, that local or community government is the only solution

to the propagandizing of information. It is much easier to make informed decisions if one is

experiencing firsthand the raw material out of which the decision is to be made. There is much

truth to this notion.

Even when we would not change our decisions with the questions more neutrally

formulated or put in the proper context, still the habit of consulting misinformation remains


dangerous. The knowledge of how this process works is highly relevant in answering how

decisions ought to be made as well. Perhaps there is good reason why humans can only process

so much information – that healthy and informed communities are often only possible on a

small scale. We must educate ourselves on this topic if we wish to minimize the extent to which

we are manipulated. We help the lies along by repeating to ourselves pre-manufactured talking

points and rationalizations that it is “our duty” to vote and that “men died for this”. Perhaps we

are unsure what to make of all the political noise… All the same, it is important to dwell upon

the consequences and considerations here put forth, for inevitably we all fall prey to

mislabeling at one time or another.


Bibliography

Bernays, Edward. (1928). Propaganda. New York: Horace Liveright.-(1928). Manipulating Public Opinion: The Why and How. The American Journal of Sociology, 33:6, 958-971.

Becker, Howard S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. New York: Free Press.Berreby, David. (2005). Us and Them: Understanding Your Tribal Mind. Boston: Little, Brown

and Company.Davies, Stephan. (2010). Time to Revive ‘Individualism’? (lecture). Christ Church: University of

Oxford. Oxford Libertarian Society.Ellul, Jacques. (1966). Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes. New York: Alfred A.

Knopf.Freeman, Ellis. (1940). Conquering the Man in the Street: A Psychological Analysis of

Propaganda in War, Fascism, and Politics. New York: The Vanguard Press.French, F.C. (1908). Group Self-consciousness: A Stage in the Evolution of the Mind. Discussion.

Omaha: The University of Nebraska. Pp. 197-200.Jamieson, K. H. and Cappella, J. N. (2008). Echo Chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the Conservative

Media Establishment. New York: Oxford University Press.Kirby, E. H. & Kawashima-Ginsberg, K. (2009). Fact Sheet: The Youth Vote in 2008 (pamphlet).

Medford, MA: The Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE) of Tufts University.

Lai, J.H-W, Bond, M.H. & Hui, N. H-H. (2007). The Role of Social Axioms in Predicting Life Satisfaction. Journal of Happiness Studies, 8, 517-535.

Learning Seed. (2007). Them and Us: Prejudice and Self-Understanding. Lake Zurich, IL: Learning Seed Productions.

Lippmann, Walter. (1922). Public Opinion. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Company.Merton, R.K. (1948). The Self-fulfilling Prophecy. Antioch Review, 8, 193-210.Morris, Desmond. (1969). The Human Zoo. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.


Petrocik, John Richard. (2009). Measuring party support: Leaners are not independents. Electoral Studies, 28:4, 562-572.

Plummer, K. (unknown year). Labeling Theory. Historical, Conceptual, and Theoretical Issues, 1, 191-194.

Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1981). The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice. Science, New Series, 211: 4481, 453-458.

Ideology and the Individual: The Use and Misuse of Labels in Political Propaganda

Documents

Transcript of Ideology and the Individual: The Use and Misuse of Labels in Political Propaganda