>--- Original Message ---
>From: clare spark <cspark at ix.netcom.com>
>To: debsian at pacbell.net
>Date: 1/17/02 9:22:08 AM
>
>Michael, if this interests you, feel free to circulate it.
>C.
>>Delivered-To: h-diplo at h-net.msu.edu
>>Approved-By: "H-DIPLO [Hanks]" <h-d1plo at socrates.berkeley.edu>
>>Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 06:13:39 -0800
>>Reply-To: H-NET List for Diplomatic History <h-diplo at h-net.msu.edu>
>>Sender: H-NET List for Diplomatic History <h-diplo at h-net.msu.edu>
>>From: "H-DIPLO [Hanks]" <h-d1plo at socrates.berkeley.edu>
>>Subject: Chomsky versus Lippmann [Spark]
>>To: H-DIPLO at H-NET.MSU.EDU
>>
>>From: clare spark <cspark at ix.netcom.com>
>>
>>This message responds to questions and claims offered by a
few list
>>members in December with respect to whether or not Noam Chomsky
and his
>>followers have misrepresented Walter Lippmann's positions on
the role of
>>experts and others in the formation of public opinion. Specifically,
in my
>>initial query on this list I alluded to the Chomskyite distortion
of
>>Lippmann's attitude to "the manufacture of consent" in his
book, _Public
>>Opinion_ (1922). Where Lippmann explicated a pressing social
problem for
>>democracies, Chomsky and numerous others have consistently
inverted
>>Lippmann's book to present him as an advocate of mind-management.
>>
>>Chomsky's characterization of Lippmann and his role in what
is often called
>>"elite culture" is frequently repeated in both written and
spoken form, and
>>widely disseminated to college audiences. For instance, in
his talk "Media
>>Control," at M.I.T., 3/17/91, Chomsky noted that "Walter Lippman,
who was
>>the dean of American journalists, a major foreign and domestic
policy
>>critic and also a major theorist of liberal democracy…argued
that what he
>>called a 'revolution in the art of democracy,' could be used
to
>>'manufacture consent,' that is, to bring about agreement on
the part of the
>>public for things they didn't want by the new techniques of
propaganda."
>>And speaking to the Society of Professional Journalists at
the Columbia
>>Graduate School of Journalism, 4/30/00, a graduate student
noted in the
>>Minutes for the Society, "Chomsky frames his media criticism
around Walter
>>Lippmann's famous term, "manufactured consent" The public's
role is to be
>>spectators, not participants, and that is the sound of the
trampling and
>>roar of an obedient herd." Chomsky's constant invocation of
Lippmann is
>>reflected in the title of his book co-authored with Edward
S. Herman,
>>_Manufacturing Consent: the political economy of mass media_
(1988) and in
>>the videorecording _Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and
the Media_
>>(National Film Board of Canada, 1992). The award-winning film,
an argument
>>that Chomsky has been denied access to what is commonly called
"the
>>corporate media," shows sentences on the printed page from
_Public Opinion_
>>(with the words "manufacture of consent") purportedly demonstrating
that
>>Lippmann was, in fact, a powerful advocate of mind-management
. I saw the
>>film when it was used by the Public Broadcasting System as
a fund drive
>>premium for Los Angeles station KCET and was stunned.
>>
>>As a preface to further remarks, I want to offer the following
comments
>>about the general context surrounding the debate over Lippmann
and suggest
>>the synthesis that emerges. Lippmann is frequently linked to
Freud and his
>>nephew Edward Bernays (see my bibliography below). As many
of these titles
>>suggest, Lippmann, Freud and Bernays are the "spinmeisters"
who originated
>>the practice of brainwashing the public. Both Bernays and Lippmann
had
>>worked for George Creel's Committee during the First World
War, as Chomsky
>>and his followers note. Deploying their propaganda techniques,
Bernays has
>>corrupted the working class with consumerism, and, through
symbol
>>manipulation (allegedly advocated by Lippmann, who had studied
Freud, as
>>had Bernays), they engineer the consent of the masses to the
takeover of
>>government by big business. Thus the State becomes the engine
of
>>imperialist war in the sole interest of commercial values,
hence destroying
>>the spirituality that hitherto protected and united peace-loving
>>communities. This linkage seemed to me to echo well-known populist
>>allegations that "the Jews" control the media, to the detriment
of "the
>>people" who are thereby hornswoggled. Further, according to
a recent NBC
>>television special, "Roots of Rage" Arab populations believe
that in fact
>>the Jews do control the media (I don't know if there were any
polls taken).
>>Other reports note that many Arabs believe that "Hollywood"
can make
>>anything look real, i.e. the supposedly manufactured bin Laden
tape
>>recently circulated. It is thus essential for us to be very
careful about
>>the relationship between the media and public opinion, especially
on the
>>foreign policy issues that are the focus of this discussion
group.
>>
>>Having read _Public Opinion_ and seen the numerous slams at
Lippmann
>>mentioned above, several years ago I asked Ronald Steel, Lippmann's
>>biographer, if Chomsky had not utterly mischaracterized WL's
position. He
>>said that I was correct, but then cautioned me to read_ The
Phantom
>>Public_, where I would see what an elitist Lippmann really
was. I have read
>>the latter book and also _Drift and Mastery_ (1914), written
when Lippmann
>>was only 24, an outspoken socialist, and about to become a
founding editor
>>of _The New Republic_; it is an optimistic affirmation of the
possibilities
>>of a scientifically conceived, trained, and informed democratic
polity.
>>There is no evidence that Lippmann (then or later) had contempt
for
>>democracy, let alone workers, consumers, women, or any other
members of a
>>"bewildered herd" as one list member alleges. "Bewildered"
is a word
>>Lippmann often uses, and applies it to himself and to every
other person
>>attempting to grasp the huge changes in scale and the titanic
social forces
>>aroused by industrial society, along with its sharply divergent
proposals
>>for reform or revolution. It is a modest and humble but hopeful
book, and
>>strongly influenced by Freud insofar as Lippmann wishes to
make the
>>hitherto unconscious elements of our volition susceptible to
apprehension
>>and constructive redirection. (It should be mentioned here
that Woodrow
>>Wilson and Lippmann, following Theodore Roosevelt, had divergent
views on
>>the role of experts in an industrial society [Cooper, 1983],
and the
>>Wilson-Roosevelt rivalry may be an element of the historical
sub-text
>>underlying the Chomsky-Lippmann debate.)
>>
>>The most persuasive riposte I can offer to those who believe
Chomsky (along
>>with other antagonists claiming that Lippmann was an antidemocrat,
i.e. an
>>elitist opponent of "popular sovereignty" [Riccio, 1994] is
to quote
>>relevant passages from_Public Opinion_, including the one cited
by list
>>member Charles Young (p.248) as evidence in support of the
allegation that
>>Lippmann was indeed advocating mind-control.
>>
>>First, Lippmann lays out the project of the book at the end
of his first
>>chapter "The Pictures In Our Heads."
>>
>>"The substance of the argument is that democracy in its original
form
>>never seriously faced the problem which arises because the
pictures inside
>>people's heads do not automatically correspond with the world
outside. And
>>then, because the democratic theory is under criticism by socialist
>>thinkers, there follows an examination of the most advanced
and coherent of
>>these criticisms, as made by the English Guild Socialists.
My purpose here
>>is to find out whether these reformers take into account the
main
>>difficulties of public opinion. My conclusion is that they
ignore these
>>difficulties, as completely as did the original democrats,
because they,
>>too, assume, and in a much more complicated civilization, that
somehow
>>mysteriously there exists in the hearts of men a knowledge
of the world
>>beyond their reach.
>>
>> "I argue that representative government, either in what
is ordinarily
>>called politics, or in industry, cannot be worked successfully,
no matter
>>what the basis of the election, unless there is an independent,
expert
>>organization for making the unseen facts intelligible to those
who have to
>>make the decisions. I attempt, therefore, to argue that the
serious
>>acceptance of the principle that personal representation must
be
>>supplemented by representation of the unseen facts would alone
permit a
>>satisfactory decentralization, and allow us to escape from
the intolerable
>>and unworkable fiction that each of us must acquire a competent
opinion
>>about all public affairs. It is argued that the problem of
the press is
>>confused because the critics and the apologists expect the
press to realize
>>this fiction, expect it to make up for all that was not foreseen
in the
>>theory of democracy, and the readers expect this miracle to
be performed at
>>no cost or trouble to themselves. The newspapers are regarded
by democrats
>>as a panacea for their own defects, whereas analysis of the
nature of news
>>and of the economic basis of journalism seems to show that
the newspapers
>>necessarily and inevitably reflect, and therefore, in greater
or lesser
>>measure, intensify, the defective organization of public opinion.
My
>>conclusion is that public opinions must be organized for the
press if they
>>are to be sound, not by the press as is the case today. This
organization I
>>conceive to be in the first instance the task of a political
science that
>>has won its proper place as formulator, in advance of real
decision,
>>instead of apologist, critic, or reporter after the decision
has been made.
>>I try to indicate that the perplexities of government and industry
are
>>conspiring to give political science this enormous opportunity
to enrich
>>itself and to serve the public. And, of course, I hope that
these pages
>>will help a few people to realize that opportunity more vividly,
and
>>therefore to pursue it more consciously." (pp.31-32)
>>
>>The second excerpt uses the contested term "manufacture of
consent" in the
>>chapter entitled "Leaders and the Rank and File":
>>
>>"The established leaders of any organization have great natural
advantages.
>>They are believed to have better sources of information. The
books and
>>papers are in their offices. They took part in the important
conferences.
>>They met the important people. They have responsibility. It
is, therefore,
>>easier for them to secure attention and to speak in a convincing
tone. But
>>also they have a very great deal of control over access to
the facts. Every
>>official is in some degree a censor. And since no one can suppress
>>information, either by concealing it or forgetting to mention
it, without
>>some notion of what he wishes the public to know, every leader
is in some
>>degree a propagandist. Strategically placed, and compelled
often to choose
>>even at the best between the equally cogent though conflicting
ideals of
>>safety for the institution, and candor to his public, the official
finds
>>himself deciding more and more consciously what fact, in what
setting, in
>>what guise he shall permit the public to know. [subsection
4 follows]
>> "That the manufacture of consent is capable of great
refinements,
> no
>>one, I think, denies. The process by which public opinions
arise is
>>certainly no less intricate than it has appeared in these pages,
and the
>>opportunities for manipulation open to anyone who understands
the process
>>are plain enough.
>> "The creation of consent is not a new art. It is a
very old one
>>which was supposed to have died out with the appearance of
democracy. But
>>it has not died out. It has, in fact, improved enormously in
technic,
>>because it is now based on analysis rather than on rule of
thumb. And so,
>>as a result of psychological research, coupled with the modern
means of
>>communication, the practice of democracy has turned a corner.
A revolution
>>is taking place, infinitely more significant than any shifting
of economic
>>power.
>> "Within the life of the generation now in control of
affairs,
>>persuasion has become a self-conscious art and a regular organ
of popular
>>government. None of us begins to understand the consequences,
but it is no
>>daring prophecy to say that the knowledge of how to create
consent will
>>alter every political calculation and modify every political
premise. Under
>>the impact of propaganda, not necessarily in the sinister meaning
of the
>>word alone, the old constants of our thinking have become variables.
It is
>>no longer possible, for example, to believe in the old original
dogma of
>>democracy; that the knowledge needed for the management of
human affairs
>>comes up spontaneously from the human heart. Where we act on
that theory we
>>expose ourselves to self-deception, and to forms of persuasion
that we
>>cannot verify. It has been demonstrated that we cannot rely
upon intuition,
>>conscience, or the accidents of casual opinion if we are to
deal with the
>>world beyond our reach." (247-249)
>>
>>Does Lippmann want his political science fact-finders to hide
the truth
>>from the populace; i.e. to "manufacture consent" ? In distinguishing
>>between the news and truth, he clearly intends to correct misconceptions
>>propagated by media: "...news and truth are not the same thing,
and must be
>>clearly distinguished. The function of news is to signalize
an event, the
>>function of truth is to bring to light the hidden facts, to
set them in
>>relation with each other, and make a picture of reality on
which men can
>>act. Only at these points, where social conditions take recognizable
and
>>measurable shape, do the body of truth and the body of news
coincide."
> (358)
>>
>>Lippmann's chapter "The Appeal To The Public" speaks directly
to teachers,
>>and once again reiterates his commitment to scientific method,
and the
>>mastery of the irrational (the theme of_ Drift and Mastery_).
Note that the
>>professionals are not hoarding their expertise:
>>
>>"The study of error is not only in the highest degree prophylactic,
but it
>>serves as a stimulating introduction to the study of truth.
As our minds
>>become more deeply aware of their own subjectivism, we find
a zest in
>>objective method that is not otherwise there. We see vividly,
as normally
>>we should not, the enormous mischief and casual cruelty of
our prejudices.
>>And the destruction of a prejudice, though painful at first,
because of its
>>connection with our self-respect, gives an immense relief and
fine pride
>>when it is successfully done. There is a radical enlargement
of the range
>>of attention. As the current categories dissolve, a hard, simple
version of
>>the world breaks up. The scene turns, vivid and full. There
follows an
>>emotional incentive to hearty appreciation of scientific method,
which
>>otherwise it is not easy to arouse, and is impossible to sustain.
>>Prejudices are so much easier and more interesting. For if
you teach the
>>principles of science as if they had always been accepted,
their chief
>>virtue as a discipline, which is objectivity, will make them
dull. But
>>teach them at first as victories over the superstitions of
the mind, and
>>the exhilaration of the chase and of the conquest may carry
the pupil over
>>that hard transition from his own self-bound experience to
the phase where
>>his curiosity has matured, and his reason has acquired passion."
(409-410).
>>
>>As for _The Phantom Public_ (1925), Lippmann criticizes those
who claim to
>>speak for the public interest or community or nation or society
while
>>concealing their own particular interests. He proposes that
a fully
>>pluralist political and intellectual environment will offer
the opportunity
>>for such deceptions to be exposed by the opposition. The book
is yet
>>another attempt to rethink democratic political practices,
and reiterates
>>the position that the complexity and technicalities of industrial
society
>>(modernity) put an impossible burden on individual voters,
who are asked to
>>become proficient in areas for which no one is prepared. Lippmann's
>>implication is that peer review is needed to sort out which
experts we
>>should endorse. I don't find his concern elitist, but rather
realistic.
>>This view is also consistent with his earlier critiques of
populism,
>>Marxian socialism, and Wilson's New Freedom, plus all other
movements that
>>practice reductive social labeling and neglect the concrete
individual and
>>his behavior who does not fit the ideal type of exploiter,
etc.
>>
>>It is also worth noting that a recent study of Lippmann and
his cohort
>>takes to task the revisionist historiography of the 1960s and
1970s that
>>characterized the progressives as "misleading if not dishonest."
Whereas
>>they could have been seen as persons in a dilemma: that is,
they were
>>democratic theorists without a political base that could realize
their
>>idealistic admonitions. [Thompson, 1987, 287-88] Thompson also
notes that
>>Lippmann had been contemplating a revision of democratic social
theory at
>>least since 1915 (when he was still influenced by English socialists).
>>
>>I am not an uncritical acolyte of Walter Lippmann, but I do
not see how any
>>democrat can fail to worry about the state of culture and education
during
>>the period when Lippmann was a public intellectual, or the
terrible decline
>>of standards today. I do think that it behooves scholars, as
a matter of
>>ethics and professionalism, not to distort the views of their
opponents.
>>Finally, if others on this list know of other refutations of
the Chomsky
>>claim that Lippmann is an antidemocrat and mind-manager, arch
manufacturer
>>of consent, I would like to know about them. If there are none
or few, then
>>this matter should be widely publicized, for Chomsky's bitter
and negative
>>views of American identity and U.S. foreign policy have had
a broad impact
>>on college youth and many an autodidact.
>>
>>Clare Spark, Independent Scholar
>>cspark at ix.netcom.com
>>
>>-------------------------
>>
>>Bibliography [note: there are 374 Google.com. results for the
search "Noam
>>Chomsky"+Lippmann, and 17 results for the search "Walter
>>Lippmann"+Lippmann+Freud+Bernays. Some of these are cited above
and below]
>>
>>Chomsky, Noam. "Media Control." Excerpted talk, _Alternative
Press
>>Review_. Fall 1993.
>>Chomsky, Noam and Edward S. Herman. _Manufacturing Consent:
The Political
>>Economy of Mass Media_. New York: Pantheon, 1988.
>>Cooper, John Milton, Jr.. _The Warrior and the Priest_. Cambridge:
Belknap
>>Press of Harvard University, 1983
>>Ewen, Stuart. _PR! A Social History of Spin. New York: Basic
Books, 1996.
>>Ewen, Stuart. Interviewed by David Barsamian. _Z Magazine_,
May 2000.
>>Gabler, Neal. "The Fathers of P.R." _New York Times Magazine_,
31 Dec.1995,
>>28-29.
>>Jackson, Charles E. "The Long and Influential Life of the Original
>>Spinmeister." _Boston Globe_, 23 Aug.1998, C2. Review of Larry
Tye, _The
>>Father of Spin_.
>>Lippmann, Walter. _Drift and Mastery_. New York: Mitchell Kennerly,
1914.
>>Lippmann, Walter. _Public Opinion_ . New York: Harcourt Brace,
1922.
>>Lippmann, Walter. _The Phantom Public_. New York: Harcourt
Brace, 1925.
>>Riccio, Barry D._ Walter Lippmann: Odyssey of a Liberal_. New
Jersey:
>>Transaction Publishers, 1994.
>>Thompson, John A._ Reformers and War: American progressive
publicists and
>>the First World War_. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge UP, 1987.
>>Valby, Karen. Minutes for Chomsky lecture, Society of Professional
>>Journalists, Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism,
30 April
> 2000.
>>Wintonick, Peter and Mark Achbar. _Manufacturing Consent: Noam
Chomsky and
>>the Media_. National Film Board of Canada, 1992.
>>Worth, Mark. "Who Are 'They'? Alex Carey Outs The Founders
of the American
>>Propaganda Machine." Internet review of Alex Carey, _Taking
The Risk Out of
>>Democracy_(University of Illinois Press, 1997).
>
>
>