Here is a NYT podcast with a transcript relevant to the topic: Jane Coaston and Peter Pomerantsev, who both know a good deal about propaganda, discuss propaganda in the context of Russia's war with Ukraine. At the beginning they try to define propaganda in general, and I think they do a decent job.

Propaganda is manipulative and aggressive. It does not respect its audience; it doesn't want people to think, evaluate and come to their own conclusions freely; it aims to instill a particular set of beliefs by any means necessary. It could be objected that the same characteristics can apply to other communication. This is true, but the difference here is in standards and expectations. When a conversation starts to resemble propaganda on one or both sides, we see that as a failing. But whatever your attitude towards propaganda (whether you think there can be good propaganda, as well as bad), this is no more and no less than what we expect of it.

(Personal anecdote: I briefly met Peter Pomerantsev in Prague when he was a still boy living there with his parents. I haven't had contact with him since then, though I've met his dad in London, a Russian-speaking poet and writer, originally from West Ukraine.)

Personal anecdote: I briefly met Peter Pomerantsev in Prague when he was a still boy living there with his parents. I haven't had contact with him since then, though I've met his dad in London, a Russian-speaking poet and writer, originally from West Ukraine.) — SophistiCat

Oh, how interesting.
I have only just met him as the 5th contributor to the Guardian article:
How to Solve a Problem: Like Putin
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/670017

Thanks for your link to the podcast discussing propaganda. Will take a look, later.

I prefer the neutral definition of propaganda, under which it is not necessarily about spreading falsehoods, but is primarily meant to change minds, influence behaviour, or gain support. — jamalrob

Under this definition how would propaganda differ from education?

Ideally, education equips you with a wide range of knowledge and opinion, allowing you to make up your own mind. Propaganda is always one-sided. Of course, educational institutions and education policy can be used for propaganda purposes as well.

Propaganda is always one-sided — jamalrob

Fair enough, although I question whether this really qualifies as 'neutral'. Is purposefully presenting only 'one side of the story' not a form a deception?

I don't think presenting only one side of the story, or trying to influence behaviour and gain support for a cause, are always bad, and in that sense the definition is neutral, as opposed to the pejorative definition under which propaganda is always bad.

Whether propaganda is always deceptive in some sense, I'm not sure. Groups of people fight for their interests, and part of that effort is spreading their agendas, without spreading those of their enemies. This is inescapable in societies that allow contestation. Of course, we might expect that, for example, journalists who are covering these conflicts should present both sides and avoid propaganda.

I think what's tripping me up about this definition is that it would seem to imply that all discourse qualifies as propaganda. After all, there is no value-neutral discourse, even granting that neutrality may sometimes be held up as an ideal worth striving for (e.g. your definition of 'education' above). What distinguishes the propagandist (as traditionally understood) is the means they're willing to use to disseminate their viewpoints, not the mere fact that they are advocating a viewpoint.

I see what you mean. But a propagandist aims to do more than get people to agree with him; he wants to make you do something, or go along with something. And surely it's also about the simplicity of the communication, its rhetorical, sloganeering nature?

Anyway, I'm not going to fight hard for the "neutral" definition. It just seems to work for the things I commonly regard as propaganda.

I see what you mean. But a propagandist aims to do more than get people to agree with him; he wants to make you do something, or go along with something. And surely it's also about the simplicity of the communication, its rhetorical, sloganeering nature? — jamalrob

I see 'agreement' as a first step along the road toward action - a difference of 'degree' rather than 'kind'. That said, I do agree that rhetoric and symbolism often play greater role in propaganda than in some other forms of discourse.

Anyway, I'm not going to fight hard for the "neutral" definition. It just seems to work for the things I commonly regard as propaganda. — jamalrob

No problem. I don't think it's 'wrong' per se. I'm just testing it out a little to see if I'd ever want to use the term in this way.

Oh, how interesting.
I have only just met him as the 5th contributor to the Guardian article:
How to Solve a Problem: Like Putin
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/670017 — Amity

Thanks, I'll have a look.

:smile:
Great!
I look forward to your thoughts.
I'm struggling a bit.

Corrected the title of the thread to that of the article:
'How do we solve a problem like Putin? Five leading writers on Russia have their say'.

I know this. Unlike many here I do know how to look up definitions of terms.

My view was based on the premise that the ‘average joe’ takes propaganda as something more strongly attached to patriotism than anything else. I may be completely wrong about this, which is fine.

My thought was whether or not ‘propaganda’ (as in the real meaning) would be more or less of a problem if nationhood wasn’t a thing? I played with this idea as it seems to me that a lack of patriotism/nationhood would reduce tribalism to some degree, and that ‘propaganda’ relies on a sense of tribalism at some level. If the general population of the planet abstained from ‘patriotism’ then I suggesting that maybe ‘propaganda’ would not be as much of a problem. Not that patriotism is the singular driving force of propaganda but I do believe that tribalism is and that patriotism is a more substantial form of tribalism - even though there is some ‘good’ within it.

Here is an offering from MUSE:



Propaganda permeates all levels of society, even between two people in a relationship as suggested by MUSE above so, I think its always been used to 'show your tribe/nation,' as the best one available. Is there any country (apart from perhaps the poorest ones) whose leaders do not constantly publically claim that their country and their politics is the best country and the best politics in the world ever ever EVER!