Propaganda or What?

It’s easy to fall into the trap of believing that all the world’s political and social problems could be solved if we could just somehow correct the lack of thinking that is all too common. Progressives talk about education. Conservatives talk about religion. So many strive and strategize to make their voice heard above others, to somehow appeal to the masses. All of our media is used not only to inform and entertain, but to persuade. Even individuals through their social media try to leave a lasting impression of one point of view or another. I’m doing it now.

I once spent time brainstorming about how the power of storytelling, through fiction or film, could be harnessed as a tool for good, a vehicle to deliver a right way to think about life. Then I realized all of it was propaganda. I was no different from everyone else who has sought to control the thinking of others.

People talk about changing the world. Is there any way to do that without controlling or influencing others? (The answer is yes. Technology is one way to change and benefit the world that isn’t focused on controlling people. Except for technology that is designed to control or influence.)

Indeed, a huge portion of human enterprise is focused on controlling and influencing the behavior of others. The law. Advertising. Media. Art. Religion. Cosmetics. To say nothing of more overt efforts like political and military campaigns.

When you post on social media, you are contributing to create an opportunity for advertisers to reach and influence the behavior of your friends and followers. Some embrace this openly, calling themselves influencers, accepting money and free stuff to influence followers on behalf of advertisers. If anyone thinks through the ethics of this, they do so through the lens of how the world works.

Should you reject control and influence?

I think the answer can be found in the Golden Rule. Do you want to be controlled by others? Do you want to be influenced by others? This can be challenging to consider, because we live in a society that controls and influences us at every turn.

The majority of us consider the law to be a good thing, and indeed it is a net positive for us, but there are obvious examples of how the law goes too far in attempting to control us. For liberals, think abortion laws. For conservatives, think gun laws. Some ways the law harms us are more subtle. For example, taxes are enforced through the law, but a significant portion of our tax burden goes to benefit a small minority of wealthy special interests.

It’s also not obvious to everyone that different forms of influence exist together on a spectrum. Most people can find fault with at least one of the following: QAnon conspiracy theories, antivax conspiracy theories, fascist ideology, socialist ideology, Christian indoctrination, Islamic indoctrination, critical race theory, or white supremacy. Can these be equated with efforts to sell skin-care products, fitness gear, video games, and cell phones? Perhaps not. Certainly, some are more honest than others. However, consider that they all exist to use masses of people for purposes that serve a small group of people.

(As I’m writing this, I’m seeing there must be a clear line of distinction. Unless you reject capitalism completely, you must recognize that everyone must earn a living. Selling things benefits that business only, but collectively everyone is part of some business, and things need to be sold for employees to make a living. This is entirely different from the political and social ideologies I listed above, which serve very different kinds of purposes, and which are mostly nefarious. This topic probably deserves its own discussion.)

What if you reject control and influence?

To do so, you must first recognize your own motivations to control or influence others. Then you must suppress them. Instead, you must choose to accept that people will do what they want.

The United States just made a ridiculous choice for President. Right now, Donald Trump is appointing saboteurs as the new heads of every department in the federal government. I wish very strongly that people would wake up and realize what the consequences of that will be. I’m constantly thinking of ways to adjust their thinking. But is that ethical? Is it even a productive use of my time?

So, no, I won’t write a screenplay that is a metaphor for what happens when you put a demented populist in charge of your government. No, I won’t go onto social media and explain to all of the individual dimwits the fallacies of their thinking.

Instead, I will remind myself that even though 99% of the world is less intelligent than me (by IQ percentile, not exaggeration), everyone has as much right as I do to guide the course of their lives and our collective democracy. People can be wrong, and do wrong things, but they are still people. I just live on the same planet as them. They may bring the whole thing down on our heads, and I may suffer with them, but it is not my right to stop them.

What about food for thought?

Is there a category of philosophical or ideological influence that is, shall we say, innocent? I’m thinking of art and fiction that is less on-the-nose. The kind of art that makes you think without telling you what to think.

Making someone think is, of course, a form of control. But going back to the Golden Rule, who would tell you that they don’t want to think? Well, a lot of people, I guess. But if you don’t want to think, they why would you be looking at art and reading books? They wouldn’t, of course. And there you go: you aren’t really making them think. By choosing to look at art or read a story, they have already chosen to partake in an experience that will cause them to think. What you are really doing through your art is giving them something to think about.

Offering something to think about is not control. It might be influence, but only if the offering is so narrowly devised as to dictate only one conclusion.

I’m going to continue to mull this over. It will inform the debate I’ve been having in my head about the kind of writing to do: pulp for entertainment, or “literature” that has meaning.

Update: Haha, and then the New York Times posts this: The Surprising Allure of Ignorance