Propanganda AND HOW IT Works PDF

Preview

Summary

PROPANGANDA AND HOW IT WORKSINTRODUCTION:Noam Chomsky and Michael Foucault are two names that come to mind. Postmodernism and poststructuralism are inextricably linked. Chomsky and Foucault discuss control in different but complementary ways. Both of these academics have studied the intensities with...

Description

PROPANGANDA AND HOW IT WORKS INTRODUCTION: Noam Chomsky and Michael Foucault are two names that come to mind. Postmodernism and poststructuralism are inextricably linked. Chomsky and Foucault discuss control in different but complementary ways. Both of these academics have studied the intensities with which modern states or societies operate. They have revealed how modern control systems operate. While Chomsky goes on to explain how modern states manufacture consent, Foucault explains how the knowledge-power divide persists and how these two ideas are derived from one another. It's worth noting that both of these distinguished scholars have disentangled a great deal of ambiguity, suspicion, and secrecy about how modern societies work. Let's begin with a brief introduction to Michael Foucault. Michel Foucault (1926–1984) was born in the French town of Pouters. He was the eldest son of a renowned surgeon. Foucault did not excel in school; his brilliance emerged only during his college years, and he was then accepted into one of France's most prestigious universities. He went on to study philosophy and psychology and earned degrees in both. His illustrious academic status, on the other hand, did not come easily. Foucault has been and continues to be a source of theoretical stimulation for a wide range of disciplines, and the term "Foucaultian" has become a term used interchangeably across disciplines. Despite a few setbacks early in his academic career, Foucault went on to become one of France's most influential intellectuals. Foucault continued to write important books on some of the most powerful social institutions in the West, such as medicine, prisons, and religion, alongside works on more abstract theoretical concepts of power, knowledge, sexuality, and selfhood, after his thesis on the history of the concept of "madness" was accepted in France in 1961. While the subjects of Foucault's research appear to be diverse, they are all concerned with how human knowledge is inextricably linked to power over them. Noam Chomsky is a linguist, historian, philosopher, cognitive scientist, political activist, and social critic who lives in the United States. He has also made a significant contribution to academia. He has worked at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) since 1955 and is now Institute Professor Emeritus. He has written over 100 books on a variety of subjects.

Linguistics, media politics, and war are all topics that I'm interested in. His full name is Avram Noam Chomsky, and he was born in Philadelphia on December 7, 1928. Chomsky and his younger brother were raised in a Jewish household by their parents, who were both Hebrew scholars. Chomsky's mother was more left-wing than her husband, and it was through her that Chomsky developed an interest in social and political issues. Chomsky's knowledge spans a wide range of disciplines, and his ideas, from multiple perspectives, highlight key issues. Chomsky's biographer Wolfgang B. Sperlich describes him as "one of the most notable contemporary champions of the people," (Sperlich 2006). Chomsky is "one of the greatest, most radical public thinkers of our time," according to Arundhati Roy (ibid) POWER FOUCAULT Because it marked a departure from other conceptualizations and traditional understandings of power, Foucault's work on power is regarded as a landmark. Foucault has had a significant and far-reaching impact on and alteration of understandings of power, constructing new models that depart from the traditional understanding of power as essentially coercion. Not only that, but his ideas on power have extended far beyond the structures in which 'apparently' power operates. By using the common Foucauldian phrase "power is everywhere," it will be easier to comprehend his ideas on power. As a result, Foucault provides a deconstructed version of traditional theory, which generally speaks of power concentration in the hands of a few. "His work marks a radical departure from previous modes of conceiving power and cannot easily be integrated with previous ideas, as power is diffuse rather than concentrated, embodied and enacted rather than possessed, discursive rather than purely coercive, and constitutes rather than is deployed by agents." 1 (Gaventa, 2003) As a result, we can see how Foucault challenges traditional power definitions in some ways. He does not believe that power is wielded or wielded by individuals or groups; rather, he sees power as dispersed, as he claims that power is everywhere. This understanding of power also implies that Foucault does not see power as constituted by an agency or a structure. Power, according to

Foucault, is a "regime of truth" that exists everywhere in society and is constantly in flux and negotiation. Power is derived from accepted forms of knowledge, from scientific understandings of truth, according to the power/knowledge dichotomy. Power, according to Foucault, exists everywhere and comes from everywhere. It was a crucial concept for Foucault because power acted as a kind of interpersonal relationship; it was an intricate form of tactic for him, which was capable of secretly influencing another's behaviour Power had no negative consequences for Foucault. Power did not reject, contain, expurgate, camouflage, or obscure things in his eyes. Foucault, on the other hand, saw it as a producer of reality, as he put it. "It generates object domains and truth rituals" The importance of power, he claimed, was always evident in the effect it has on whole arrangements, practises, and the world around us, and how it comes to impact and influence our behaviour, but never in its own right. FOUCAULT ON THE POWER OF KNOWLEDGE Knowledge and power are not separate concepts for Foucault. Though knowledge and power are unrelated variables in his analysis, they are inextricably linked. For him, knowledge is a form of power, and power is a function of knowledge. In a series of works, Foucault explored the concept of knowledge; it was in his work, History of Sexuality, that he elucidates the knowledge/power equation using the example of a 'confession' in a Christian church. Foucault goes on to explain how the people were mandated or expected to tell the truth in the confession chamber by means of the church, which when examined appears to be a source of power. In some ways, telling the truth was a method of producing knowledge. This knowledge could cover a wide range of topics, from personal to professional. This illustration demonstrates how Foucault viewed knowledge and power as two sides of the same coin. Knowledge and power, he believed, were both restrictive and productive at the same time. So, in a nutshell, Foucault spoke in opposition to traditional notions of power. From two perspectives, Foucault was critical of earlier theories of power: (a) the economic understanding of power, and (b) the legal understanding of power. He is vehemently opposed to both an economic and a legal analysis of power, both of which give it a commodity-like quality and allow it to be traded.

as suggested by liberal theories, acquired or exchanged from one person to another through a contract. Simultaneously, Foucault is wary of and critical of the legal theories' repressive characterization of power, and suggests that such an understanding of power should be reconsidered. The exercise of power was also discussed by Foucault. To understand this, he established two boundaries: (a) the first is associated with the 'rules of right,' which officially constrain power, and (b) the second is associated with the effects of truth or knowledge formed and transmitted by power, which in turn give rise to power. As a result, he claims, the three entities of power, right, and knowledge produce a three-way connection or triangle in this stance. He is interested in power's conceptualizations and meanings, and he vehemently opposes the notion of power as a prerogative or right to be exercised over others by one person or group, rather than as something that circulates and is not concentrated. "Through power, we are subjected to the production of truth, and we cannot exercise power unless we produce truth." To put it another way, power is exercised through discourses of truth that must first be authenticated by a learned society. Knowledge, according to Foucault, is the ability to pass certain testimonials off as true among others (Allen, 1999). The community determines what qualifies as knowledge and what qualifies as a manifestation of power. As a result, power circulates throughout society, producing and being governed by a society's accepted local practises and discourses. Because he was concerned about people's freedom, Foucault became interested in the issue of power. Power reaches into the very grain of individuals, touches their bodies, and inserts itself into their actions and attitudes, discourses, learning processes, and daily lives, as he wrote for himself (Foucault 1980: 30). To put it another way, knowledge is a form of power for Foucault, and knowledge can be gained from power, which leads to power again. As a result, knowledge is inextricably linked to power for him. Foucault had borrowed the idea of the Panopticon from Jeremy Bentham in order to expand on his ideas. Bentham proposed a Panopticon design for prisons, asylums, schools, hospitals,

and factories in the mid-nineteenth century. In the sense that it was based on the needs of a modern democratic state, this idea was very modern. Coercion, torture, and other atypical methods used in monarchical states could not be used to regulate citizens in a modern state. As a result, the Panopticon provided an alternative. It was a well-organized system of power and systematised internal coercion based on the constant observation of the prisoners or others, depending on the situation, in isolation with no communication or interaction. This advanced structure would allow the guards to keep a constant eye on each cell from a high central tower, hidden from the eyes of the inmates. As a result, continuous surveillance served as a control mechanism, as the inmates internalised the fact that they were being watched at all times. In his theory, Foucault used the Panopticon as a metaphor. He applied it to people in disciplinary situations and social control. This aided him in comprehending the knowledge-power divide. He came to the conclusion that under any form of surveillance, acceptance emerges, as well as docility. There is a sense of normalisation, which is inescapably induced by the threat of discipline. As a result, expected behaviours are the result of a Panoptic discipline and the induction of people to follow such internalisation. As a result, the observer, in this case the state, is powerful, and the knowledge it gains from observation makes it even more powerful, so knowledge leads to power, which leads to power, which leads back to knowledge. Individuals were fabricated in a social order, according to Foucault, and there was an explicit penetration of power into the lives and behaviour of the individuals. The danger arises as power and knowledge grow stronger as a result of observation. Furthermore, when knowledge is controlled by a small group of people, As a result, oppression becomes a possibility. This necessitates the disclosure of who records and observes our actions, as well as who records and observes those who are powerful. As a result, Foucault's analysis of power aids our understanding of how control systems operate in modern states and societies. It makes us wonder about the theoretical understandings he develops while also assisting us in identifying the issues of living in a twenty-first century state where all individual actions are left to the knowledge of entities seeking it. The power-knowledge divide has only gotten worse thanks to modern technology.

NOAM CHOMSKY PROPAGANDA

ON

MANUFACTURING

CONSENT

AND

The importance of propaganda, according to Chomsky, lies in what Walter Lippman referred to as the "manufacture of consent." Indeed, as Chomsky points out, Lippmann himself wrote in the 1920s that propaganda had become a common tool of popular government and that it (propaganda) had lost its sophistication and significance. Chomsky uses a "free market" analysis to try to understand how the entire process of manufacturing consent by propaganda works, demonstrating that these processes are largely controlled and manipulated by a market consciousness and market forces. Because, as he states, there is an obviously deliberate manufacturing process. The majority of influenced media choices are the result of a pre-selection of right-thinking people, internalised presumptions, and personnel adaptations to ownership, organisation, market, and political power limitations. And the censorship process is largely self-censorship by people in the media, who make concessions to the realities of sources and media organisational requirements, and by people at the top levels of media houses and organisations, who are chosen to implement and have grown accustomed to the limitations imposed on them by the market and the centres of power. Despite the fact that the mass media began as a system and a means of communication and entertainment, their functions have expanded significantly over time. Despite the fact that the media continues to amuse, inform, and entertain, but these functions of the media are now directed toward a larger goal. This larger goal is to instil in individuals the norms and traditions that will allow them to fit into the larger society's institutional structures; and in a world of concentrated wealth and major conflicts of self-interest, this goal can only be achieved through a model of systematic propaganda. Chomsky claims that in countries where a state bureaucracy wields power, the monopolistic control over the media is exacerbated by a system of official censorship, demonstrating once again that the media in such societies only serve the interests of a dominant elite. This is especially true when the media is seen as actively competing, attacking and exposing private and public malice on a sporadic basis. By doing so, the media attempt to portray themselves as defenders of free speech and guardians of society's common good.

The media employs the propaganda model to carry out this function. To put it another way, the propaganda model is one in which money and power are used to filter out the news that is deemed appropriate for public consumption. The propaganda model is based on monetary and power inequalities, as well as their multifaceted effects on mass media interests and choices. Chomsky goes on to identify some pre-determined filters that aid in the apparent 'filtering' of news that is 'approved' for distribution to the general public. These filters are: (a) the dominant mass media firms' size, concentrated ownership, owner wealth, and profit orientation; (b) advertising as the primary source of income for the media; and (c) the media's reliance or dependence on information provided by the government, business, and experts financed and approved by these primary sources and agents of power. (e) "anticommunism" as a national religion and control mechanism, and (d) "flak" as a means of media discipline. (Source: Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent, Vintage Books, UK, 1983.) As a result, the news that eventually emerges as news passes through these filters and is refined at each stage, filtering out anything that is unfit to be served to the public. As a result, the news is treated as raw material before entering these filters, and only after the necessary 'cleaning' is it released. The ‘residue' on the left is deemed newsworthy. As a result, the parameters of news are set. As a result, as Chomsky points out, the discourse's foundations, definitions, and interpretations are set in stone to determine what is essentially 'newsworthy.' Chomsky's theory is that by controlling propaganda in this way, consent can be manufactured to suit the needs of a society's dominant elites. As a result, there is a factor of elite media dominance, with dissent being marginalised through the use of the five filters used to produce news. Furthermore, such fabricated news is thought to be in line with 'news objectivity' and 'professional news values.' We've seen how Foucault and Chomsky assess and analyse the way power works in societies and polities in this chapter. The purpose of studying both of these scholars together was to highlight how they attempted to conduct in-depth analyses of the various issues,power nexuses that exist and are sustained in society. Both of these analyses have deviated significantly from traditional or conventional understandings of power.

While Foucault investigates the knowledge-power divide and concludes that knowledge and power are inextricably linked and flow from one another, Chomsky speaks in terms of modern states. Chomsky continues by analysing and stating how consent is manufactured in modern states using the propaganda model as a method. Chomsky's analysis is extremely important and critical because he attempts to provide us with a critical understanding of how a dominant elite class controls consent and its production in modern states. The larger idea of such consent manufacturing is largely political and economic, which is why Chomsky claims that anti-communism thrives as a national religion and control mechanism in these states. As a result, both of these thinkers are extremely important in understanding how a modern state functions in today's world....