The Propaganda Model for India

July 22nd, 2019

(from 2017)

“The twentieth century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: the growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy”, wrote Australian sociologist and historian of American propaganda Alex Carey.

To ensure protection of “corporate power against democracy,” the concept of Democracy and Media were reconstructed. This morphing went completely unnoticed and was subsumed within the culture, legal framework and is now accepted without any challenge by most of us, the world over. As Thomas Paine observed “a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of the custom.”

A democracy to be functional requires citizen equipped with all relevant facts and complete spectrum of opinions to take informed actions and to furnish this value is the job of the media. This is a normative and descriptive definition of the two concepts. The other concept that is less spoken about but the one actually practiced in the real world is this: People are not the best judges of their own interests and that of the society, believing that they are such is considered to be “democratic dogmatism.” Therefore, “responsible men”, recognizing the “ignorance and stupidity” of citizens must tell these “meddlesome outsiders” what to believe.

And this ought to be obvious to any serious observer of world affairs that in any society where economic, social and political gap exist the powerful will ensure that they continue possessing their power. In a totalitarian society this security could be ensured by the bludgeon, but in more civilized societies it takes the subtle form of molding opinions.

Propaganda in India can roughly be divided into four phases: first, the freedom struggle. Then the Second World War. The Independence and the Cold War period and finally the Post-liberalism period. Though the study of first phase has immense importance for many reasons, it does not concern the topic under question.

The Indian elites, who were relishing with profits from WW2 economic boom for a small sector, also appreciated the propaganda effort of the Allied Forces and actively learned from it. But larger changes started after the Independence. The XP division (a propaganda agency, primarily aimed at global audience) was set up, which though largely inefficient due to Nehru’s uncoordinated and self centered propaganda methods. Nehru also sent a team to hire Edward Bernays for the XP division and to help setup the propaganda apparatus in India. This was never realized for unknown reasons, but this much becomes clear that although Indian elites found US propaganda system to be ineffective for Indian purposes, they shared basic ideological tenants and commitments.

After ‘Emergency’ Indian press became lot more serious and investigative journalism was at its peak in the country. But actions to bring this under check were quickly taken by government (usually state governments) and corporate sector. In 1977 Directorate of Advertising and Visual Publicity issued circulars asking public sector organizations not to advertise in The Statesman and Express. The organized propaganda effort in India did not penetrated as much as it did in more industrial societies like US, UK and Australia for multiplicity of reasons. But as observed above, the power holders believed in the ethos of “controlled democracy”. And in post-1990’s India and after corporatization of media the dream of Bernays, Lasswell and the likes have been realized in India as well.

The Propaganda Model (PM) is a conceptual framework (created by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky) based on empirical understanding of media institutions. It provides five Filters to help us understand how and why media is forced by institutional restrictions to create content which is expectable within ideological confines of the political-corporate class; and why media cannot question the dominant power systems – as it is part of the same system.

Filters:

  1. SIZE, OWNERSHIP, AND PROFIT ORIENTATION OF THE MASS MEDIA.
  2. THE ADVERTISING LICENSE TO DO BUSINESS.
  3. SOURCING MASS-MEDIA NEWS.
  4. FLAK.
  5. DOMINANT IDEOLOGY.

For a scholarly treatment of the Filters readers are advised to read Manufacturing Consent (edition 2008.) The first two filters are based on the type of political-economic institutions in the society in question. Third filter is a derivative of the first two and in India these take form of corporate PR agencies and government sources. Fourth filter is a negative response to a media statement or program. It may take the form of letters, lawsuits, speeches and other modes of complaint, threat, and punitive action. It rarely takes the overt form of censorship, but it can and does from time to time.

Fifth Filter is exercised primarily in two ways. One: providing an enemy to fear and/or hate (or turning the already present hate and fear towards them.) Two: A fanatical belief in the “market.” Beyond and within these are also some beliefs that enjoy non-partisan consensus in this nation among all parties and corporate sector. These include “a strong Centre for stability”, “security” and “liberalism”.

Media capital is highly concentrated in India. According to ‘The Press in India 2015-16’ report 8855 newspapers are owned by Common Ownership Units. By some estimates less than 100 corporation and individuals own most of the Indian media. In this respect the ownership variable acts similarly in India and in the USA.  Even as the advertisement revenue system is failing, it still continues to be the primary source of profit for Indian media houses.

The limits of the PM should be stated clearly. It is a model of media content, not of audience response to this content. It does not claim propaganda campaigns always achieve what they set out to. This is crucially dependent on knowledge and interest of the audience over the specific issue. Also the dominant ideology is not monolithic. Except some basic political-economic commitments it could change, morph, and diverge over time.

In conclusion I would urge that Indian media analysts and practitioners take the institutional view of the media production system seriously, like many of their counterparts in USA and UK. Also the implication of such analysis and critique should be recognized. If it is true, as I believe it is and as the PM shows empirically, that serious democracy cannot be achieved within these institutions and they need to be replaced; mere “journalistic objectivity” cannot do much – as P. Sainath has claimed journalistic objectivity has become a synonym for reporting for the powerful.

_____

*Propaganda here is used in its classical sense, as understood before the Second World War. The term “media” throughout the article is used for ‘news media’, unless clearly stated otherwise. Article was originally written for a journalism magazine, which did not publish it.

Posted in India, media | Comments Closed

The Feudal Mind

July 22nd, 2019

The latest (2017) PEW survey gives weight to the thesis that Indians (mostly educated but not exclusively) tend to be very authoritarian. No other nation with comparable economic indicators comes close to Indian support for autocracy and technocracy.

With 65% support of “rule by experts” 55% for Strong Leader and no less than 53% for military rule, Indian elites should be proud of their education system which has inculcated such tendencies: meritocracy, competition, context-less thinking. This plus the patriarchal family relations and modern caste structures, I believe, are the most important factors that make India any commissar’s wet dream.

85% of Indians believe that the institution of government by its nature, more or less, always works in favor of its citizens – a view in exact opposition to the views of individuals who formulated the theories and institutions of modern representative democracies. Indians are well trained and “conditioned” to lust for political authority. The apparent complete lack of enlightenment values leads people like Chomsky to call, I believe correctly, the Indian mindset feudalistic. Any anti-authoritarian movement in India first needs to challenge this mind set and relationship and institutions that maintain it and form libertarian alternatives.

Posted in alienation, India | Comments Closed

Uniting the Black and the Red? – Anarchism and Marxism.

July 22nd, 2019

Otto von Bismarck remarked, upon hearing of the split at the Hauge congress of the First International and formation of the anti-authoritarian international at St. Imier, “Crowned heads, wealth and privilege may well tremble should ever again the Black and Red unite!”

Tons of ink and kilobytes of memory has been devoted to very important analysis and criticism of authoritarian “socialism”, most notably of Marx and his disciples by anarchists and left communists. Can Marxists and anarchists find some common ground – theoretical and practical – to unite? Is it desirable?

The answer to the latter question I believe is affirmative and for simple reasons that I won’t comment on. I would make a short and simple case for how a unification is possible.

1. The Primacy of Libertarian Marx and Anti-Authoritarianism.
Many Marxist scholars, most notably Bertell Ollman, has pointed out the distinction Marx made between analysis and presentation. The works where Marx analyzed capitalism, state and religion are in his unpublished works where he developed the concept of alienation, commodity fetishism and also his dialectics. These take a secondary place in his Capital and are at time missing for reasons both of presentation and personal.

If we ignore the incidentals of his personality and focus on his analysis of domination – especially by and under capitalistic relations – that is rooted in a universal struggle against all form of domination and restriction on creative, collective activity of humans, anarchists can find an ally and Marxism can become more humanistic.

Marx’s views on the transformational role of the State also changed after the Paris Commune as noted in his Address of 1872. He no longer believed holding state power was necessary for moving to a communistic stage of society – and that a federalist and democratic alternative was possible. A view consistent with early humanistic Marx. He might or might not have given up his determinism of social stages but at least he no longer saw the state apparatus necessary for this transformation.

If we again, ignore the personality and the fact that he was at the same time lying and planning very hard to kick Bakunin and federalists out of the International and; the Marxist realize the correctness and utility of this position we can find a common platform.

2. Revolutionary Practice.
When a monopoly of technical expertise accumulates in a class and they are in power to influence and direct the masses, they themselves kill the collective, creative urge of the individual over her life that was the point of departure for the socialist project and alienate the workers and forms a new form of oppression with new institutions and new myths to numb the misery.

The second point that Marxists need to consider is that when the State is not a means of transformation, the power again falls back in hands of the workers and the masses. Only they alone through autonomous organizations make the revolution and wage the struggles. These organizations will become the seeds of the future society. Autonomous workers and community groups of some and of various sorts, not any Party must be the focus for transformational and revolutionary practice.

If the Marxists can completely detach away from their authoritarianism in analysis and in practice and; embrace the Black, only then can a meaningful synthesis, that looks forward to and participates in a true revolution take place.

This appeal (or maybe just a mere suggestion) is not aimed towards the people who have given up any hope of revolution or see their place in the status quo – as the vanguard of the oppressed – no longer even the vanguard of some “revolution.” They may very well find plenty of useful stuff in Marx’s authoritarianism and a place among the liberal intelligentsia and political elites. They are not revolutionaries. Revolutionary Marxists should no longer waste energies on them.

On the other hand, the anarchists can overcome their anti-organizationalism and other bourgeois tendencies and focus again on class and other oppression with the serious aim of transformation and revolution and; not mere symbolic violence or individualistic isolationism.

Posted in activism, anarchism, Marxism | Comments Closed

Nativism does not require ”arguments from animals.”

July 22nd, 2019

These are some comments on Rachael L. Brown’s paper, which is a criticism of Eric Margolis and Laurence’s view of nativism. Brown claims that Margolis et al. base their  support for nativism (here meaning to be domain-specificity of inputs and process mechanisms) on the argument from animals (i.e. there is sufficient evidence to believe animals have domain-specific learning systems, humans are animals hence we must have domain-specific learning systems.) And tries to show that this is the only possible argument for nativism or modularity. This is not true.

Neither Margolis et al. in their paper base nativism solely on animal evidence but, focus also, on Poverty of Stimulus; nor in the nativist literature is the main argument based on animal evidence.  Even those who argue for domain-specific cognitive systems in humans with assistance of non-human animal data do so in a limited way and do not “infer” the value of nativism from it. For example, C.R. Gallistel states that, “”it is not to argue that an account of cognitive development should use animal models of learning. Rather, it is to take advantage of developments in this area that provide insights into the question of how to characterize cognitive development.” (“Lessons from animal learning for the study of cognitive development”)

Brown does try to argue that there are not enough “developments in this area”  to take insights from. But provides only references to “recent empirical advances” supporting associationist domain-general characterization, while admitting these are only partial support to discard nativism in animal learning. The section on inferences from the phylogenetic tree, while being interesting in its own right does not strengthen the empiricist argument because most nativist formulations do not use this kind of inferences (see Gallistel’s paper).

So, if nativism does not require argument from animals, what gives it support? As pointed out above, Poverty of Stimulus can support some formulation of domain-specificity of inputs and processes. The evidence also comes from exceptional cases of language learning and use, notably Neil Smith’s work Christopher, a polyglot savant.

Brown’s paper is important for pointing out the challenges with phylogenetic inferences and the possibility of arguments for domain-general explanations of birdsongs and filial imprinting. But, I believe it fails to establish how her case, as nativism is not dependent on factors she is focusing on.

Posted in Theoretic Philosophy | Comments Closed

Philosophy of Marxist Sociology – Part 1

July 21st, 2019

Marxist analysis has made me uneasy for years. The issues, for me, in these analyses (discernable in the final exposition of the result-statements) are the intertwined relations of methodological commitments and ontological assumptions. The workshop on 20-21 July 2019 gave the opportunity to think through one or two aspects of the philosophy of Marxist sociology. Here I will talk about “concept fetishism” and “ontological assumptions” (in part 2 – spoilers alert: part 2 instead turned into a post about technology).

As this is an informal discussion I use the term Marxist for prominent Marxist thinkers without clear demarcation, who have an affinity with Bolshevik ideology, and Marxist analysis as the analysis of social phenomenon from the lens of their understanding of “dialectics” and “historical materialism”. While these are only a fraction of questions around Marxist analysis, there are more important issues (to put it very mildly) with their political program.

Concept Fetishism:

Marxists, among other things, pride themselves for being “scientific”. They were not alone in the mid to late 19th century Europe to use such language – even the anarchists like Bakunin and Luigi Fabbri fell victim to such positivist romanticism but, this soon subsided from other schools of thoughts, left or right except notably in Marxism (it did reemerge in mainstream neo-classical economic through mathematization of economics in mid 20th century.) Many Marxist still hold this positivist and to a significant extent deterministic view of their sociological “science”.

One important aspect of the scientific study of any natural phenomenon is the plurality of analysis – vertical and horizontal. Let us take an example of fluid mechanics. Lets us examine the Venturian flow of a fluid (with a Set X of properties – viscosity, velocity, discharge, etc, which are irrelevant for the point under consideration.) Venturian flow is the flow of a fluid from one pressure zone to another pressure zone. The vertical plurality of analysis of this phenomenon might include at one level the study of chemical difference (say, phase separation) in a zone of study and at another level the study of pathline of parcels (the trajectory of individual particles.)

Both ways of looking at the different aspect of the same phenomenon give the fuller understanding of the mechanism of the flow. In practice though, it is the (theoretical) understanding of mechanisms at different levels and their interactions that precedes particular analysis. This kind of plurality is common in all social analysis and even Marxists analyze segregation and sub-segregation of classes in this manner. In fact, even common-sense worldview works on this principle.

The problem in many cases arrises in horizontal plurality. It usually takes the form of the fetishism of one concept within that level of study at the cost of neglect of others – but reductionism or neglect.

Let us continue with the example of Venturian flow to look at horizontal plurality. At the second level of the previous example, the study of pathline can be done through either Lagrangian or Eulerian methods. The Lagrangian method looks at fluid motion where the observer follows an individual fluid parcel as it moves through space and time. Eulerian on the other hand looks at fluid motion at a specific location in the space through which the fluid flows as time passes. Both are looking at the same phenomenon at the same vertical level of abstraction.

I believe Power to be a level of analysis for understanding society. It is almost at the same level of Class analysis (Note: I say “almost” because one of difference, it seems to me, between hard and social science is the possibility of clearly demarcating the vertical levels.) In power analysis control of means of production (capitalist class), over mean of administration (political and social elite),  means of violence and coercion (police and military elites), their interrelations and the power of organized opposition to them could be the different ways of looking at the distribution of power in a social zone.

By various ways, Marxists have sidelined or ridiculed the idea of power because, to put it crudely, power is only used to “maximize profits”. Maximization of profits, hence, becomes the summum bonum of all social activities for “the ruling class”. This untested premiss is one of the core principles of Marxist worldview. This is one reason why Marxists had difficulty in accommodating racism and caste in their framework. Black women were not taken as test subjects for medical experiments for reasons of maximizing profits. Neither there is any evidence that Pardhi men are criminalized for reasons of profit generation.

At least, I believe. that maximization of profits and concentrating more and more capital is one way of gaining control and power in society. This is not a place to dwell on the whole of the power and elite frameworks of analysis – much of which is compatible with Marxist views.  But here is should suffice to raise the question can profit-making really be an end in itself? Do we see that happening in any sphere of social life? Or are control and power too important and quite independent components of social motivation for actions – shaping class interests? And If they are does Marxism leave space for horizontally accommodating them?

 

Posted in Marxism, Social Philosophy | Comments Closed

Newer Entries »