Evolution of PROPAGANDA- From ROME to AMERICA
Propaganda; the word was first used in 1622 by Pope Gregory the fifteenth when he created the Congregatio de Propaganda Fide, ‘The Sacred Congregation for Propagating the Faith’, which had so much influence on Catholicism that it’s cardinal was nicknamed the ‘red pope’. The organization still survives to this day.
The congregations function was to Propagate the faith in foreign places such as Greece and Egypt and later, the Americas.
Propaganda, was pulled from the French ‘propagacion’, to procreate, spread offspring’ and Latin ‘propagationem’, meaning to ‘extended to, expand, or spread’. Furthermore, because of the nature of how the word came to English speakers, the definition was changed.
The Latin roots remained, but because of the religious theme of where the word came from the word became associated, in English, with the propagation of ideology. The definition we have then is ‘spreading of ideologies’.
Before World War Two ‘Propaganda’ was a term used neutrally. It was only the rise of the Nazi’s and Socialist movements that gave it the pejorative association with ‘misinformation’ it has in today’s mainstream. Because of this association, the Pope changed the name of his congregation of propagation of the Faith, ‘Congreatio de PROPAGANDA fide’ in Latin to ‘Congregation of Evangelizing the Peoples’ in 1982.
I would argue that this association with disinformation, though it comes from a dark place in history, is a positive thing, because it can lead us to synthesize a new and better definition and use of ‘Propaganda’.
If Propaganda is ‘the intentional spreading of ideology’ then there is a myriad of examples of propaganda, even in everyday life because we all carry around our own ideology and bias.
No person’s reality is the same to another’s- even in the way their brain operates. No people’s opinions or personalities are the same. What makes propaganda what it is, is when a person knowingly puts on a display something that is ‘of them’, an ideology.
The reason I use ideology there is because, I don’t care who you are- including myself- nothing we say is based in absolute truth. Therefore I think propaganda is such a useful word and should be used more widely. Because it now carries the negative association of biased information- when in fact what we create is all bias- from personal identity to national identity.
What Differentiates our Bias from Propagation? Through the Lens of Religious Imperialism.
The difference here is that Propaganda needs to have the ‘intent to spread’, whereas bias can simply be stated as a first-person narrative. This nuanced definition splits entire genres of human work in two.
It would be unfair of me to say that all religion, art, philosophy, and science- or any other tool with which we survey our environment with is propaganda; however, these are where propaganda is most present. The only thing which is without fail propaganda, is advertisement.
What makes bias into propaganda is the intent to spread. When we look at this through the lens of religion a great example we can use is Julius Caesar and the Imperial Cult of Rome.
` Before the time of the Caesars Rome did not force its religious cults on other nations. In B.C.E it was easier for the leaders of nations to associate their own gods with other gods, like when Alexander the Great was called a son of the Egyptian god Ra; he used it as propaganda for his empire, calling himself the son of Zeus in Greece. In Egypt, it already had been custom to call the Pharaoh a ‘Son of Ra’, but the figure of Alexander, as is his nature- paved the way for new cultures to be brought into Europe as, over two centuries later his memory paved inspired Julius Caesar to take Rome and eventually forge a proper narrative of propaganda- naming himself a god and naming all his successors ‘Divi Luli Filius’- divine son of Julius- leader of the Imperial Cults of Rome.
Before the Caesars the Cult of Rome could not be considered as being propagandas as Rome itself had no agenda to spread their religion. My point here is that simply embodying a belief system or way of life is not propagandas.
Sure it may influence others to make that decision similar to yours, but that does not mean that that change is being actively pursued or propagated.
Julius Caesar was never called son of a god in his lifetime, but after his death he was named a God, thus following in the footsteps of his idol Alexander. Many of the Roman Emperor’s thereafter did name themselves sons of gods or gods, and printed this imagery on the Imperial Coinage. Interestingly, the only nation states in which Rome did not propagate their Cults was Israel.
The distinction I am making here is that the state religion of Rome, as a Republic, could not be construed as a propagandas religion, as it had no intent to spread; but, the same religion after Caesar could be construed as propagandas as it was intended to spread and unify the Empire both behind the gods, and more so, in awe and fear of their divine rulers in Rome.
This is an imperialist type of propaganda that has only been revived in modernity by some individuals, most noteably around ‘the Fuhrer’, in his association with Aryan Mysticism and ‘Emperor Napoléon Bonaparte’- who called himself a Caesar. The same technique that these tyrants use, however, is also used by every organization.
In the same way, Christianity took over in Rome, and over a thousand years later founded a new and improved method of propagation in, ‘The Sacred Congregation of Propagating the Faith.”
Propaganda was no longer a display of power through iconography and mystic association that it had been in Alexandria, Rome, and Constantinople; but instead the intentional spreading of an ideology not simply by inhabiting its rituals and beliefs but by actively pressing to convince converts.
Methods of Propaganda. The Democratic Stupidity
The methods of propaganda which are the most well discussed and easy to research are not the ones I will talk about here; namely iconography and communist cartoons. These are the examples held up by lifeless professors who’ve wasted their time teaching and learning nothing about a word which transcends all human history-even before it’s inception as I have told you- like when the Caesars told the greatest story of all, ‘I am God’- imagine that as the slogan on a Twitter page.
And yet these so-called experts confine the word to one era in time that the machine of modernity has told them they must condemn with a pejorative pervasion of the word- which reflects upon the ‘commonsensers’ and limits their realization of their own bias, their own propaganda. They make it so that the majority cannot spot out the word when it arises. The methods of propagation I want to talk about are subtler, more personal, and useful.
Earlier I used advertisements as an example of something which cannot not be propaganda. I would like to inverse that statement by saying all propaganda has the element of advertisement in it, the only differences are what is for sale and what is the exchange. In the case of religion or governance, the exchange is followers. Even in the case of giving advice to a friend you are propagating your bias’s because the advice you give is subject to the implicit bias of the experiences you’ve had.
This is an idea connected to implicit bias, my point being that no matter the motivation behind propaganda, whether it be for manipulation or help- that does not change the fact that all human beliefs, opinions and conceptions of any kind are subject to implicit bias, and require a degree of preaching.
When you share a video, is it because you want other people to associate the video with you, or are you trying to propagate the video? Either one is a form of propaganda, either by posting the video to actively seek to add its contents to the measure of your personality which is there and tangible before the world? Or because you believe in the tangibles of the video?
Both are usually required but not always in this dependent relationship.
Propaganda has now become personalized with the advent of social media. Being able to personally select aspects of yourself that you want people to see in the about sections of your profiles across social media and dating apps, is the newest form of propaganda there is and the most personalized of all time.
In the same way that governments, like Nazi Germany, could cover up their conspiracies while playing a selective narrative-is equal to the tendency in social media to state first and foremost those undesirable traits of which we are all subject.
How foolish are we to leave the history maker of our personal stories in social media, so implicitly biased towards our own goodness that we forget those inevitable cracks in our character that are there as the inverse of our strengths. If anything, those should be what we are reminded of more.
A restrained man may not propagate his faith, his likes, his beliefs, or even the goodness of his character- in any way upon others- simply because he does not believe any other should have his belief – or he gives in to the foolishly democratic idea that each belief’s effectiveness is dependent on the subsequent needs that fall on the bearer of belief.
In my experience, he is a man that grows ever more present in an increasingly emasculated world. By framing himself in a social position where nothing is risked because his public persona holds no strict state of moral standard and no meaningful emotion is evoked around any belief that he could have had limits the conversation.
He therefore, a fall-off in the erosive exchange of possibly opposing strains of thought, and is like a blocked chakra in the chain. He is a product of democracy, for in believing that every man is equal he- and striving to make it so he has forgotten that every belief is not equitably effective- but emasculated by the fear of offending others he cannot speak.
His antithesis is a man who can fully accept the strengths and weaknesses of his implicit biases with brash and loud dignity- allowing for openness and change in the refining and erosive relationship of exchange of ideals. We should all therefore claim our right to create our own propaganda, our own story for the truth and lies of what it is; an implicitly bias experience which leaves out more knowledge than it establishes- and in doing so keep the hope alive that these collective stories may add up to a brighter future for those that digest them.