Propaganda: Power and Persuasion
Today I went to an exhibition at the British Library called Propaganda: Power and Persuasion. I would've liked to see it sooner, mainly because it finishes on 17 September 2013, meaning that this blog post won't stay relevant very long.
As you might expect, the exhibition concentrates mainly on the two world wars, but propaganda as a concept goes back at least as far as the ancient Greeks - Alexander the Great had coins minted that identified him with Herakles.
There's a fairly even mix of British, American, German, Soviet and Chinese output. It's almost entirely the work of governments, but there are a few pieces from trade unions (Solidarity in Poland) and wartime resistance movements.
Most propaganda is mass media such as posters, leaflets, films and radio broadcasts, but there are more unusual forms like stamps and board games.
A quote by Aldous Huxley stands near the start of the exhibition - a propagandist "canalises an existing stream" - that is, amplifies existing perceptions and prejudices. In a dry land, Huxley says, he digs for water in vain. It might be interesting for the exhibition to highlight examples of propaganda that failed to achieve the desired intent. (Actually, there was a rather macabre one - a poster that showed a superhero warning children in a former war zone not to play with unexploded munitions had to be withdrawn after kids started going into minefields in the hope of meeting him...)
We think of "propaganda" as being mainly for military or political purposes - there are quite a few Soviet posters criticising the American form of government and way of life, for example. So I had to wonder why there was a video segment about the opening ceremony of the 2012 Olympics. Yes, it was promoting Britain, but it wasn't portraying us as being better than any other country. By contrast, a poster from East Germany criticising the 60-odd countries that boycotted the 1980 Olympics in Moscow arguably does count as propaganda.
The word "propaganda" carries connotations of being underhanded - of lying, or of presenting the truth selectively. If you direct propaganda at someone, you want him to do something that benefits you, possibly at his expense. So why is there a section about public health campaigns near the end of the exhibition? I don't think anyone could reasonably argue that eradicating disease or reducing infant mortality is a bad thing. (Admittedly they could lead to overpopulation, but that's better dealt with by reducing the birth rate.)
There's a lot of material packed into this exhibition - possibly too much for the available space, which is fairly small. The gallery was quite crowded, possibly because I went on the only weekday when they stay open into the evening. It probably didn't help that I was wearing my work rucksack, so people kept pushing past me. The lighting is rather uneven - dim to protect fragile artefacts, but too harsh on captions next to them.
Despite my criticisms, I enjoyed the exhibition and found it a good overview of how governments and others persuade people to think and act as they want.
As you might expect, the exhibition concentrates mainly on the two world wars, but propaganda as a concept goes back at least as far as the ancient Greeks - Alexander the Great had coins minted that identified him with Herakles.
There's a fairly even mix of British, American, German, Soviet and Chinese output. It's almost entirely the work of governments, but there are a few pieces from trade unions (Solidarity in Poland) and wartime resistance movements.
Most propaganda is mass media such as posters, leaflets, films and radio broadcasts, but there are more unusual forms like stamps and board games.
A quote by Aldous Huxley stands near the start of the exhibition - a propagandist "canalises an existing stream" - that is, amplifies existing perceptions and prejudices. In a dry land, Huxley says, he digs for water in vain. It might be interesting for the exhibition to highlight examples of propaganda that failed to achieve the desired intent. (Actually, there was a rather macabre one - a poster that showed a superhero warning children in a former war zone not to play with unexploded munitions had to be withdrawn after kids started going into minefields in the hope of meeting him...)
We think of "propaganda" as being mainly for military or political purposes - there are quite a few Soviet posters criticising the American form of government and way of life, for example. So I had to wonder why there was a video segment about the opening ceremony of the 2012 Olympics. Yes, it was promoting Britain, but it wasn't portraying us as being better than any other country. By contrast, a poster from East Germany criticising the 60-odd countries that boycotted the 1980 Olympics in Moscow arguably does count as propaganda.
The word "propaganda" carries connotations of being underhanded - of lying, or of presenting the truth selectively. If you direct propaganda at someone, you want him to do something that benefits you, possibly at his expense. So why is there a section about public health campaigns near the end of the exhibition? I don't think anyone could reasonably argue that eradicating disease or reducing infant mortality is a bad thing. (Admittedly they could lead to overpopulation, but that's better dealt with by reducing the birth rate.)
There's a lot of material packed into this exhibition - possibly too much for the available space, which is fairly small. The gallery was quite crowded, possibly because I went on the only weekday when they stay open into the evening. It probably didn't help that I was wearing my work rucksack, so people kept pushing past me. The lighting is rather uneven - dim to protect fragile artefacts, but too harsh on captions next to them.
Despite my criticisms, I enjoyed the exhibition and found it a good overview of how governments and others persuade people to think and act as they want.
No comments have been added yet.
