48 pages • 1 hour read
Edward BernaysPropaganda
Nonfiction | Book | Adult | Published in 1928A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Summary
Background
Chapter Summaries & Analyses
Key Figures
Themes
Index of Terms
Important Quotes
Essay Topics
Tools
BetaThemes
The Myth of the Invisible Government
Bernays’s shadowy depiction of an “invisible government” is a myth and literary device that corroborates his theory of propaganda. The notion of the invisible government holds that a small cadre of elite individuals controls the public discourse and, by extension, the direction of society. The myth of the invisible government is grounded in the conception of an amorphous and irrational public driven by passions and existing in a state of modern bewilderment. Bernays portrays the invisible governors as a benign and “intelligent minority” that “bring[s] order out of chaos” (114, 159).
The myth of the “invisible government” is centered on a small group of informed and strategic individuals who manipulate the masses by organizing and simplifying the complexities of modern life so that they can interpret the ideas and events of the day. However, he is notably ambiguous about the people who make up this invisible government and suggests only that the invisible governors “govern us by their qualities of natural leadership, their ability to supply needed ideas and by their key position in the social structure” (9). One might presume that the shadowy cadre who “know how to regiment and guide the masses” would consist of politicians, business leaders, or media executives (114), but Bernays provides no specifics. The invisible government is further mystified by Bernays’s claim that “in many cases,” the governors are “unaware of the identity of their fellow members in the inner cabinet” (9).
The invisible governors “pull the wires which control the public mind” in a benign manner to “contrive new ways to bind and guide the world” (10). In other words, this shadowy group benignly organizes and simplifies the complexities of modern life for the masses. The foundation of Bernays’s theory lies in his understanding of human psychology and the dynamics of mass communication. Influenced by the work of his uncle, Sigmund Freud, Bernays believed that the masses are not rational actors but are driven by emotions, instincts, and subconscious desires. Thus, to maintain order and stability, Bernays suggests a society where leaders can harness these psychological insights to guide public opinion effectively. Bernays also assumes that the vast amounts of information available in industrial society could overwhelm individuals, making it difficult for them to form coherent and informed opinions.
At the heart of the myth of invisible government is An Endorsement of Elitism. In a world where the public cannot grasp all the facets of every issue, the guiding elite ensures that the public remains informed and engaged in a manner that promotes societal cohesion and progress. Bernays argues that this invisible government is the “logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized” (9). The invisible government creates a framework in which vast numbers of people are able to cooperate in the “orderly functioning of our group life” (10). Regarding elections, Bernays contends that neither the US Constitution nor its framers imagined “political parties as part of the mechanism of government” or the political machine of the current era (10). Bernays expounds on how American voters, when faced with “dozens or hundreds of candidates” (10), found themselves utterly bewildered. To provide some sense of organization and direction, an invisible government “arose almost overnight” (10). Bernays writes that people agreed, “for the sake of simplicity and practicality,” that an elite cadre of secretive experts would “narrow down the field of choice to two candidates, or at most three or four” (10).
Bernays maintains that as civilization has become more complex, the need for an invisible government has become self-evident, and in the era of mass production, technical means have been developed through which opinion can be regimented. Although Bernays offers no details regarding exactly how this information would be disseminated, this invisible government clearly must operate through the strategic use of communication tools, from advertising and media to public speeches, films, etc. The invisible governors reach the public through the media and our leaders, and “we accept the evidence and the demarcation of issues bearing upon public questions,” whether we receive this information from a teacher, a minister, or merely popular opinion. Yet our leaders often:
[T]ake their doctrines from a higher ecclesiastical authority. […] A presidential candidate may be ‘drafted’ in response to ‘overwhelming popular demand’ but it is well known that his name may be decided upon by half a dozen men sitting around a table in a hotel room (33-34).
This detail regarding the “poker table in a certain little green house” where the Presidential candidates are chosen in secret does not follow the same mystique Bernays attributes to the invisible government. This detail seems to suggest the notion that this “invisible government” is really a literary device, a myth that serves the purpose of corroborating Bernays’s theory of propaganda. He writes that “in some instances the power of invisible wirepullers is flagrant” (34), and that could very well be the case considered in a metaphorical sense. That Bernays is so cryptic about this shadowy group betrays the myth of the invisible government.
An Endorsement of Elitism
Edward Bernays provides an unabashed endorsement of elitism as a necessary element for managing public opinion and societal governance. By advocating for the role of an “intelligent minority” who manipulates public discourse, Bernays projects the view that the masses are hopelessly inadequate to manage the complexities of modern life. Moreover, even the tenor of the text is fundamentally elitist, both in terms of tone and the treatment of possible critics of propaganda.
Bernays’s text, Propaganda, advocates for a small group of enlightened individuals to organize and control public opinion. The necessity for an “intelligent minority” who would manage the prejudices and opinions of the masses is grounded in the idea that modern life is too complex for the masses to interpret, much less navigate. So Bernays introduces The Myth of the Invisible Government as a means to manage and manipulate the group mind of the masses. Bernays references Trotter and Le Bon, whose work he had studied carefully, to corroborate the point that the group mind “does not think in the strict sense of the word” because in place of thought processes, the group mind experiences instead “impulses, habits and emotions” (50). That the masses would be managed and directed by an “intelligent minority” is fitting since the first impulse of the group mind is to follow the guidance of a trusted leader. In the absence of a leader, Bernays argues, the herd doesn’t think exactly except in the form of “clichés, pat words or images” (50), which must represent vague associations of group ideas and experiences. Bernays suggests that even though “universal literacy was supposed to educate the common man to control his environment,” he is skeptical that this development has left people with “a mind fit to rule” (20). Indeed, Bernays seems to disparage the “democratic doctrine” itself because this form of government doesn’t allow for the proper advancement of the common people without a form of invisible government. Universal literacy has left the people not with a mind but with “rubber stamps,” with which they simply accept what is given to them in terms of slogans and editorials without thinking at all.
Bernays’s elitism is exhibited in the tone of Propaganda, which is a book about propaganda advocating for propaganda itself. At its core, there is an elitist deception in the text, which purports to be an explanation or theory of propaganda but actually is a defense of big business and an exponent of propaganda. There are points in the text where Bernays admonishes the likely critic (and perhaps the potential reader) of propaganda. For Bernays, the term “propaganda” is a “wholesome word, of honest parentage, and with an honorable history. The fact that it should to-day be carrying a sinister meaning merely shows how much of the child remains in the average adult” (22). Bernays is speaking from a position of superiority and makes it clear that he considers himself to be a member of the intelligent minority even though, at times, he suggests a populist persuasion when he humbles himself with his readers with references to “us.” With regard to his critics, he is resolute, as evidenced in the statement that for one “to deplore the existence of such a mechanism [as propaganda] is to ask for a society such as never was and never will be” (18).
Propaganda as a Technical Endeavor
In Propaganda, Bernays discusses the manipulation of public opinion as a systematic, quasi-scientific endeavor. Bernays employs a technical register in his prose while adopting a formal, analytical tone and language that positions public relations as a discipline grounded in scientific principles and methodologies. In other words, propaganda is portrayed as a technical, conceptual endeavor rather than a manipulative craft. Bernays advocates for the skillful employment of propaganda in a reserved, detached manner like that of the scientist observing phenomena. He portrays propaganda as an inevitable, purely rational endeavor and frames it as value-neutral. Whether propaganda is “good or bad depends on the merit of the cause urged,” Bernays writes, and it is also analyzed according to “the correctness of the information published” (20). The word “propaganda” itself is observed to have “certain technical meanings” which are “neither good nor bad” (20-21). The cool detachment in Bernays’s prose is reminiscent of 19th-century positivism, but the sense of distance and detachment is also a selling point to potential clients as it makes the author appear impartial or ruthless, like a doctor or an attorney.
Bernays describes the propagandist as “a trained technician who would be helpful in analyzing public thought” and one who knows how “to regiment and guide the masses” (114). As civilization becomes more complex, Bernays sees a corresponding need to employ the technical means that have been invented and developed so that “opinion may be regimented” (12). The technical register in Propaganda also elevates the status of public relations practitioners, positioning them as experts and technicians who possess specialized knowledge. Bernays portrays the propagandist not as a communicator or marketer but as a skilled engineer applying scientific methods to achieve desired outcomes. By using terms like “regiment” and descriptive words like “synchronized,” Bernays imbues the practice of public relations with a sense of precision and authority.
Bernays’s writing is also replete with references to psychology, physiology, and behavioral science, underscoring his view that the manipulation of public opinion is rational and grounded in an understanding of human nature and social dynamics. Bernays speaks of the “anatomy of society” and of individuals as “a cell in the social organism,” adopting metaphors from science (28), such as “touch a nerve at a sensitive spot and you get an automatic response from certain specific members of the organism” (28). Again, the conceptual, technical register gives propaganda the veneer of legitimacy and actuality.
Along with the technical register, Bernays also employs various mechanical metaphors to theorize propaganda. Metaphors that liken the manipulation of public opinion to the operation of machines give the impression that society is an intricate yet controllable system. Public opinion can “with a fair degree of accuracy” be changed by “operating a curacy by operating a certain mechanism, just as the motorist can regulate the speed of his car by manipulating the flow of gasoline” (48). By likening society to a machine, Bernays suggests that public opinion can be guided through systematic, predictable processes. People can be manipulated “as if actuated by the pressure of a button” (59). The employment of mechanical metaphors also positions propaganda as a tool or instrument used to achieve specific objectives. The tool metaphor emphasizes the utility and functionality of propaganda in guiding public behavior.
