In my last article, I discussed participatory propaganda, which refers to the public's active participation in spreading what propagandists call -- persuasive messaging. Persuasion, as an offshoot of propaganda, is a message meant to gain compliance or induce the targeted audience to accept the persuader's point of view. Propaganda holds an identical definition. According to Edward Bernays, propaganda is meant to gain acceptance on an issue that may otherwise be opposed. The information that permeates society is largely responsible for shaping the world views that many people cling to. People actively engaged in politics, for example, stay glued to their favorite media outlets and spend a great deal of time sharing stories online that reflect their attitudes and beliefs. Social media is full of memes that reflect what Bernays would refer to as -- ready-made opinions, that have the potential to control the thoughts and behaviors of individuals and large groups. When society actively participates in sharing these news stories, or memes that reflect an opinion, they are aiding the propagandist's efforts to control the information we are exposed to and create perceptions that advance their agenda. Propaganda is most effective when it reflects the existing attitudes of the audience. For example, the article, Psychological Targeting as an Effective Approach to Digital Mass Persuasion states that mass persuasion is more effective when tailored toward an individual or a group's psychological traits, beliefs, and behaviors. Propagandists often infiltrate social media to understand the beliefs of the audience, so they can frame their messages within the parameters of these beliefs, and guide them in a desired direction. The more these types of stories are shared, the more they represent a concrete reality as stories and opinions that do not reflect popular views are not picked up by the algorithm. This results in a reality that is aligned more with what the propagandists want you to believe than an actual state of truth. This is often referred to as "do-it-yourself misinformation campaigns"(Asmolov, 2019), as propagandists have argued the state can rely on its citizenry to propagate the false information being fed to them. The control of information then, becomes an environmental control that guides behaviors and attitudes in directions useful to the state.

"Participatory propaganda is an attempt to influence a person's, or group's, perceptions of the environment, as well as a way to change the behavior of the targeted group so that they contribute their actions to either the changing of the environment or the changing of perceptions." (Asmolov, 2019)

Is it possible that the beliefs and attitudes of the American public do not reflect reality, and are nothing more than perceptions created by the propaganda we are willingly engaging in? This is a heavy-handed question that has the potential to cause some dissonance, as many Americans are heavily invested and engaged in the ongoing political conflict between the left and rightwing worldviews in our country. This isn't without cause. There is a definite attempt to move this country to the left, against the objections of most people I might add. To what extent though, does the conflict we see taking place represent reality? According to an article called The Effects of Participatory Propaganda: From Socialization to Internalization of Conflicts, the active participation in the conflict itself helps solidify a perception of reality through the control and propagation of information related to that conflict. By engaging in the conflict at all, the public is allowing the propagandist to manipulate the attitudes and beliefs of those engaged while using social media as a means of thrusting these beliefs into the public sphere, which are then shared by those who hold similar views. This is referred to as the socialization of conflict.

"Today, the digital public sphere offers a new set of tools for the manipulation and control of citizen engagement in conflicts. The socialization of conflict is now driven by the content proliferated through social networks, as well as through the digital affordances of online platforms that offer a wide range of responses to conflict." (Asmolov, 2019)

Because so many people are emotionally invested, and rightly so, in which direction the country moves in, it becomes an easy tool of control for the propagandist. This is called the internalization of conflict. Asmolov (2019), states that our relationship with our environment, in today's digital world, is shaped by what he called the participatory affordances of digital platforms. These are the available options used for sharing or expressing emotions on social media. The use of these methods, which are often tied to the emotional perceptions of the participant, helps in the "development of cognitive filters that shape the way we perceive social reality" (Asmolov, 2019). What does that mean? According to Asmolov, our perceptions of reality are more of a reflection of what we see on social media and the emotional investment we have in a conflict that in truth, was created to control our attitudes and beliefs in the first place. In other words, it could be argued, that the left vs. right conflict that is ever present in our country is a deliberately constructed conflict meant to keep the public divided and fighting amongst each other. The news media is used to propagate these ideas by solidifying, and in some ways, defining what left and right-wing thoughts should be, keeping people trapped in their respective boxes.

"Participatory propaganda restores state sovereignty from within. It aims to build walls in the inner spaces of the subject (you) by shaping categories of perception of the environment. First, it constructs the object of a conflict that can potentially divide people. Second, relying on the design of social networks that combine information proliferation with personal interaction, as well as the mediated mobility of devices, it makes this conflict an omnipresent and integral part of everyday life." (Asmolov, 2019)

In my article, Fear-Based Persuasion, Propaganda, and an Invasion from Mars, which largely discussed the connection between propaganda and persuasion that developed after WWI, I cited an article called Propaganda Studies in American Social Science: The Rise and Fall of the Critical Paradigm. This article is significant in the sense that it discusses how persuasion, propaganda, and marketing all came under the same umbrella of academic study in the early twentieth century. For example, the authors state that in the 1920s, communication researchers were discovering that the methods of persuasion were more effective in pinpointing exactly what parts of a message were effective in developing the desired attitude changes than the general propaganda being used at the time and that these methods were proving useful to not only researchers but policymakers as well. As I have argued in nearly every article I have written on the subject, our responses to persuasive communications have been under the microscope for decades. They are essentially studying how to gain control of our perceptions through control of information and the control of the environment. Here is where it gets interesting. B.F. Skinner argued that human behavior could be controlled through the manipulation of the environment. In his book, Science and Human Behavior (pg. 22), he suggests that environmental control can be achieved "through the use of writers, entertainers, propagandists, and advertisers -- and that a science of behavior will increase the effective use of these controls, therefore it is important to understand the processes involved." What he is arguing is that it is important, from the point of view of someone trying to control beliefs and perceptions, to understand how people respond to persuasive messaging meant to influence those beliefs and perceptions.

In her must-read book, The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America (pp.49-51), Charlotte Iserbyt references Dr. Lewis Albert Alesen's work, Mental Robots. Unfortunately, there is little available online as far as this book is concerned. It exists, however, there is nothing aside from what Iserbyt herself references that is available to read. Keeping this in mind, it is up to the reader to determine the credibility of the text provided by Iserbyt. The book revolves around the idea of Soviet psychiatry, and the work done by Ivan Pavlov which proved, as far as the communists were concerned, that human beings can be programmed to respond to any stimuli in any desired manner through classical conditioning. It was also discovered, through Pavlov's work, that men can be programmed to respond to words, phrases, and symbols. (For more on this see my article Catchphrases, Cliches and Slogans: Guiding our Thoughts and Opinions Using Reflexive Theory). Also cited by Iserbyt was a presentation entitled Inside U.S. Communism, by Herbert Philbrick, where he made the claim, after serving as a spy inside the communist party, that the communists were involved in a very elaborate research project concerning the scientific manipulation and control of information. This was as early as the mid-twentieth century. He referred to it as the scientific control of human beings through the control of information. Have we reached a point where the control of information is equal to the control of the environment in which we live? Does that control equate to control of our behavior? According to the previously referenced article, The Effects of Participatory Propaganda: From Socialization to Internalization of Conflicts, our participation in propagating information that reflects our views helps the propagandists solidify these views as a social reality when in truth, they are nothing but propaganda meant to divide us, to begin with. It is due time that Americans turn off their televisions and study what is known about the effects of persuasive messaging, and what it is the communications researchers believe about manipulating our thoughts and behaviors. The future of the nation depends on it.

If you enjoyed this article consider reading my books as well.

A Critical Look at CRT in Education, Research and Social Policy, available in paperback.

And Without a Shot Indeed: Inducing Compliance to Tyranny Through Conditioning and Persuasion.