“Brainwashing of those in freedom”
By Noam Chomsky
September 15, 2007
Source: Le Monde Diplomatique
http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2007/08/CHOMSKY/14992
You won’t find this text in mainstream newspapers. The mainstream press doesn’t give space to a great voice like that of linguist Noam Chomsky. He analyzes the reasons why information is so heavily filtered across all media. He adds that when you ask any journalist, “Are you free in what you write?” they immediately reply “Yes.” This is usually true. But journalists in our “liberal world” (in the Larousse dictionary, “Liberal” means “favorable to freedom”) all sit on an ejectable seat. If they express opinions and analyses that don’t align with those of the group owning the media outlet and don’t serve its interests, that ejectable seat will soon be activated, and the person in question won’t find any job in their profession ever again. This constraint is just as powerful as threats to one’s life. It doesn’t threaten physical existence, but professional life.
An example is journalist Michel Polac, who for years achieved impressive ratings with his show “Droit de réponse,” at a time when live broadcasts were still common. One day he saw fit to reveal information he claimed to possess: a powerful French company had allegedly paid bribes to secure a government contract—for building a bridge, I believe. He forgot, however, that the contractor in charge of the work was also the main shareholder of the company that employed him. That man picked up the phone. The “ejectable seat” was activated. Michel Polac, a real media star at the time, was fired on the spot and didn’t find any work in his field for many years. Another example: star journalist Jacques Pradel lost his job after broadcasting two shows about “the Roswell alien.” For years, he found all channels closed to him; it took him ages to recover. At the time, he confirmed to me over the phone the difficulties he faced after being abruptly ejected from the media sphere. Apparently the lesson stuck, because Jacques, who was a very close friend and with whom we produced many radio programs, no longer replies to my letters.
This pressure exists in all spheres. Are judges independent? Have you ever seen a magistrate accuse another magistrate, or a surgeon accuse another surgeon? Etc...
I recall a friend of mine, a surgeon from Aix, who learned of a surgical error that resulted in the death of a young woman. She’d undergone a Caesarean section performed by one of his colleagues, who entered the operating room completely drunk. In a clumsy move with his scalpel, he accidentally touched her bladder; this led to sepsis. He could at least have anonymously informed the family so they’d know who to hold responsible. But no, the law of silence prevailed. Had it become known that he was responsible for this mishap, he would quickly have been ostracized from the medical community.
Lee Smolin, in a recent book: “Nothing Works Anymore in Physics,” published by Dunod, denounces “scientific brainwashing.” The mechanism is the same.
To be free, one must be able to lose their audience, wealth, friends, job, even life. Those best positioned to speak out are those with a safe haven: retirees, civil servants. As a researcher, all one risks is losing funding and having their career blocked. To me, that’s a small price to pay to be able to look oneself in the mirror each morning.
The Internet distorts this merciless game. It’s our first and last space of freedom. The public realizes this; they’re increasingly losing faith in institutional media.
September 15, 2007. Interview conducted by Daniel Mermet
More effective than dictatorships
“Brainwashing of those in freedom”
Takeovers of major newspapers—the “Wall Street Journal” in the U.S., “Les Echos” in France—by wealthy individuals accustomed to bending the truth to suit their interests (see also, in this issue, “Media predators and influence merchants,” by Marie Bénilde); excessive media coverage of Nicolas Sarkozy; absorption of news by sports, weather and human-interest stories, all amidst a flood of advertisements: “communication” constitutes the permanent instrument of governance in democratic regimes. For them, it’s what propaganda is for dictatorships. In an interview with France Inter journalist Daniel Mermet, American intellectual Noam Chomsky analyzes these mechanisms of domination and places them in their historical context. He recalls, for instance, that totalitarian regimes relied on the mechanisms of advertising perfected in the United States after World War I. Beyond that, he discusses prospects for social transformation in today’s world, and what utopia might look like for those who, despite the media’s relentless indoctrination of powerlessness, haven’t given up on changing the world.
By Noam Chomsky
Let’s start with the issue of the media. In France, in May 2005, during the referendum on the European Constitutional Treaty, most newspapers supported a “yes” vote, yet 55% of French voters cast a “no.” Thus, the manipulative power of the media doesn’t seem absolute. Did this vote also represent a “no” to the media?
My work with Edward Herman on media manipulation or the manufacture of consent doesn’t address the question of media effects on the public (1). It’s a complicated subject, but some in-depth studies suggest that, in reality, media influence is greater on the better-educated portion of the population. The general public seems less dependent on media discourse.
Take, for instance, the possibility of a war against Iran: 75% of Americans believe the U.S. should end its military threats and pursue diplomatic solutions instead. Surveys conducted by Western institutes indicate that both Iranian and American public opinion converge on certain aspects of the nuclear issue: an overwhelming majority in both countries believes that the region stretching from Israel to Iran should be entirely free of nuclear weapons, including those held by U.S. forces there. Yet to find such information in the media, one has to search a long time.
None of the main political parties in either country advocates this viewpoint. If Iran and the U.S. were genuine democracies where the majority truly determines public policy, the current nuclear dispute would probably already be resolved. There are other similar cases.
Regarding the U.S. federal budget, most Americans want cuts in military spending and increases in social spending, UN funding, international economic and humanitarian aid, and they oppose President George W. Bush’s tax cuts favoring the wealthiest taxpayers.
On all these issues, White House policy runs totally counter to public demands. Yet polls showing this persistent opposition are rarely reported in the media. Consequently, citizens aren’t only excluded from political decision-making centers, but also kept ignorant of the actual state of public opinion.
There’s international concern about the staggering “double deficit” of the United States: trade deficit and budget deficit. Yet these exist only in close relation to a third deficit: the democratic deficit, which keeps widening, not only in the U.S. but throughout the Western world.
Whenever you ask a star journalist or anchor of a major TV news program whether they face pressure or censorship, they reply they’re completely free, that they express their own convictions. How does thought control function in a democratic society? With dictatorships, we know how it works.
When journalists are questioned, they immediately respond: “No one pressured me; I write whatever I want.” This is true. Yet if they took positions contrary to the dominant norm, they wouldn’t be writing editorials anymore. The rule isn’t absolute, of course; I myself sometimes get published in the American press; the U.S. isn’t a totalitarian country either. But anyone failing to meet certain minimal requirements has no chance of becoming a widely recognized commentator.
This is one of the main differences between totalitarian propaganda systems and practices in democratic societies. To exaggerate slightly, in totalitarian nations, the State dictates the line to follow and everyone must comply. Democratic societies operate differently. The “line” is never explicitly stated; it’s implied. In effect, there’s “brainwashing in freedom.” Even the “passionate” debates in major media remain within implicitly agreed parameters, which exclude many opposing viewpoints.
Control mechanisms in democratic societies are highly effective; they instill the guiding line like air we breathe. We don’t notice it, and sometimes imagine we’re witnessing particularly vigorous debate. In reality, it’s infinitely more efficient than totalitarian systems.
Consider Germany in the early 1930s. We tend to forget this, but back then it was Europe’s most advanced country, leading in art, science, technology, literature and philosophy. Then, in very little time, a complete reversal occurred, and Germany became history’s most murderous, barbaric state.
All this happened through instilling fear: fear of Bolsheviks, Jews, Americans, Gypsies—in short, all those whom Nazis considered threats to the heart of European civilization, i.e., the “direct heirs of Greek civilization.” At least, that’s what philosopher Martin Heidegger wrote in 1935. Most German media bombarding the population with such messages borrowed techniques developed... by American advertisers.
Let’s not forget how ideologies gain dominance. Violence alone isn’t enough to dominate; one needs a different kind of justification. So, when someone exercises power over another—be it a dictator, colonizer, bureaucrat, husband or boss—they need a justifying ideology, always the same: domination is done “for the good” of the dominated. In other words, power always presents itself as altruistic, selfless, generous.
When state violence isn’t enough
In the 1930s, Nazi propaganda rules included choosing simple words, repeating them endlessly, and linking them to emotions, feelings and fears. When Hitler invaded the Sudetenland [in 1938], he invoked the noblest, most charitable motives: a “humanitarian intervention” needed to prevent “ethnic cleansing” suffered by German-speaking peoples, allowing everyone to live under Germany’s “protective wing,” with support from the world’s most advanced nation in arts and culture.
In terms of propaganda, though nothing has fundamentally changed since Athens, there have been numerous refinements. Instruments have become much more sophisticated, especially—paradoxically—in the world’s freest countries: the UK and the U.S. It was there, and nowhere else, that the modern public relations industry, i.e., the factory of opinion or propaganda, emerged in the 1920s.
Both countries had indeed made progress in democratic rights (women’s suffrage, freedom of speech, etc.), to the extent that mere state violence couldn’t contain the yearning for freedom. Thus, attention turned to “manufacturing consent” technologies. The PR industry literally produces consent, acceptance, submission. It controls ideas, thoughts, minds. Compared to totalitarianism, this is a huge advance: it’s far more pleasant to endure ads than end up in a torture chamber.
In the U.S., freedom of speech enjoys protection unlike anywhere else in the world. This is fairly recent. In the 1960s, the Supreme Court set very high standards regarding freedom of speech, reflecting what I believe was a fundamental principle established in the 18th century by Enlightenment values. The Court ruled speech was free, with only one limit: participation in criminal acts. For instance, if I enter a store to rob it and my accomplice aims a gun at me and says “Shoot!”, this utterance isn’t protected by the Constitution. Otherwise, the motive must be exceptionally grave before freedom of speech can be restricted. The Supreme Court even reaffirmed this principle in favor of members of the Ku Klux Klan.
In France, the UK and, I believe, elsewhere in Europe, freedom of speech is defined very restrictively. To me, the essential question is: does the State have the right to determine what historical truth is, and to punish those who deviate from it? Accepting this means endorsing a practice straight out of Stalinism.
French intellectuals struggle to admit this is indeed their inclination. Yet refusal of such an approach shouldn’t allow exceptions. The State shouldn’t have any means to punish anyone claiming the Sun revolves around the Earth. Freedom of speech is fundamentally simple: either defend it for opinions you hate, or don’t defend it at all. Even Hitler and Stalin acknowledged freedom of speech for those sharing their views...
I add that it’s distressing and even scandalous to have to debate these issues two centuries after Voltaire, who famously declared: “I will defend my opinions until my death, but I’d give my life so you may defend yours.” Adopting one of the core doctrines of Holocaust perpetrators does a great disservice to victims’ memory.
In one of your books, you comment on Milton Friedman’s statement: “Making profits is the very essence of democracy”...
Truthfully, these two things are so contradictory that there’s no way to comment... Democracy’s purpose is for people to decide their own lives and relevant political choices. Profit-making is a pathology of our societies, rooted in particular structures. In a decent, ethical society, profit concerns would be marginal. Take my university department [at MIT]: a few scientists work hard to earn lots of money, but they’re viewed somewhat as outliers, disturbed people, almost pathological cases. The spirit animating academia is rather to make discoveries, both for intellectual interest and for everyone’s benefit.
In the book dedicated to you by L’Herne, Jean Ziegler writes: “There have been three totalitarianisms: Stalinist totalitarianism, Nazi totalitarianism, and now there’s ‘TINA’” Do you compare these three totalitarianisms?
I wouldn’t put them on the same level. Fighting “TINA” means confronting an intellectual hegemony that can’t be compared to concentration camps or the Gulag. Indeed, U.S. policies provoke massive worldwide opposition. Argentina and Venezuela have kicked out the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The U.S. had to abandon what was still standard practice twenty or thirty years ago: military coups in Latin America. The neoliberal economic program forced upon all of Latin America in the 1980s and 1990s is now rejected continent-wide. Similar opposition to economic globalization exists worldwide.
The justice movement, spotlighted by media at every World Social Forum, actually works year-round. It’s a very new phenomenon in history, perhaps marking the beginning of a true International. Its main battle cry concerns the existence of an alternative solution. In fact, what better example of a different globalization exists than the World Social Forum? Hostile media call opponents of neoliberal globalization “anti-globalists,” whereas they fight for another globalization: the globalization of peoples.
We can observe the contrast between the two: at the same time, the World Economic Forum takes place in Davos, working toward planetary economic integration solely for the benefit of financiers, banks and pension funds. These powers also control the media. This is their vision of global integration, serving investors. Dominant media consider this the only version worthy of being called “globalization.”
This is a fine example of ideological propaganda functioning in democratic societies. It’s so effective that even participants in the World Social Forum sometimes accept the ill-intentioned label “anti-globalists.” In Porto Alegre, I spoke at the Forum and participated in the World Peasant Conference. They alone represent the majority of humanity...
You’re categorized as an anarchist or libertarian socialist. In the democracy you envision, what role would the State play?
We live in this world, not in a fantasy universe. In this world, there are tyrannical institutions: big corporations. They’re what most resembles totalitarian institutions. Practically speaking, they answer to no one—neither public nor society; they act like predators whose prey are other companies. To defend themselves, populations have only one tool: the State. Yet this isn’t a very effective shield, since it’s generally closely linked to predators. One significant difference: while General Electric answers to no one, the State sometimes must explain itself to the public.
When democracy expands to the point where citizens control production and exchange means, when they participate in running and directing the framework of their lives, then the State can gradually disappear. It’ll be replaced by voluntary associations located at workplaces and where people live.
Are these the Soviets?
Those were the Soviets. But the first thing Lenin and Trotsky destroyed right after the October Revolution were the Soviets, workers’ councils and all democratic institutions. Lenin and Trotsky were thus the worst enemies of socialism in the 20th century. As orthodox Marxists, they believed a backward society like Russia at the time couldn’t transition directly to socialism without being forcibly industrialized.
In 1989, at the collapse of the communist system, I felt this collapse paradoxically represented a victory for socialism. Because socialism as I conceive it implies, at minimum, I repeat, democratic control over production, exchange and other aspects of human existence.
Yet both main propaganda systems agreed to claim that the tyrannical system instituted by Lenin and Trotsky, later transformed into a political monstrosity by Stalin, was “socialism.” Western leaders were delighted by this absurd, scandalous misuse of the term, which allowed them for decades to defame authentic socialism.
With identical enthusiasm, but opposite intent, the Soviet propaganda system tried to exploit the sympathy and commitment toward authentic socialist ideals held by many workers.
Isn’t it true that all forms of self-organization based on anarchist principles ultimately collapsed?
There are no fixed “anarchist principles,” no sort of libertarian catechism one must pledge allegiance to. Anarchism, at least as I understand it, is a movement of human thought and action seeking to identify structures of authority and domination, to demand they justify themselves, and, whenever they fail—which happens often—to attempt to surpass them.
Far from having “collapsed,” anarchism, libertarian thought, is thriving. It’s at the root of many real advances. Forms of oppression and injustice barely recognized, let alone combated, are no longer accepted. This is a success, a step forward for all humanity, not a failure.
(Interview conducted by Daniel Mermet, revised and corrected by the author.)