Something I find interesting is when a word acquires baggage in one culture but remains totally baggageless in another. Consider a personal example first: in my household, "communism" and all derivatives thereof were considered bad words. Not bad as in "haha, communism, how quaint", but bad on a par with "nazi", so that you could win a conversation with the trusted argument "what you said amounts to communism, and is therefore wrong without my needing to delve into the matter", whereupon the person thus addressed would have to explain that no, what they said most certainly does not amount to communism, because we all agree that communism is bad, and so there is no way what they just said is communist at all. So I was surprised to learn that there were people who self-describe as communists, much like most people would be surprised to meet someone who self-describes as a nazi - even though everyone most people know neo-nazis do exist. It's still weird, because these words have such heavy baggage that it's almost inconceivable that they can get rid of said baggage when they (the words, not the baggage) travel abroad.
The reason for this post however is not the baggage communism has picked up at my home. It's the word propaganda, which definitely carries a suitcase or two in the West. Not so in China. It is not unusual to meet someone who was "minister for Propaganda" in their student union. It's a perfectly accepted word. We in the west would say that "we are campaigning" or we are "activists" or "marketeers" or "x-cause advocates" &c. We'd never use the word propaganda, unless we were seeking to undermine our own cause.
Even though what we are doing is actually & in fact suspiciously similar to propaganda. To support our position, at worst, we use arguments we know to be flawed but effective; at best, arguments that we really ought to know are flawed, but choose not to think too much about it, because they are effective. A friend of mine put up a post on fb blasting the Sun for their hypocrisy in campaigning against government aid abroad at the same time as launching an appeal to fund child refugees. And it's effective. I see that and, because I already hate the Sun, I go "ha, look at those hypocritical idiots".
But then my brain catches up with my heart (pardon the trite metaphor) and I realise these two positions can be perfectly consistent. If the Sun's argument is not that aiding people is wrong, but that the current government programme is ineffective, it is not only not hypocritical for them to campaign against it, but commendable. To argue that anyone who believes in helping people must automatically support every single charitable institution, regardless of its efficacy or corruption, is not only silly but dangerous and harmful.
And yet people will say "mate, it's the Sun, come on". Which is to say "why should I construct a good, solid argument? Everyone knows the Sun is rubbish". Except that a) not everyone agrees with you, seeing as the Sun is one of the most popular newspapers in the UK and b) if your beef with the Sun is that they misrepresent facts or they outright lie, isn't it a bit hypocritical on your part to fight them using the same weapons?
I am using this friend's post as an example, because what I am describing is all too prevalent. According to Wikipedia, propaganda is information that is used to further an agenda by selectively repressing facts, lying by omission, encouraging a particular synthesis or using loaded messages. If you are not happy for your message to be explicitly called "propaganda", but are happy for it to adhere to this definition, I suggest you rethink your campaign.
The reason for this post however is not the baggage communism has picked up at my home. It's the word propaganda, which definitely carries a suitcase or two in the West. Not so in China. It is not unusual to meet someone who was "minister for Propaganda" in their student union. It's a perfectly accepted word. We in the west would say that "we are campaigning" or we are "activists" or "marketeers" or "x-cause advocates" &c. We'd never use the word propaganda, unless we were seeking to undermine our own cause.
Even though what we are doing is actually & in fact suspiciously similar to propaganda. To support our position, at worst, we use arguments we know to be flawed but effective; at best, arguments that we really ought to know are flawed, but choose not to think too much about it, because they are effective. A friend of mine put up a post on fb blasting the Sun for their hypocrisy in campaigning against government aid abroad at the same time as launching an appeal to fund child refugees. And it's effective. I see that and, because I already hate the Sun, I go "ha, look at those hypocritical idiots".
But then my brain catches up with my heart (pardon the trite metaphor) and I realise these two positions can be perfectly consistent. If the Sun's argument is not that aiding people is wrong, but that the current government programme is ineffective, it is not only not hypocritical for them to campaign against it, but commendable. To argue that anyone who believes in helping people must automatically support every single charitable institution, regardless of its efficacy or corruption, is not only silly but dangerous and harmful.
And yet people will say "mate, it's the Sun, come on". Which is to say "why should I construct a good, solid argument? Everyone knows the Sun is rubbish". Except that a) not everyone agrees with you, seeing as the Sun is one of the most popular newspapers in the UK and b) if your beef with the Sun is that they misrepresent facts or they outright lie, isn't it a bit hypocritical on your part to fight them using the same weapons?
I am using this friend's post as an example, because what I am describing is all too prevalent. According to Wikipedia, propaganda is information that is used to further an agenda by selectively repressing facts, lying by omission, encouraging a particular synthesis or using loaded messages. If you are not happy for your message to be explicitly called "propaganda", but are happy for it to adhere to this definition, I suggest you rethink your campaign.
No comments:
Post a Comment