The Lost Tools of Learning: Grammar, Dialectic, Rhetoric (1947)
gbt.org
gbt.org
If this is true, one would expect vulnerability to propaganda in those forms to be going down over time, all things kept equal. Despite the cynical answer, I think that's actually true. Propaganda from, say, 1950 seems laughably crude. Some of that may be cultural messages that signal that of course propagandizing against the Nazis is silly, but some of that is, I believe, the fact that we are more hardened against that stuff both individually and as a society than we used to be. Of course, messages have coevolved with the media, so it can be hard to see the progress, but I contend that it is at least plausible that we have made progress.
Similarly, it is fashionable to believe that our education level has gone monotonically downhill for decades, but I would contend that it is likely that there are just as many idiots (proportionally) in 1909 as there are in 2009, it is just that the only surviving cultural material from 1909 are virtually by definition from the upper, educated class, whereas in 2009 the media is much more egalitarian. This has the effect of making the past look much more educated, but this can be a selection-bias induced illusion.
I think these two ideas are worth considering. I am actually very harsh on the modern educational system and broadly agree with this essay in most ways, but it is still important to separate the real problems from imagined problems, and to find the real causes and not the bias-feeding, cognitively-convenient ones. There are things that argue against these points, too, but they are worth considering.
From the introduction to Ellul's book "Propaganda":
A related point, central in Ellul's thesis, is that modern propaganda
cannot work without 'education'; he thus reverses the widespread
notion that education is the best prophylactic against propaganda.
On the contrary, he says, education, or what usually goes by that word
in the modern world, is the absolute prerequisite for propaganda.
In fact, education is largely identical with what Ellul call
'pre-propaganda' ...
[Ellul designates] intellectuals as virtually the most vulnerable
of all to modern propaganda, for three reasons: (1) they absorb
the largest amount of secondhand, unverifiable information;
(2) they feel a compelling need to have an opinion on every important
question of our time, and thus easily succumb to opinions offered
to them by propaganda on all such indigestible pieces of information;
(3) they consider themselves capable of 'judging for themselves'.
On the other hand, I find that sources such as the Unabomber tend to define "resistant to propaganda" as "believing what I believe" (similar to the way many people use the word "smart" to mean "believes what I believe", especially in political contexts), which, for lack of a better word, I can only call an immature point of view.
Anyhow, it hardly seems fair to refer to someone as "propaganda resistant" when the reason they are resistant is that they literally can't perceive it. That's like crediting my dog for not falling for [your favorite obviously false ideology here]; that's not really a plus in her column.
Sayers is also one of the world's best crime novelists (the Lord Peter Whimsey series), the first woman PhD from Oxbridge, and made one of the most compelling translations of Dante. Brilliant woman.
Our daughter is only 2.5, but she's a top-notch "Poll-Parrot" already. Cram in the knowledge when they're good at memorizing, then teach them how to use it and what it means later, when they're better at thinking.
2. Is it possible that advertising and propaganda are simply not worth the trouble in a society that has little disposable income and where the opinion of the greatest number of its members has no effect?
@-321abc: If you are trying to illustrate Ms. Sayers' assertions about modern education, congratulations.