One final idea from the introductory section of “How Propaganda Works” by Jason Stanley that I think really drives home the current shape of the problem of propaganda and how we are all potentially susceptible to it.
Stanley claims that underneath effective propaganda we often find group identities of a certain flavor. To the degree that our own identity becomes entangled and enmeshed with a larger group identity we can adopt rigidly held (often irrational) beliefs that serve to protect our self image and self worth. This incentive to cling to those beliefs to maintain status as a “member in good standing” can make an individual particularly susceptible to propaganda. Anything that bolsters those beliefs bolsters the group identity and your identity with that group, further shutting down rational pathways that could challenge the potentially flawed ideology this group may hold.
Stanley uses America’s two party system as an example of this:
In the United States, the two-party system works as a way to manufacture an artificial group identity, akin to an ethnic or national one or an allegiance to a sports team. Part of the identity seems to consist in allegiance to certain conclusions on a range of “hot button” political issues. On those issues, political party affiliation does seem to result in rigidly held belief and loyalty in the voting booth. Allegiance to the group identity forged by political party affiliation renders Americans blind to the essential similarities between the agendas of the two parties, similarities that can be expected to be exactly the ones that run counter to public interest. In other words, those interests of the deep-pocketed backers of elections to which any politician must be subservient in order to raise the kind of money necessary to run for national office. Satisfaction at having one’s group “win” seems to override the clearly present fundamental dissatisfaction with the lack of genuine policy options. If the function of the two parties is to hide the fact that the basic agenda of both is shared, and irrational adherence to one of the two parties is used propagandistically to mask their fundamental overlap then we can see how Burnham’s prediction (of a single party rule as a consequence of the managerial state) may have come to pass, despite the existence of two distinct political parties.
We don’t just have to think about this in broad sweeping terms. Imagine a scenario like this:
You connect with someone over a shared interest, they introduce you to a larger group of people with that shared interest, and you begin to feel things like “I belong here! These are my people!” As you connect with more people in this group and get a stronger sense of who they are and how you connect you begin to strongly identify with them. “We are ____” increasingly becomes “I am ____”. Within this group exists (maybe explicitly or implicitly) a set of core values that are curated and maintained by the collective group. It could be an actual centralized authority structure with a clear statement of beliefs, or it could be something loose and less defined, but that shared set of beliefs exists. Now imagine that you have an experience that causes you to question one or more of those beliefs. Maybe your group strongly identifies what it is not and has some caricatured beliefs about those on the outside. You encounter an actual person that is one of these outsiders and they don’t match the caricature. Doubt is introduced, and you feel anxiety - why? Because this belief connects you to a group that has become a large part of your identity, and to lose that connection would be to lose a bit of who you are, or at least your sense of self identity. You talk to a friend from the group. They have answers to what you experienced. The outsiders are really good at hiding their true selves. You met an outlier. Etc…
Multiple different responses are possible here that all result in the same thing: shutting down rational pathways and reinforcing the shared beliefs. When this happens those beliefs become untouchable. You hold them with a closed fist. You inoculate yourself and others in the group to new information that exposes the flaws by having an answer for all of the possible responses.The flawed ideology that the group has grown around uses propaganda as an immune system of sorts. Truth can’t infiltrate. Rational thought is not an option. We hold the secret knowledge and everyone else is missing it!
From a vantage point like this your “flawed ideology” can be exploited by bad actors wielding propaganda. It doesn’t just have to be the group itself protecting and preserving itself. The beliefs are weaponized, often in ways that result in the group operating against its own self interests. If you only see this as something that happens to “the other side” and think your group is completely immune, you may already be inoculated.
Solidarity doesn’t require a closed fist. We can be good, kind, empathetic humans and still hold things with an open hand. Humility is a great diffuser of propaganda. Looking at things from different angles, always believing that you might be wrong - the threat calls for a chastened and humble epistemology.