My first book is “Public Opinion,” by Walter Lippmann. The book was written in 1922, so it’s a little dry at times and I wouldn’t recommend buying it. Much of the book has techniques on manipulating public attitudes. So why did I put it on the list? I think Lippmann brilliantly describes the power structures within a liberal democracy (that’s lingo for the system of government we live in). Lippmann says that there are three classes in society. The largest class is about 90 percent of society, what he refers to as the “bewildered herd”. They are the workers and voters and exist to be exploited. They’re too dumb to understand the world so they need it explained to them by more sophisticated people. This is the job of a much smaller group of people (about 7 percent of society) called the Specialized Class. They are the second group and are the technocrats, the intellectuals, the managers, the politicians, etc. They make sure that the world functions for the Owners of Society: the bankers, the business owners, etc. In this system, power works backwards at least according to how a democracy should work. In this case, the smallest class tells the rest how the world will function by manipulation.
This structure keeps everything and everyone in line. Lippmann believed this is the way society should function. I disagree. But I do believe his analysis about how societal hierarchy works is dead on.
My second book is the classic 1929 book “Propaganda,” by Edward Bernays. I’ve written about this one already so I’ll just leave you with the opening quote.
“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.”
The word Propaganda has gotten a facelift under the new name of Public Relations. Bernays masters many of the techniques used today by both the PR and marketing firms. Flip to any part in this book and be shocked!
Bernays and Lippmann weren’t some weird guys on the fringes of society. They both worked for Presidents and some of the biggest companies. They might not be household names but they were the brains behind society in their day.
The third book, which I’m currently reading, is called “Captains of Consciousness,” by Stuart Ewen. Ewen describes how the US became a consumer culture. It’s often said that this culture came about naturally as an outgrowth of capitalism. In fact, it was completely designed by the Captains of Consciousness (people like Bernays and Lippmann) for the Captains of Industry (people like Ford or Rockefeller). The history starts around 1910 and continues to the mid 1930’s and by the 40’s the US was completely entrenched in a consumer society. One of the big techniques they used was to establish patriotic feelings with a consumer society. So if you didn’t like consumer society, by default you were anti-American. This idea is still used heavily today.
I’m really interested in the 1920’s. It is sometimes referred to as the Progressive Era. Democrats claim they’re an outgrowth of the Progressive Era. This is total nonsense. The eight hour workday, women’s right to vote, labor rights, initiative, recall, referendum, and voting for senators originated from the third parties.
I think two forces were at work during the early 1900’s. Around 1875, universal education was instituted and the public was suddenly able to read the newspapers. For the first time the masses wanted a say in how their society worked. They started protesting and arguing for more rights. They were making huge progress and the elite establishment (for lack of better words) were becoming terrified. They were losing both control and money. Muckrakers were describing the elite as Robber Barons.
I think when people like Bernays showed up on the scene the business community was relieved because they were able to put the public back in its place. Lippmann called the public “spectator’s of democracy” a place we remain today.
For a more up-to-date book on the manipulation of the public, read “Trust Us, We’re Experts!” by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber. These guys are the experts on the PR and Marketing industry today. This book is easy to read and thoroughly researched. Much of the book describes how “scientists” have manipulated science to say just about anything for anyone who’ll pay. Check out the PR Watch website or see an excellent Frontline episode written by Douglas Rushkoff that discusses these subjects.
“Culture of Fear,” by Barry Glassner is one of my all time favorites. Easy to read, well researched, and totally funny. The book, in many ways, reminds me of “Fast Food Nation,” which is another book I recommend. Anyway, this book tells how fearful the US population has become in recent years. Many of these fears are completely unfounded. Some myths covered are: the US crime rates, kids getting razor blades in Halloween candy, medical diseases, drug hysteria, terrorist, crazy mothers, delinquent kids, etc. He also describes how fear is used to manipulate people for policy purposes. For example, fear of high crime (which is a myth) is used by lobbyist who work for the prison industry to get public subsidies (your tax dollars) to make more prisons that we don‘t need.
Check out “Globalization and its Discontents,” by Joseph Stiglitz. Stiglitz is a Nobel Prize winner in economics, headed the World Bank, and economic advisor to Bill Clinton while he was president. He has now turned against the Clintons and advocates against neoliberal policies. The book illustrates how the IMF and World Bank function. (Just quickly, the IMF says whether a country can get loans from the World Bank.) If you want a loan you must do what the IMF says which usually means privatizing everything including schools, water, and social security. It also means that you must open up your borders to both transnational corporations and currency speculators. Currency speculation led the Argentina government (which was the poster child of the IMF) to claim bankruptcy. The East Asian Crisis resulted from policies advocated by the IMF. Most third world countries see the IMF as an imperial force. Unfortunately, these countries are desperate for money and will do just about anything to keep afloat. So who controls the IMF? It’s basically an extension of the transnational corporations (I’m simplifying here) which means it works not for the benefit of the people in those countries but to the corporation who control the IMF. People don’t like to see their borders opened and then see their resources raped. Strange, eh?
About a year ago, China wanted to buy Unocal in the US. Congress freaked out and used protectionist measures to keep that from happening. If another country tried this it would be seriously punished. I don’t mean punished like a slap on the wrist. I mean economic strangulation. I mean people die.
“Web of Deceit,” by Barry Lando is an intense piece of history. The book covers much of the declassified history of Iraq. Lando covers western support of Saddam Hussein from countries like the US, France, Germany, and Russia. Even before Saddam, dictators in Iraq were supported by everyone from Churchill to JFK. As Saddam was finally coming to power, through a sea of carnage, the CIA describe him as “a presentable young man.”
James Baker, the first Bush Administration’s Secretary of State, in his own memoirs states that, “Our Administration’s review of the previous Iraq policy was not immune from domestic economic considerations…Had we attempted to isolate Iraq we would have also isolated commercial opportunities.” At the time, Iraq was buying one quarter of American’s rice exports; altogether , it was the ninth largest purchaser of US food products in the world.
One declassified document, “U.S. Policy Toward the Iran-Iraq War” signed by Ronald Reagan, states that “It is present United States policy to undertake whatever measure may be necessary to keep the Strait of Hormuz open to internal shipping.” That document again was called “U.S. Policy Toward the Iran-Iraq War.” We find out that supporting Saddam was about defending “critical oil productions and transshipment facilities in the Persian Gulf.” Reagan doesn’t even mention what the public was being told at the time. They were saying supporting Saddam was about isolating Iran from taking over the region. (This is something I’ve seen with declassified documents over and over again. The public is told one thing but behind the scenes something completely different is taking place.) This isn’t information by some crazy radical. This is straight from Reagan himself. Supporting Saddam was about economics. Please read the document for yourself. It makes me so angry when people talk about support for Saddam as trying to contain Iran. If that was true, why the support both before and after the war? Here is the infamous Rumsfeld video of them shaking hands.
This was shortly after Saddam “gassed his own people.” The transcript and declassified documents show that Rumsfeld never mentioned anything even though both the CIA and State Department mentioned it to him.
Here is Clinton’s Madeline Albright stating that Clinton’s sanctions and the killing a half a million children in Iraq was “worth it.”
She doesn‘t even try to argue the facts. The sanctions actually strengthened Saddam since everyone during a crisis huddles beneath their leaders.
Enough of politics. On to Philosophy. One of the most influential books for me was Bertrand Russell’s “The Problems of Philosophy.” The book’s about 100 pages and pretty easy to read for a philosophy book. Russell is credited with integrating mathematics with logic. Not an easy task.
I think I read this book at a perfect time. I use to be an idealist, which means I thought that somehow (not even sure what I was thinking!) the mind could influence the world around me. Stupid, I know! Anyway, the thought has been around for awhile. This book is mostly about Epistemology which relates to how we can know whether something is true or not. His arguments are simple but powerful.
The last book is Noam Chomsky’s “On Nature and Language.” This book is mostly interviews and can be highly technical. Where to start with Chomsky. In the 50’s he revolutionized the field of linguistics and thereby psychology. Chomsky mentions a concept and another person will take that concept and write a famous book about it. Jerry Fodor took Chomsky’s idea of Modularity and wrote Modularity of Mind - another great book but highly technical. Colin McGinn and Marc Hauser are other examples. Steven Pinker has pretty much translated Chomsky’s material to the lay person and is now probably the most famous psychologist today. Chomsky Hierarchy is basic in computer science courses and Niels K. Jerne who won the Nobel prize in medicine said he basically stole Chomsky’s Hierarchy and applied it to medicine. Chomsky also contributed in the field of logic.
So what does Chomsky say about language? He says that language is innate meaning the rules for language, what he calls Universal Language, are built into our brains. At the time everybody thought that parents teach their kids language. Chomsky asked how a child could learn all the rules of language, rules even the best linguist don’t understand, in such a short period of time. It turns out that English has only superficial differences from Japanese or any other language. Languages are all basically the same. We are hardwired with the basic rules in our brain. This simple understanding, the idea of innateness, has rocked the world of psychology. It overthrew Behaviorism and launched into the field of cognitive psychology. Scientist and psychology are starting to merge because of Chomsky’s work. Scientist are in a race to find out what’s innate and subtracting that from what we learn from our environment. It turns out that almost everything about us is built into our DNA. From twin studies we know that personality traits have more to do with our genes than where or how we grow up. Child psychologist are breaking from the idea that parents play a very big part in a child’s development. All this stuff is being empirically verified and eventually the public is going to have to deal with this subject. It won’t be easy.
Here is a great interview on the subject.
