Sunday, July 26, 2009
Propaganda versus making a point
This morning Micki and I were discussing Ayn Rand as a result of Rosh's quote on Facebook. When I made the point that Rand can make extreme examples to make her point, Micki argued that it's propaganda. At first I disagreed, but upon further consideration, thought that when you write a novel, and are therefore also writing the opponent, you can make them do whatever you want, so it's not necessarily a realistic (and therefore valid) example. So my question is, where does making your argument become propaganda? As a continuation, where does taking a side become propaganda? An example could be news organizations. No one will argue in situations of genocide that it is wrong, and that is how it's reported. They might report the quotes of those committing the atrocities, but it will likely be reported in terms painting the situation as wrong (which it obviously should be). But say Fox News takes the angle that stem cell research is wrong (I don't know what they've reported on that), and reports on the topic from that viewpoint. Many would call it propaganda, while others would say it's the right viewpoint. Where does the line get drawn?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Due diligence. A point can be made and backed by argument and evidence and that's about the best we can do. Fox, as I've said before, just presents you with the conclusions to longer arguments. They have 6 mins to tell you something that might take 3 hours. So, that's propaganda. How is Ayn Rand propaganda though? She takes an entire book to draw out metaphor and uses extreme characterization to make points. Fiction will have drama and there should be expected, exaggeration.
ReplyDeleteThis is Micki by the way, and I hope that you don't mind me explaining my own position a little bit more (if my presence here makes you uncomfortable, let Steve or I know, and I'll leave you guys in peace. I just enjoy your conversations). Propaganda is not necessarily simply presenting conclusions to an argument. Propaganda is providing only one view, usually a biased view, and reducing the complexities (or grey areas) of an issue down to black and white arguments. For example, several years ago, I watched a Czech version of the Taming of the Shrew in which the Katherine was a capitalist princess and Petruchio was the king of a communist country (yeah, I know. The movie was for kids and clearly, the finer points of communism had not been explained to them yet). Throughout the movie, capitalists are portrayed as evil, money-grabbers or misguided (and lazy) fools, whereas the communist country was perfectly peaceful and happy. The entire film is devoted to "Katherine's" education in communist structures by the handsome prince. Clearly, the entire film uses some form of exaggeration, but what truly makes it propaganda is the entirely biased form in which capitalism is presented (characterization only providing one form). Therefore, the question is not so much about exaggeration (most stories have some form of exaggeration to make a point, especially if it is a satire or other form of social commentary) but Rand's novels were clearly designed to emphasize her own political/social philosophical beliefs, and she refuses to positively portray any other mindsets or at least feature characters who embody a form of middle ground. Also, would you not agree that her earlier works such as Anthem provide little if any characterization that isn't an extreme (or non-existent, i.e. the chick is flat, a mindless subservient to the man who exists to bear his babies and support his ego, while her own languishes).
ReplyDeleteI realize she's an objectivist, but can we really expect her to write fiction fairly? If people want to live their lives based off of some other persons world view, then it ultimately is their own fault for being so gullible. It's the humans as faulty machines again; on the aggregate we're all too easily manipulated.
ReplyDeleteNow, if she's writing an essay on something specific in the news, then as a matter of reputation she would have greater responsibiilty to represent the truth. But in fiction, anything seems passable.
As a side note, she probably believes what's written in her books. It's not necessarily propaganda to her, it might very well be the truth.
I'm not saying that writers should or shouldn't write fairly. They will write their own beliefs (generally); as someone who studies children's and young adult literature, I would suggest that many authors cannot look beyond their own viewpoint, and many people live their lives according to such books (for example, take The Faerie Queene written by Spenser or Pamela written by Richardson). However, that does not mean that it isn't propaganda. Literature (and film) can certainly be forms of propaganda, and while the author may perceive his or her own texts as truth, by producing a simplified version of the world, with little to no complexity and with a supposed moral or lesson attached, (i.e. Rand's Objectivism), they are producing some form of propaganda. While yes, this can bring up the issue that all literature, then, is some form of propaganda, and ultimately, I wouldn't necessarily deny it. However, each author does have a choice of whether or not their text is going to beat a point into the ground or allow a multitude of voices and positions erupt, or even better, refrain (or attempt to) from pushing personal philosophies or points or even satirizes it while endorsing it so that there is no clear position on the matter. But Rand made the choice to write her novels from only one viewpoint and none other and while some characters may be complex and faceted, that does not erase the fact that her texts only provide one possible ideal. Ultimately, it does depend on the style of text that you prefer, and personally, I prefer texts that are more complex and open to interpretation (think of the difference between the film V for Vendetta and the comic book. The comic book portrays V as potentially revolutionary, psychotic, complex whereas the film refuses to see him as anything but a revolutionary hero)
ReplyDeleteNow it's more clear what you are saying. Yes, I largely agree. I guess this is something you have to think about more carefully with children's literature. Adults are just taller children anyway, the psychology doesn't become too much more complex in most people.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the original argument that Ayn Rand’s books are propaganda for her ideas. Name me one author whose book is not propaganda for his or her ideas though. I generally except this when reading any book. Why write it unless you want others to be informed about your idea?
ReplyDeleteRand had a chance to offer a different perspective in Atlas Shrugged. Remember Eddie Willers? Not the hero, not the villain. Just a normal guy working hard at his job who doesn’t necessarily have the same values as Dagny, yet still does his job and lives his life. Look how Rand leaves his fate in limbo at the end of the book.
I think Brent and I agree here. If Ayn were still alive and asked to comment on a topic she could probably give an objective response. But in her books, she is writing to persuade or change people.