Influential Ethics for July

In the blocks below, please find your weekly bio-politics articles in a blog-style layout. If you have any questions or concerns about the research or writing, please reach out to me! I post one bio-ethics blogacle a week followed by an international relations/propaganda piece the following week. These topics are either about current issues or issues I find important yet are not discussed enough. In months with five weeks, I will post in the first three weeks and post in the fourth or fifth week, depending on my timetable based on my ghostwriting schedule.

Questions to consider

Week One:

Questions to consider

Do you think this is fair? By refusing to resort to theft, people in the Birch family may die in extreme circumstances.

Morality or Ethics?A Bio-Ethical Definition.

The question: “Is this a morality concern or a question of ethics?” is a question I get when I tell people I studied bioethics. The answer isn’t as simple as “ethics is this and morality is that” because although these are different concepts, they are linked in ways most people don’t understand. We can think about it like this: The ‘code’ you and your family base your decisions on—religious ideas, views on punishment tactics for children, attitudes toward money and theft, and so on—are based on the moral code your family shares.

This moral code is entrenched in generations of learned behavior and immediate consequences for wrongdoing. The morality of your family is usually closely tied to customs (in a similar way to religion) and how you present yourselves to the world. If your family’s moral code allows minor instances of theft—as long as it's not a large sum!—to slip under the radar, the morality of families that join yours through marriage or adoption will either have to be in line with yours, or resign themselves to a fate of theft if they value the relationship.

Morality, in this case, and what I believe, is a learned behavior. For example, if your family had to steal medicine or money for medicine to keep a family member safe (or alive in extreme cases), is it still called theft if the alternative was the theft of someone’s life?

In bioethics, there isn’t a clear line of wrong vs. right. As a whole, bioethics encompasses a range of different cultures and belief systems from patients and the physicians who treat them. What is wrong for family A could be right for family B based on their moral code that has guided their family for generations before they step foot in a doctor’s office or hospital.

For example, if family A—let’s call them the Aspen family—believe—based on their internal morality and religion—that stealing medication is just if it saves someone’s life, they won’t feel guilty for stealing medication to do so. If their internal morality focuses on the concept of life at all costs and their religion states that killing is immoral, are they justified in stealing medication that could save the lives of their elderly family members? If the children or younger people from the Aspen family learn that stealing is acceptable if it’s for someone’s life, they will grow up with the belief that this is normal.

Enter family B—let’s call them the Birch family—who owns a small pharmacy. This pharmacy has been a part of the family for generations and their goal is to give medication to those in need while ensuring a fair price. If the Aspen family starts stealing from this pharmacy for the sake of saving the life of their elderly family member, the Birch family will suffer because there will be fewer people they can sell cost-effective medication to once life-saving medication is stolen. If the Birch family has a chronically or terminally ill person or people to care for, their quality of life will decrease due to less money spent on their care.

It is a mismatch of internal morality that creates friction between these two families: The Aspen family believes that theft for life is justifiable so instead of discussing payment options with the Birch family, they steal. The Birch family doesn’t know who is stealing from them so they can’t offer payment plans and they are left scrambling for money to pay for their own ill family members because they refuse to resort to theft, even in the case of life.

This is where ‘ethics’ come in. In bioethics, justifiable crimes when it comes to life and death scenarios are complicated, and how the authorities in different countries punish those who steal for life varies. Theft is still a crime, regardless of where you live, but based on the circumstances, a reduced sentence or an acquittal might be possible if it can be proven that if the member of the Aspen family didn’t get their medication, they would have died.

Ethical decision–making is a concept in bioethics and it relies on a few factors, most notably how ethical decision–making affects adherence to institutions of authority like the police force and judicial system of your country. Following rules and laws of the land becomes a system of actions followed by consequences as we age: If we follow the law and don’t steal, the consequences of our actions will be upheld and no further measures need to be taken. If we steal, we have to face the consequences of the authorities in our land.

An ethical system of government and by association the institutions of authority within that government should prioritize the health and well–being of their citizens, even in the face of civilian poverty and a lack of resources for medical centers and hospitals. Ethics, by nature, is just because it focuses on a written or unwritten code of conduct (Beauchamp, et al. 2014) that the Aspen and Birch families use to navigate their role in society. These ethics also apply to the code of conduct discussed and signed by the medical community for the sake of their surrounding communities.

While there could be different codes of morality for each family or individual person in the nation—and these moral codes could be wildly different—the ethical principles that govern institutions like hospitals and the pharmacy owned by the Birch family are less ambiguous: Health is a right and is protected by the state, regardless of your moral code. At the same time, your moral code needs to be considered when medication and hospital stays are necessary.

If the Aspen family had a moral code of health and the preservation of life, they may have been justified in stealing life–saving medication, but if they believe blood products go against their internal morality, medical centers have to abide by their moral code, not by the general code of conduct hospitals and medical facilities operate under.

Notable philosophers:

None

Questions from piece:

If the rules of the land don’t prioritize health, how can we prioritize the law over giving our family members the health they need?
Is the Aspen family still justified in stealing life–saving medication for their family member?
Does the example of the Aspen family make stealing medicine or money for medicine justified?
Will they think about it like this?
Who makes this decision?

Please let me know using this direct [ link ] to the optional forum in the header. Alternatively, you can use any of the email links from the contact [ page ]. If you want to answer the Questions to Consider (not required but you are welcome to!), you can also discuss these questions and answers here.

References:

Beauchamp, T.L., Walters, L., Kahn, J.P. and Mastroianni, A.C. (2014). Contemporary Issues in Bioethics. 8th ed. Wadsworth Publishing Company.

What do you understand by morality?

What is the definition of a family base?

Do you think learned family behavior can be unlearned given the right tools?

Can you think of any alternatives to "acceptance" or "resignation"?

Do you think this is fair or should medical centers abide by the surrounding culture (Jewish/Hispanic, etc.) instead of laws of the land in general?

Should the state be allowed to refuse admission if they disagree with your moral and lifestyle choices?

Does one person in the family have the authority to become the moral agent for the family in general? Why or why not?

Do you think the surrounding community place a big role on medical resources and quality of care? Why or why not?

What other alternatives can you think of for the Aspen family?

Do you think it's imprtant that the bioethical community focuses on a range of different cultures? Why or why not?

Do you think theft is ever acceptable?

Fair price for whom? The Aspen family who needs the medicine or the Birch family who use their prices to add to their quality of life?

Can you think of examples for justifiable crimes other than theft (for the example)?

How can this be proven? medical records of the affected person )which may not exist) , or by launching an investigation that could distress the elderly family members?

Should these institutions have right of admission if they suspect a crime (theft) has been committed?

Who should be responsible for health prioritization? The government of family members of sick/injured people?

There are spaces without written content on either side of the page. This is by design and to avoid me waffling instead of adding thought–out pieces of writing.

These spaces can also be used to rest your eyes between blocks of text and give you, the reader, time to process and analyze what has been said on the page so far.

Not everything needs to be jam–packed with writing and an opportunity to respond. Sometimes we need the quiet moments and empty spaces to reflect and prepare ourselves for what comes next.

This is a website for reflection and asking questions! What type of writer would I be if I made readers like you tired on purpose, just so you can finish sooner and miss the opportunity to think about what you have read?

Questions to consider

Week Two:

Questions to consider

Do you think this poem was as effective as a propaganda tool as a response to what happened instead of a call to action to something that takes immediate action?

Different Forms of Propaganda From a Historical Perspective—Part One

The start of propaganda as a means to spread information had a religious aspect. Today, religion is often seen as the antithesis of propaganda. Negative press of organized religions is often endured because of the scandals associated with the catholic church and countless cases of sexual abuse by clergymen, or Islamic places of worship condoning child brides for the sake of purity.

At the forefront of these practices, information peddling and the use of propaganda techniques were often focused on blaming the ‘other’ and a call to action against their opposites for the sole purpose of removing the spotlight from their own wrongdoings.

Historically, this isn’t the intended use of propaganda, and modern forms are usually tied to the availability of funds to spread these forms of propaganda within the international relations sphere of influence.

The most effective forms of propaganda is seen on a global scale so naturally, governments and international organizations need a large propaganda (in all of its forms) budget if their goal is a large influence. Without the funds to spread your message, your sphere of influence will only be as large as your sphere of immediate contacts.

For the purposes of this article, I’m going to discuss a number of forms of propaganda from an historical perspective and how these forms were lost to time due to their ineffectiveness in spreading the intended message, or how certain forms survive to this day because of their ability to sway public opinion.

Let’s start with the first written form (as not all historical forms of propaganda involved text) and the form I discussed in the previous article about propaganda: The piece of writing Pope Gregory XV wrote and published in 1622, called the Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide.

This text was the first recorded use of the term ‘propaganda’ with the intention to spread the ideas of the Catholic Church while stating that Protestantism was not a legal or acceptable form of Christianity. This document gave clear instructions on how to proceed in the face of protest and values and what roles and duties Catholic priests had in the face of these different ideologies.

This may not seem like a traditional propaganda text since modern propaganda has less of a focus on the ‘how to change this and that’ and more of a focus on ‘you have the power to change this and that’. Regardless of the how and why, this example of a widely distributed text to change ideas and values within the Christian church in a subtle manner from within is a carbon copy of the expectations of modern propaganda.

To move away from modern propaganda and towards the first form of historical propaganda, we have to look at the importance of art and cultural symbols in Ancient Greece and Rome. As previously stated, a state or government needs to fund their propaganda campaigns, and what better way to fund these campaigns than by using the funds themselves?

The first recognized form of (non–written) propaganda was in the form of coins in Ancient Greece and the Hellenistic rulers. They used coins as propaganda to show citizens who they (the citizens) fought for, and adding faces to coins also helped prove family and political legitimacy: Coins were only allowed to be created by the government so if a ruler's face was on a coin, it was assumed that their policies and messages were just/right—whether this was true for all ancient Greek rulers is a topic for another day!

Approximately 220 years after the first Hellenistic ruler used coins as a form of propaganda, Julius Ceaser revolutionized the idea by creating coins for the Roman Republic based on faces of royalty and symbols of the Roman way of life. Julius used these coins as advertisements of his triumphs and as a means to persuade people to use Roman coins because they were more personal than the standard coins of the time, adorned with numbers alone.

This method was so effective that Julius’ face and conquests were printed on coins long after he was assisted, only for new rulers to copy this style. This practice continues today, although most people don’t view the coins in their pockets as propaganda.

Speaking of uncommon uses and forms of propaganda, poetry was seen as a form of propaganda to incite and entice people to join the 1099 Crusades (the capture of Jerusalem). By this time, the first crusade had ended and the realization that the overall death count of this crusade was between 150,000–300,000 was a stark reminder that life in the crusades wasn’t for the faint–hearted.

The crusades needed to continue, though, to spread Christianity through the Holy Lands and to keep bored and anxious new lords away from trouble in their hometowns. Poetry during these times were used as a means to spread the glory of completing a crusade and the successful conversion of a specific city—regardless of how these people were covered.

The most common form of poem for this purpose were epic poems, a style of poetry that offers a story–form in poetic verses, usually across several pages and throughout multiple generations of men who fought in the Crusades—women weren’t a part of the crusades, apart from the women who were captured as prizes.

Here are some examples of epic poems as propaganda to encourage people to join the crusades and to turn to these principles:

A French and English Example—Title: Chanson de Geste celebrating the Siege of Antioch (1097–98) which was meant to stir Christian fervor:

These are two stanzas from the Chanson de Geste (in French) and the Siege of Antioch (in English). This is the same epic poem in theory, but specific stanzas were focused on depending on the region and what they felt was important.

For example, the (original) French version focused on this stanza and the tone of the poem:

“Sirs, gather round and stop chattering;

if you want to hear the glorious song that I shall sing.

Come closer to hear about Jerusalem,

for nowhere else will you hear such a thing.”

While the English (translation) focused more on the following themes and stanzas throughout the poem:

“From Clermont’s council bold knights did rise,

Bearing the Cross under relentless skies;

Through hardship and war, their faith prevailed,

To lay siege where Satan’s walls assailed.”

There are a total of 9000 lines in this epic poem which allows the reader—and more importantly, the potential Crusaders—to glean what was important to them at the time.

The full poem (in French and English) can be found [ here ].

The fourth stanza of On the Capture of Jerusalem in the First Crusade is as follows:

“Think where your dear companions lie—

Survey their fate, and hear their woes:

How some through trackless deserts fly,

Some in the vulture's maw repose;”

The Arabic rendition of the Crusaders and their own epic poem was written as a response to the Crusades, instead of a form of propaganda to incite people to join. The Arabic poem—On the Capture of Jerusalem in the First Crusade by Modaffar of Abiward—didn’t follow the ‘epic’ style, but as a whole, this poem may be used as an early form of poetic propaganda because of the questions asked in the poem and the directions the poet gives to the reader.

This stanza gives a clear indication of what the poet/propagandist wants the reader to do, while following with imagery that resonates with Arabic people, making this a powerful form of propaganda. The difference is that this poem isn’t inciting Arabic people to go forth and plunder (a common theme in the French/English epic crusade poems), but instead to question what the readers know as truth and a call to action to remember what it means to be a part of the fire that gives Persia and Syria their power and influence.

The full poem (in English) can be found [ here ].

The history of propaganda is vast, so I will upload Part Two (the focus on modern historical propaganda) after the next bioethics article.

Notable philosophers:

None

Questions from piece:

What role did historical propaganda have in the face of opposing sides?
Do you think the church's use of propaganda led to effective church policies?
Since the Crusades were mainly performed to spread Christianity, do you think the spread of any other religion would have been that effective?
Would the effectiveness of the crusades have doubled if they had access to more land (a route to Africa through the Middle East/South East Asia)?

References:

Guilday, P. (n.d.). The Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide (1622-1922). [online] www.jstor.org https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/25011717.pdf
Jowett (2005). Propaganda Through the Ages. [online] http://us.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/11848_Chapter2.pdf.
Wikimedia Foundation (2008). Arabian Poetry for English Readers/Shorter Poems/On the Capture of Jerusalem in the First Crusade. [online] Wikisource.org. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Arabian_Poetry_for_English_Readers/Shorter_Poems/On_the_Capture_of_Jerusalem_in_the_First_Crusade?

What influences will specific imagery have on your need and willingness to fight for what you believe in? Does it matter?

What imagery does this translation (since it's the same poem) focus on compared to the original French version of the same stanza?

With your understanding of French history, do you think the mention of "sirs" was a general word use for men who could join the crusades, or "sirs" in the formal sense of a knight, as discussed in the English version?

Do you think it was feasable for multiple generations of people to join the crusades, or woould there be a focus on staying home to counter the losses in the first crusade (for more people to join in the third crusade)?

Why was it the responsibilty of the crusaders to occupy the times for bored and anxious lords? Do you think this says more about the political and monarchical inability to cater for large numbers of citizens?

How many Crusades do you know of? Do you think these had a similar structure throughout the years?

Do you think hidden pieces of propaganda are as effective if no one can see them?

What type of adverts do you think Julius Ceasar would have needed to fund and create?

Do you think these policies were just and right for everyone?

Does your country use coins with faces on them? Do you think about the symbolism when you see these faces?

Do you think messages are more easily received if the means of the message incorporate local art and cultural aspects of the surrounding communities?

Do you think modern and ancient forms of propaganda are more effective? Why do you think this?

Are legalities always acceptable because they are laws? Why or why not?

Written forms of propaganda require a literate populus. Do you agree? Should the level of education match the use of written forms of propaganda or should people use propanda messages to educate themselves?

Why would propaganda methods and forms be ineffective? Is the ineffectiveness the result of the methods used or the populus themselves?

In ancient times, what would the sphere of influence entail? The town, the city, or that state, or somethin else?

Can you think of the historical need for propaganda other than what was discussed here?

How much of an influence do you think the church had on the lives on those who weren't religious?

Is there a thing as negative press? Do you think this was the case in ancient times?

Questions to consider

In the case of non–autonomous people, do you think their family interests are aligned completely with theirs? How would you know?

Do you fear is a big driving force behind medical decisions (or a lack of) when it comes to diagnoses?

Should there be a preference for conventional cancer treatments because of clinical trials? Why or why not?

If a family member makes decisions that harm non–autonomous family members, should they be removed from the care team? Why or why not?

An ideal world for who? Sinjon, their parents, or the medical staff who have to treat Sinjon?

The Hippocratic oath is an important document in the medical community, but do you think modern oaths that focus on healing without teaching are as important?

In the case of differing opinions, do you think a mediator should be brought in when the family and medical team can't come to a treatment agreement?

Week Three:

Questions to consider

The Influence of Biological Family in Medical Decisions

Disclaimer: When I refer to ‘close–knit family’ in the piece below, I mean family in general, including families of adoptees. Children who have been adopted are as affected as biological children in decision–making regarding medical decisions for their children (discussed towards the end of the piece). From a biological perspective, adoptees don’t have the same hereditary traits as their biological parents. It becomes more difficult to gauge what their biological predispositions are if parents aren’t aware of their family history (which is often the case). Unless the paragraph or sentence discusses biological family and illness passed down through genes specifically, an adoptee is just as affected as biological (parents, family members, or guardians) medical decisions as their blood relatives make decisions on their behalf as well.

What is a biological family in the context of bioethics? To answer that, we have to look at the definition of biology and the definition of family as the same concept. Like the concept of macaroni and cheese; bacon and eggs; or cinnamon and sugar, a biological family can’t exist without the other part. These two concepts complete each other, and when seen in isolation, the definition of both words drastically changes.

Family interests and expectations play a part in medical decisions of close–knit families because these families seek approval and acceptance from those around them in treatment options and how they treat their cancer long after the chemo or other treatments have been administered. In the case of a cancer diagnosis, this close–knit family is quite involved in the treatment and recovery process. They want their family member with cancer—we’ll call this person Cindy (cancer + family) to get the best medical treatment available, and ensure they have the support system when they come home.

If this type of cancer has a hereditary component—while most cancers don’t have a hereditary or genetic component, there are a few like brain, breast, and ovarian cancer that do—another member of the family—we’ll call this person Candy (cancer + another + family) might use this opportunity to get tested. This increases Candy’s life expectancy compared to Cindy’s diagnosis, and generations for years to come could be healthier because of the proactive nature of Candy that their children will hopefully replicate if necessary.

The problem is: Family interests and family biology are equally entwined. Medicine isn’t a one–size–fits–all idea and part of this is because when making medical decisions on behalf of yourself and on behalf or young children or non–autonomous family members (family members who can’t make decisions for themselves because they don’t have body autonomy through age, illness, or an other other means) different religions and expectations are either explicitly voiced or subconsciously favored: A family’s medical history plays a large part in the biological family decisions for generations to come.

At the same time, Cindy’s family may avoid doctors and long hospital stays for important medical diagnoses because of the fear they may be diagnosed with cancer as well, which doesn’t allow for accurate medical decisions in the future. If Candy’s children saw how Cindy aged (because of the treatment and diagnosis) and how intense the initial cancer treatments were, they could look for alternative methods instead of the clinical route out of fear, not out of a need to protect themselves. These alternative routes could include homeopathy or detoxification therapies without killing the cancer cells outright, so the decreased life expectancy circle has come around again.

Candy’s children could focus on these alternative methods when making medical decisions for their own family, and the influence of their biological family and the increased chance of ovarian cacer could be reduced to nothing because of their personal experiences of what they saw as part of Cindy’s (conventional) cancer treatment: Hair loss, loss of apetite, sleeping issues, and so on.

The additional definition of biological family in medicine relies on biological relationships of the sick or injured person—We’re going to call this person Sinjon (sick + injury + person)—and how these relationships can help or harm Sinjon.

Non–autonomous family members are particularly at risk for poor decision–making by their family or when a family’s best interests aren’t taken into consideration as part of the care plan of Sinjon. If, at 10 years old, Sinjon becomes terminally ill or is in an accident where they are left paralysed, their parents and medical care team will become responsible for them. This isn’t anyone’s fault, it just happened, and the family is left to deal with the outcome.

If Sinjon’s parents spend a lot of time on social media and fake medical websites, their relationship and expectations of medication, medical procedures, and recovery time will be skewed because of the false information they receive. As the closest biological family members of Sinjon, they may have the right and autonomy to withhold, change, or refuse medical interventions that could save Sinjon’s life or at least, increase his quality of life. Medical staff at the hospital or clinic where Sinjon is being treated are an integral part of the outcome of Sinjon’s life and diagnosis, but they are employed by the medical facility treating Sinjon, and if Sinjon’s parents sue the medical center for unauthorized treatment, these doctors will be the first to blame.

In an ideal world, Sinjon’s parents would prioritize what is best from a medical and quality of life perspective and allow the medical center to treat Sinjon as best they can, but people don’t think like that. When it comes to children, most parents or other biological family members believe they have the right to choose how their children are treated, and some of these choices do more harm than good.

When these medical decisions are made on behalf of what the parents believe is right and not in the best interests of their child, there is a very fine line that the medical staff and institutions walk on every day. They (the medical team) have an oath to protect those in their care, but when families intervene because of inaccurate information, religious beliefs, or a mistrust of the medical community as a whole, there is only so much a medical team and a medical institution can offer their patients.

The influence of biological family in medical decisions is one of the most difficult concepts for people to grasp in bioethics because most people aren’t taught how to read studies and look at the effects of a treatment with logic. They are instead taught (subconsciously for the most part) how to react to studies they don’t agree with, and studies that they don’t fully understand how to read. Their responses are usually accusatory towards the writers of the study and initiators of any clinical trials because they don’t have the training to look at a study from all possible angles, not only from their perspective.

In the case of differing opinions regarding treatment of a non–autonomous family member, while religious and social backgrounds are important for the family as a whole. It’s difficult to get a proper diagnosis and treatment plan if a family is more focused on differences in religious or cultural aspects of the medical center compared to the right treatment for the Sinjon.

Notable philosophers:

None.

Questions from piece:

What do you understand by “hereditary illnesses”?
Do you think it’s necessary to perform screening tests on yourself if a family member has a hereditary illness? Why or why not?
Do you think medical decisions should be made by the family alone based on their values, or should there be medical intervention when the family doesn’t have the best interests of the non–autonomous family member at heart?
Should family expectations be considered when discussing the care plan for the non–autonomous person, or should there be an outside party to help with bias?
Should/is medical bias be a deciding factor when it comes to biological family by blood (not biological family as an adoptee)?

References:

Baines, P. (2017). Family Interests and Medical Decisions for Children. Bioethics, 31(8), pp.599–607. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12376.
Lin, J.L., Lipstein, E.A., Wittenberg, E., Tay, D., Lundstrom, R., Lundstrom, G.L., Sediqzadah, S. and Wright, D.R. (2021). Intergenerational Decision Making: the Role of Family Relationships in Medical Decision Making. MDM Policy & Practice, [online] 6(2), p.238146832110394. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/23814683211039468\
Oguro, N., Suzuki, R., Yajima, N., Sakurai, K., Wakita, T., Hall, M.A. and Kurita, N. (2021). The Impact That Family Members’ Health Care Experiences Have on Patients’ Trust in Physicians. BMC Health Services Research, [online] 21(1). doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-07172-y.

Do you think biology and family can be seen as two different ideas? Why or why not?

Should the interests and expecations of the family overshadow the medical team?

Does the best medical treatment mean on site (like at a medical center) or should this also include the at–home compare plan?

Is opportunity the right word here? Do you think 'duty' can also be used as its a duty to yourself to make sure your medical needs are taken care of?

Should adults or at least late teens be made aware of their full family medical history when they see doctors on their own? Will this help them get the right treatment?

Should alternative routes to medicine be explained from the start to give you a choice or should they be explored when conventional methods are unfavorable or less effective?

What is false information? If information is false but it still helps someone in the short–term, is it still harmful?

Why do you think the word 'blame' is used so often in the medical community, including between parents of an ill or disabled child/elderly parent?

How often do you think this happens? At what point should you realize that you are doing more harm than good?

Do you think a medical team should stop providing care if a family member requests this? Wha do you think should happen to family members who refuse medical care for a loved one?

Who should be responsible to teach people how to read studies and discuss their logic, schools or other educational facilities?

Why do you think people become accusatory when they don't understand something?

Does this treatment include the home care Sinjon might need? Who should be responsible for this care, the family or the medical institution, and to what extent?

What types of relationships could harm Sinjon?

If there isn't anyone to blame when something bad happens, how do people deal with the outcome?

Questions to consider

Week Four:

Questions to consider

Different Forms of Propaganda From an Historical Perspective—Part Two

From a modern perspective, I’m going to argue that propaganda, as we know it today, has its roots in wartime and not in the spread of (Christian) ideas from the 1600s. The modern—it’s widely considered that modern era of warfare and economic movements is widely considered to have started after the First Industrial Revolution in England.

An understanding of propaganda is heavily attributed to conflict and the differences of opinion of leading nations and their economic or social policies. The concept of “My way of doing things is the only way things should be done” isn’t a recent phenomenon, regardless of what the media tells you and how easy it is to fall into the trap of “The cult of the new”.

At the start of modern propaganda, there were two avenues: Coin or conflict. I’ll discuss the coin avenue first because it affected more civilians compared to the conflict avenue of mass media. The first Industrial Revolution revolutionized (haha) how we viewed, participated in, and understood consumer goods and services. Up until this point, the assembly line was used by a select few because people who weren’t in the business of countless items of the same nature didn’t profit from employing tens, then hundreds of people.

The money and individual training programs to teach workers how to use an assembly line simply weren’t there. This was partly because of a lack of funds in an average household, as well as the international after effects of the 1929 Great Depression, and partly a lack of urgency for mass–produced items. The Great Depression affected millions of people across international borders, and at the time, people were unsure if this dark period would ever end. It did end, however, as a result of the combination of changing important foreign policies in the United States and the onset of World War II.

In the United States, the end of this depression resulted in a boom in economic and employment opportunities, and for England and Europe, the increase in functioning factories helped the war effort on the home front. This helped pull England out of their own Great Depression and paved the way for funding of propaganda policies by introducing consumer reports where emerging business could tailor their products based on preference.

As these consumer reports became the norm in England, Europe, and the United States, business and production lines were given insight into which products, services, and artistic mediums consumers felt strongly towards or against. Without realizing it, consumers in these areas told companies what they liked, how/why they liked it, and how many people in their household these products could be marketed to in the future. At the time (early 1940s), these questionnaires were just that: questionnaires for businesses to gauge their target market.

The word ‘propaganda’ wasn’t part of the consumers’ vocabulary yet, even though the term was coined (in its modern form) in 1927 by Harold D. Lasswell, a United States political scientist who focused on the importance of wartime propaganda and how this affected political and market trends of the time. For the average person, they answered questions about their habits and preferences because they were asked; it didn’t matter who asked the question.

People were listening to them for the first time in decades; it’s difficult to ask a person’s opinion on which tomatoes or brand of oil they preferred if their family won’t make it to the end of the week.

As a result, the effectiveness of propaganda techniques in the 1940s may be attributed to a well–timed questionnaire and a new boost of energy from any able–bodied people who saw their survival after the Great Depression as a new opportunity to contribute.

From a consumer point of view, services and items that were tailored to their interests shaped their buying power. As economies stabilized, this buying power translated into stable homes filled with products with a personal touch, even though the ‘personal touch’ was copy–pasted into homes with similar product preferences and favorite colors. And then came World War II, the second avenue of propaganda.

As a nation who wants to defend their borders and their place in the international system, governmental agencies play a big part in conflict-related propaganda, or forms of messages that need to be heard before the term propaganda became a concept in the general public’s eye. The start of conflict–related propaganda was heavily influenced by political doctrines instead of religious texts, which meant these messages could be more easily understood by the general public. In the mid to late 1940s, conflicting political ideas plagued the psyche of civilians and consumers, even if they didn’t realize it. The forms of propaganda we know today can be traced back to this period, and these forms aren’t without loaded colors based on regions.

In the United States, propaganda posters used blue, white, and red to symbolize the American flag, and when they used other colors like black, yellow, or brown, these colors signified important themes like death, greed, or cowardice, and colors of mourning. In Europe, similar colors were used but for different reasons. Also, certain countries focused on certain colors based on their national pride and political goals.

For example, Germany used red and black because this followed their gothic style of script and colors of the national party (the Nazi’s) at the time, while Italy’s propaganda posters and pamphlets used green, red, and white to symbolize the importance of their flag and the patriotic influence these images were intended to have on whose who saw these colors.

Propaganda has a second function, and this function has been used to sway how people react and behave according to certain stressors.

In modern propaganda and in the context of conflict-related propaganda, colors, the placement of posters, and who delivers these pieces of ideological history all play an equal part in getting the message across. From the first terms of ‘modern yet old propaganda’ I discussed in part one of this piece for religious purposes, to the ‘modern, coin based’ and ‘modern, conflict related’ forms found today, the message is clear: “We, the government or institution responsible for these ideas, believe that our message and goal should be at the forefront of your decisions. These decisions are recorded, and your preferences shape how you interact with your fellow people. Choose wisely.”

Notable philosophers:

None.

Questions from piece:

When did you hear the word ‘propaganda’ for the first time?
What uses does propaganda have in the modern world?
What type of propaganda mediums do you know about? (examples include posters, pamphlets, etc.)
Do you think propaganda is just a form of spreading messages and ideas?
What happens when a propagandist uses their platform to create hate speech towards ‘the other’?
Is propaganda age–specific?

References:

Kleynhans, J.H. (n.d.). The Use of Colour as a Tool for Propaganda. [online] https://journals.co.za/doi/pdf/10.10520/AJA1684498X_109#:~:text=3.7%20Purple%2C%20Violet%20and%20Indigo,%2C%20death%2C%20conceit%20and%20rage.
Smith, B. (2019). Propaganda. [online] https://www.britannica.com/topic/propaganda/Propagandists-and-their-agents.

What do you understand by the term 'wartime'?

What do you understand by the term 'cult of the new' and do you think this is a modern issue?

How many industrial revolutions do you know of? How many occured in your country?

Do you think negative international after effects can be solved locally?

Do you think economics and employment are governed by the same social principles?

Do you think propaganda can be used as an artistic medium? Why or why not?

Do you think market trends play a big part in political trends, or vice versa? Are these influences equal?

What makes propaganda effective?

From a political and social perspective, how important is the consumer's point of view?

Why do you think I used the word "conflict" instead of "war" in this context?

Do you think color theory is as important as propaganda makes it out to be?

Is patriotism necessary for propaganda to work? Why or why not?

Is an ideological history the same as normal history? Why do you think that?

If citizens and civilians are afraid of being named based on their preferences, do you think these questionnaires and market related items have as much of an impact?

There are spaces without written content on either side of the page. This is by design and to avoid me waffling instead of adding thought–out pieces of writing.

These spaces can also be used to rest your eyes between blocks of text and give you, the reader, time to process and analyze what has been said on the page so far.

Not everything needs to be jam–packed with writing and an opportunity to respond. Sometimes we need the quiet moments and empty spaces to reflect and prepare ourselves for what comes next.