Iddins Ideology and the Individual |

Ideology and the Individual: The Use and Misuse of

Labels in Political Propaganda
James Michael Iddins
Valparaiso University Graduate Studies

The division of the political realm into “wings” is one oversimplification

typical of propaganda that both the “left” and the “right” have in common.

These “wings” are imaginary communities where some situate themselves in

order to make meaning and belong. It is my suspicion that these high order

abstractions, which we often hear used to describe combinations of views,

necessarily obscure our real thoughts and opinions on real issues. It seems

that these labels are what we often refer to as over-generalizations or

stereotypes. If this is true, do current political labels not make coherent

dialogue, and thus real progress, impossible? It seems that present popular

labels are essentially mislabels. I grant that general labels are often useful

and necessary. As Walter Lippman (1922) observed, “inevitably our opinions

cover a bigger space, a longer reach of time, a greater number of things,

than we can directly observe. They have, therefore, to be pieced out of what

others have reported and what we can imagine” (79). All the same, there is a

line where over-generalization occurs. In order to actually accomplish

anything in a conversation, is it not first necessary that we be clear on what

we are discussing? While it is doubtless necessary for humans to group

themselves and form meaning, might we be unconsciously sabotaging

ourselves through mislabeling or over-generalization?

 Iddins Ideology and the Individual |
2

In this discussion of the subject matter, it will be helpful to utilize

evidence from various disciplines. One sociologist who provides a nice

starting point is Howard S. Becker (1963), a pioneer of labeling theory. While

labeling theory in sociology primarily deals with labeling someone or

something as deviant in society, it is still highly applicable regardless of what

label is being applied in the grouping process. Becker explains that the

process of taking sides is actually the process of creating sides. Consciously

or unconsciously this process evokes the very traits which we claim existed

prior to the grouping process. This then makes it all the more easier to begin

lumping the grey into categories of black and white. Becker believes that we

should “…direct our attention in research and theory building to the

questions: who applied the label…to whom? What consequences does the

application of a label have for the person so labeled? Under what

circumstances is the label…successfully applied?” (Becker, 3). Becker

believes that individuals artificially create categories and sides by also

making the rules as to what constitutes being lumped in or out of a certain

category. If we adopt this perspective, we realize that a label is not based on

“a quality of the act a person commits”, but rather the application of

manufactured rules to that individual’s act or belief.

Biologist Desmond Morris (1969) notes the human’s innate tendency to

divide their surroundings into groups so as to be able to make sense of large

amounts of information. This is a mental shortcut that makes human

intelligence possible. Labels are the mental anchors for grouping. He then
 Iddins Ideology and the Individual |
3

says, “Biologically speaking, man has the inborn task of defending three

things: himself, his family, and his tribe” (125). With the disappearance of

the traditional tribe and the emergence of what Morris calls the super-tribe

(the nation), man’s tribe is not as obvious anymore, so man is always

seeking to better define who is the ‘us’ and who is the ‘them’. This dualistic

framing of the world, then serves as a sort of pragmatic shorthand to aid the

human in making decisions regarding what would otherwise be highly

complex amounts of information. From this we get the phenomenon of the

in-group and the out-group.

Morris asks: “What is it that makes a human individual one of ‘them’,

to be destroyed like a verminous pest, rather than one of ‘us’, to be

defended like a dearly beloved brother? What is it that puts him into an out-

group and keeps us in the in-group?” (130). He then notes how it used to be

easier to recognize, label, and lump ‘them’ when they belonged to an

entirely different culture, but that even sub-groups within a super-tribe, or

nation, have enough differences and common denominators to achieve this.

Learning Seed, a company that develops educational programs concerning

diversity and psychology, explains a key distinction: “Making categories is

not prejudice. Prejudice is a preconceived judgment or opinion without just

grounds or before sufficient knowledge. Prejudice is one step further than

simply making a category – it is judging the “thems” or their behavior as

somehow inferior to “us”” (6). Learning Seed describes how we are taught

these habits of judging different artificial categories from our parents,

 Iddins Ideology and the Individual |
4

teachers, and larger society, just as we are taught our language and other

customs. We end up thinking about our own situation in terms of particulars

and the situations of others in terms of generalizations, often over-

generalizations.

Unfortunately the tendencies to group and form prejudices are often

exploited by propagandists, political and otherwise, and used to oversimplify

complex issues to our detriment. Public policy scholar Kathleen Jamieson and

communications theorist Joseph Cappella (2008) discuss the use of “insider

language” and “disparaging labels” as means to solidify the mental

distinctions between in-groups and out-groups, noting that these tactics

often ridicule and contribute to “polarization and balkanization1” (183). They

point out that these moves “distance those who adopt the labels from those

labeled” (184). Tactics such as these solidify not only group boundaries, but

also bring prejudice into the equation, often unconsciously.

One of the first points to consider when we look at the social and

political process of labeling is the notion of framing. Jamieson and Cappella

describe this tactic: “Frames focus on some facets of a story and not others,

invite the audience to accept some assumptions over others, and imply

some questions while ignoring others” (6). Jamieson and Capella tell us that

those common frames in reporting which concerns the political realm utilize

the notions of conflict and strategy. Psychologists Amos Tversky and Daniel

1
Refers to the way customized media materials “…will allow, even encourage, individuals to live in their own
personally constructed worlds, separated from people and issues that they don’t care about or don’t want to be
bothered with” (191).
 Iddins Ideology and the Individual |
5

Kahneman (1981) use a metaphor to assist us in understanding how various

media frame choices for us:

If while traveling in a mountain range you notice that the apparent

relative height of mountain peaks varies with your vantage point, you
will conclude that some impressions of relative height must be
erroneous, even when you have no access to the correct answer.
Similarly, one may discover that the relative attractiveness of options
varies when the same decision problem is framed in different ways.

These scholars illustrate for us laymen how seemingly miniscule changes in

formulations of choices cause significant shifts in preference. Our perception

of a mountain’s height varies as we move up or down, forward or back, just

as our choices do. Once our shifts in preference have been made, we may

actually lump ourselves since it is our natural tendency to do so and

categories have been conveniently suggested to us. This aligns with Becker’s

assertion that most people automatically assume the rules implied in the

questions asked. Thus, we see what R. K. Merton (1948) refers to as a self-

fulfilling prophecy, which occurs when “a perceiver’s false belief influences

the perceiver’s treatment of a target which, in turn, shapes the target’s

behavior in an expectancy-consistent manner” (193).

If some questions and options are excluded from discussion by the

very framing of the dialogue, how are we to know, unless we are abnormally

vigilant which options are excluded and why? The sad truth is that framers

are well-aware most people have made decisions which entail the sacrifice of

the time needed to be so vigilant, such as raising a family or working full

time. As we will see, they often exploit this weakness. They frame issues as
 Iddins Ideology and the Individual |
6

overly simplistic as possible, packaging the world in terms of black and

white, good and evil, us and them, thus eliminating all grey area and the

limitless amount of possibilities that come with it. Public relations expert

Edward Bernays (1928) elaborated on this topic: “In theory, every citizen

makes up his mind on public questions and matters of private conduct. In

practice, if all men had to study for themselves the abstruse economic,

political, and ethical data involved in every question, they would find it

impossible to come to a conclusion about anything” (10-11) italics mine. As

Lippman adds, “…the attempt to see all things freshly and in detail, rather

than as types and generalities, is exhausting, and among busy affairs

practically out of the question” (88).

To carry out this sifting, simplifying, and packaging process which the

political propagandists undertake, they do not consult any moral compass,

but instead consult the weather vein of public opinion. This data can be

gathered from self-report surveys, or, as is now coming into fashion, control

groups which can be psychoanalyzed2. Based on the results of this polling,

the persuaders can then come up with “…clichés, pat words or images which

stand for a whole group of ideas and experiences” (Bernays, 1928, 50). The

propagandist can design talking points around these results, so that the

individual with little time to do his own research feels that he or she has

educated themselves. The individual then holds a string of neatly packaged

phrases with which they can demonstrate to their fellows that they are “in

2
See PBS’s FRONTLINE documentary, The Persuaders
 Iddins Ideology and the Individual |
7

the know”. Bernays admits that once public opinion has been manipulated

and the public won over to a “side” of an issue, it may then be misused

tyrannically, but seems to take heart in the fact that modern man has many

avenues for making his changing opinion known (Bernays, Manipulating…,

1928, 960). This seems a rather vague and inadequate treatment of such a

monolithic concern.

Look, if you will, at the American two-party system. Are we to believe

that two parties represent the diverse opinions from the larger part of a

continent? Surely this is not so, though we allow ourselves to be led into

believing it is the case. Circle Research Group (2009) indicates that in the

2008 election only 64% of those eligible to vote did so (Kirby, 2). Political

science scholar John Richard Petrocik (2009) then notes that 40% of that

64% identify with the “independent” category, though he questions the

number of people who will actually act independently rather than resort to

one of the two ready-made options. At any rate, it is clear that there is no

place in our current political system for a large number of opinions and that

many do not consider the system even worthy of attention. Faced with such

a scenario, it seems the function of political propaganda is to put walls up in

our minds, to trap us on this vast continent into Manichean worldviews, thus

closing off creative and unpredictable options for government or

nongovernment. Historian Stephen Davies (2010) notes how this

phenomenon has been present throughout the history of America. He

explains how, through propaganda, those opposed to what was at the time
 Iddins Ideology and the Individual |
8

known as a federalized government successfully adopted the label

“federalist” to utilize positive associations with the word, even though

technically the word meant something quite contrary to what the party stood

for. Through this successful maneuver, the group was able to evoke a

popular stigma and defeat the real federalists, who came to be seen only in

the negative (anti-federalist). Not only did this sleight of hand win the group

popular support, but it changed the popular definition of the word.

Davies then makes an observation with regard to the current use of

the term conservative in the United States. He says, “the problem is the

identification of the word liberal with what is broadly social democracy and

progressivism. This has become so strong that the term conservative is

being picked up and used as the obvious counterpoint as a way of resistance

to this kind of intrusive managerialism” (Time to Revive…). He explains how

this makes the water significantly muddy in regard to accurately describing

where one stands on any given issue. This use of the word conveniently

obscures the fact that in the past conservatism has typically been associated

with conserving tradition. He continues, describing more broadly the way in

which labels and assumptions operate to confuse real issues and make

dialogue difficult:

The labels which people apply to particular political positions or

combinations of views tend to limit their conception of what the range
of possible combinations is. [People] will tend to typically try and force
you into one of the opposites that is there rather than think ‘oh, well
there isn’t a label commonly available’ (Time to Revive…).
 Iddins Ideology and the Individual |
9

Being lumped into over-generalized opposites, is it any wonder that politics

tends to move so slow and be so inefficient? The American political system is

locked in a stalemate, where “democratic” policy looks strangely similar to

“republican” policy, because we have placed ourselves in contrived

categories which are diametrically opposed to each other.

This is the common propaganda of the “left” and the “right”, that the

grey area in life can be divided into black and white. As Davies points out,

this is the point at which a label evolves into an ideology, a relatively

coherent belief system. As French philosopher and sociologist Jacques Ellul

(1966) notes, “ideologies emerge where doctrines are degraded and

vulgarized and when an element of belief enters into them” (193 & 194).

From this, one may deduce that other doctrines outside the realm of

ideology rest on reasoned principles or self-evident truths. It also seems we

may deduce from this statement that a shift into ideology also constitutes a

shift towards a civic or secular religion. Ideologies, in the popular sense of

the word, by their very nature include one group of ideas at the exclusion of

all others. In fact, change or adaption would destroy the relative coherency

of the ideology. So what we see is a type of all-or-nothing approach. What

starts with a mislabel often ends with one tied to an ideology that he or she

may not necessarily agree with.

As Ellul further notes, this is actually the job of good propaganda, to

obscure the issues when needed, tell only partial truths, and frame issues so

that other options are automatically excluded from dialogue. He makes a

 Iddins Ideology and the Individual |
10

sharp observation in regard to media outlets as propaganda vehicles: “All

propaganda has to set off its group from all other groups. Here we find again

the fallacious character of the intellectual communication media…, which, far

from uniting people and bringing them together, divide them all the more”

(212) italics mine. To take this analysis one more step, I would say it is

important to note that even when these media outlets bring people together,

it is often under false pretenses. While this may prove to be temporarily

expedient, as in the case of elections, passing bills, and promoting war

campaigns, it is hardly effective in building sustained group solidarity or

filling the void left vacant by real convictions.

Two factors that are successful in building sustained group solidarity

and creating real conviction are socio-economic and political ills.

Propagandists and ideologues are well-aware of this fact. The unquestioning

and faith-like acceptance of policy is the dream of the power-hungry. Social

psychologist Ellis Freeman (1964) gets to the heart of this matter: “The more

exhausted, degenerate, decadent, degraded, defeated, or sometimes simply

bored a people are, the less likely they will be inclined to deal with reality

and the more they will resort to wishful soothsaying” (33). He explains how

propagandists play upon this tendency in the promotion of their favored

ideology and claims that this is possible because of the long-held “human

desire to control the world with speed and ease, to find a solution at once

despite ignorance of means” (33). With this knowledge under our belts, it

seems it is of supreme advantage to those in power not to correct social and

 Iddins Ideology and the Individual |
11

political ills, but to compound them, thus making the ground all the more

fertile for sowing the seeds of blind faith and making real dialogue further

impossible.

Circling back around to answer Becker’s questions regarding labeling

theory, we see that propagandists and ideologues are the ones that attempt

to make known what label should be applied and to whom. Whether this be a

news anchor, talk radio host, or a president’s speech writer, these individuals

make sure that any inconvenient labels are excluded from discussion

through framing. The consequence this type of labeling has for the person so

labeled is a removal from the creative process of forming the grey area into

new options. He or she, whether on the giving or receiving end, will most

likely then form emotional stigmas and assumptions based on the over-

generalized options presented. While this process conveniently simplifies

political decisions for those who have little time, it is also a drastic

misrepresentation of reality, one which makes the nation, as an idea,

possible. Thus from the imaginary community created in the process of

labeling, others follow. The circumstances under which political labels are

successfully applied are exactly what we see today – a populace too

distracted, busy, bored or disillusioned to remain vigilant.

With all this evidence at our feet, we come to see that we still have a

few options. We could, like Bernays embrace this trend towards media

manipulation and propagandizing of information, letting the so called

“invisible government” of the media outlets sift information for us. We could
 Iddins Ideology and the Individual |
12

criticize and condemn the all-too-common moral corruption present in this

trend, but come to the conclusion that we still wish to live in the “modern” or

technologized world. In such a case, vigilance and self-education is the key.

One must be aware that this entails a significant time commitment and

embrace this fact. Or we might come to the conclusion, as many of our

elders did, that local or community government is the only solution to the

propagandizing of information. It is much easier to make informed decisions

if one is experiencing firsthand the raw material out of which the decision is

to be made. There is much truth to this notion.

Even when we would not change our decisions with the questions more

neutrally formulated or put in the proper context, still the habit of consulting

misinformation remains dangerous. The knowledge of how this process

works is highly relevant in answering how decisions ought to be made as

well. Perhaps there is good reason why humans can only process so much

information – that healthy and informed communities are often only possible

on a small scale. We must educate ourselves on this topic if we wish to

minimize the extent to which we are manipulated. We help the lies along by

repeating to ourselves pre-manufactured talking points and rationalizations

that it is “our duty” to vote and that “men died for this”. Perhaps we are

unsure what to make of all the political noise… All the same, it is important

to dwell upon the consequences and considerations here put forth, for

inevitably we all fall prey to mislabeling at one time or another.

 Iddins Ideology and the Individual |
13

Bibliography

Bernays, Edward. (1928). Propaganda. New York: Horace Liveright.

-(1928). Manipulating Public Opinion: The Why and How. The American
Journal of Sociology, 33:6, 958-971.
Becker, Howard S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance.
New York: Free Press.
 Iddins Ideology and the Individual |
14

Berreby, David. (2005). Us and Them: Understanding Your Tribal Mind.

Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Davies, Stephan. (2010). Time to Revive ‘Individualism’? (lecture). Christ
Church: University of Oxford. Oxford Libertarian Society.
Ellul, Jacques. (1966). Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes. New
York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Freeman, Ellis. (1940). Conquering the Man in the Street: A Psychological
Analysis of Propaganda in War, Fascism, and Politics. New York: The
Vanguard Press.
French, F.C. (1908). Group Self-consciousness: A Stage in the Evolution of
the Mind. Discussion. Omaha: The University of Nebraska. Pp. 197-200.
Jamieson, K. H. and Cappella, J. N. (2008). Echo Chamber: Rush Limbaugh
and the Conservative Media Establishment. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Kirby, E. H. & Kawashima-Ginsberg, K. (2009). Fact Sheet: The Youth Vote in
2008 (pamphlet). Medford, MA: The Center for Information & Research
on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE) of Tufts University.
Lai, J.H-W, Bond, M.H. & Hui, N. H-H. (2007). The Role of Social Axioms in
Predicting Life Satisfaction. Journal of Happiness Studies, 8, 517-535.
Learning Seed. (2007). Them and Us: Prejudice and Self-Understanding. Lake
Zurich, IL: Learning Seed Productions.
Lippmann, Walter. (1922). Public Opinion. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and
Company.
Merton, R.K. (1948). The Self-fulfilling Prophecy. Antioch Review, 8, 193-210.
Morris, Desmond. (1969). The Human Zoo. New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company.
Petrocik, John Richard. (2009). Measuring party support: Leaners are not independents.
Electoral Studies, 28:4, 562-572.
Plummer, K. (unknown year). Labeling Theory. Historical, Conceptual, and
Theoretical Issues, 1, 191-194.
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1981). The Framing of Decisions and the
Psychology of Choice. Science, New Series, 211: 4481, 453-458.