Propaganda: Glittering Generalities
"The gods in a world of takthir (as opposed to tawhid) are legion. To mention some of the more important ones would be to list the defining myths and ideologies of our times---freedom, equality, evolution, progress, science, medicine, nationalism, socialism, progress, Marxism. But perhaps the most dangerous of the gods are those that are the most difficult to recognize. They have innocuous names like care, communication, consumption, development, education, information, standard of living, management, planning, production, project, resource, service, system, welfare."
William Chittick
“If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words.” Philip K. Dick
The power to define is the ultimate power. (A general postmodern wisdom)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Propaganda is part and parcel of the modern social and political landscape everywhere. Since the early years of the twentieth century when its potential as a “public relations” exercise was first recognized, courtesy of pioneers in the field like Edward Barnays, who was Sigmund Freud’s nephew by the way, it has become more and more sophisticated and subtle over the years, especially with the rise of digital media and SNS etc. But its common or essential techniques have, for the most part, remained the same ever since Nazi Goebbels, the Fascists and company perfected the dark art. One of the early critical analyses of propaganda techniques was carried out by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis (IPA). Established in 1937, the IPA lists these common techniques as follows:
The propagandist language of name calling, fear mongering, and the use of glittering generalities serve demagogues and political extremists well. This much is well understood now. Through the pernicious practice of name calling, the “other” (the target individual, social/political/cultural/racial group, country etc.) is vilified and dehumanized. A culture of fear is created, convenient bogeymen are created, frightening and discomforting metaphors and imagery are used to disorient and disarm the gullible masses and make them ready for control and manipulation. The result is a sense of vulnerability in the people. Immigrants, Mexicans, Blacks, Muslims in the USA, Muslims and Africans in EU, and certain sects, ethnicities and minorities in Pakistan are examples. In Pakistan, for example, once an entire sect is named and declared, “kafir”, the way to the “final solution” is paved---the total annihilation of the named and the re-defined is the logical next step which would then be carried out with an urgent sense of obligation, as a pious religious duty that must be carried out with a jihadi zeal. For example, this particular modern propaganda technique of vilification and dehumanization through toxic acts of naming and (re)-defining, so beloved of nakedly ambitious and vile little men and women of this world in general and of the ones in Pakistan in particular----the tyrants and bigots of all shades and orientations but especially the booted duffers----was very effectively used in the numerous decades-long violent “targeted” purges, the sectarian bloodbaths and ethnic cleansings, in a place like Quetta (the hometown of yours truly).
This act of name calling, or naming, is, therefore, a potent tool. For example, for the ancients, the very act of naming something or someone was an act of power, of control. To know someone’s name was to have power over them. After all, the ultimate name giver is the Creator Himself. When God told/taught the first being, the archetypal Adam, "the name of things”, He thus gave him power over all creation, made him the ashraf al makhluqaat, the khalifa, the noblest of all creatures. The difference in the modern acts of naming, however, is that since modernity lacks any sense of the sacred, is in denial of transcendence, is a totally negative theology of skepticism/cynicism, where everything is sheer “power” in this world, most, if not all, naming eventually boils down to reduction(ism), limitation, quantification, diabolism (as opposed to symbolism) and eventually to dehumanization. Modern man, after all, wants to be god himself in the absence of the Sacred.
In short: calling someone evil---and doing it repeatedly, day in day out, 24/7, 365 days a year---is, in a sense and for any special purpose and many people, turning that thing into evil. Goebbels the Nazi knew it well . Think of “India” and “Indian” in Pakistan and of “Pakistan” and “Pakistani” in India. On both sides of the border, it is now almost impossible to imagine evil without thinking about one of these categories. In fact, and this is especially true for certain ethnic groups in Pakistan---especially for the people of Punjab, or for the majority of Punjabis---it is not even possible to have a sense of the self, to have a confident identity, without at the same time thinking of the evil “other”, the evil Indian: for these people, the self has been thoroughly defined negatively, as something that exists because, and only because, it is opposed to another entity, the “evil other” (more on this issue later. For now, interested readers may wish to read a related blogpost here).
As a propaganda technique, glittering generalities play a very important role in our current political milieu, both local/national and global. What is a glittering or glowing generality? This is how Wikipedia defines it:
“A glittering generality (also called glowing generality) is an emotionally appealing phrase so closely associated with highly valued concepts and beliefs that it carries conviction without supporting information or reason. Such highly valued concepts attract general approval and acclaim. Their appeal is to emotions such as love of country and home, and desire for peace, freedom, glory, and honor. They ask for approval without examination of the reason. They are typically used by politicians and propagandists.”
As vague words, phrases and expressions with loads of (positive/negative) connotations, glittering generalities are what the IPA calls “virtue words” or expressions. Strongly appealing to our emotional faculties, they disable our critical faculties and make us susceptible to all kinds of manipulations. They are constructed and constantly and regularly reinforced through jingles, songs, images, dramas and movies, and catch phrases etc.: think of ISPR sponsored and produced dramas and Noor Jehan, Amanat Ali Khan and now the many Coke Studio patriotic songs. Glittering generalities are words like science, rationality, development, progress, civilization, motherland, fatherland, security, democracy, freedom, human rights, peace and love, sustainable, international community, civil society, community development, grassroots, empowerment, poverty alleviation, LGBTQ, religious, army/fawj/fawji, wardi, The Idara (institution) and so on. These are all abstract in nature, meaning different things to different people and, therefore, amenable to manipulation.
Let’s take one of these concepts, sustainable development (SD), a darling concept of the noisy secular missionaries everywhere but especially in Pakistan (the NGO mafia), to see how it works. Sustainable development as a “buzzword” is one of those concepts which are widely (ab)-used by all sorts of individuals and interests, from the ecologically destructive industrialists to slimy politicians, from NGO and civil society jihadists, social justice activists, opportunist environmentalists to compromised (lifafa) journalists, intellectuals, writers and artists. I think nobody has improved upon Lele’s early critique of the concept. He wrote way back in 1991,
“SD is a ‘metafix’ that will unite everybody from the profit-minded industrialist and risk minimising subsistence farmer to the equity seeking social worker, the pollution-concerned or wildlife-loving First Worlder, the growth-maximising policy maker, the goal-oriented bureaucrat, and therefore, the vote-counting politician.”
These noble sounding, fix-all words, these magic wands, are all suspect. In our times, they have become like sacred cows, as their particularly constructed and propagated meanings are vigilantly guarded by the powerful and the influential. Nobody can challenge them without suffering some form of retribution. Exhibit: in recent years, the USA has destroyed at least four countries in the Middle East / West Asia with the help of mere three or four, although very powerful, of these glowing generalities: "democracy", "freedom" and “women’s rights” or "human rights." To challenge these is to invite the scorn and ridicule of the Western and westernized secular-liberal mobs everywhere. Often, these are like empty vessels into which are poured the desires and the interests of the powerful, the oppressors and victimizers. Following campaigns of fear mongering, glittering generalities are then employed to give the frightened, the bamboozled and the vulnerable, a sense of security and often that of superiority. All false, of course.
Glittering generalities are conversation stoppers. They are thought opium, narcotics that numb and dumb people down. They work in many ways, sometimes in a very subtle manner, subliminally reinforcing the established names and definitions, keeping the domination in place, maintaining the violent and unjust status quo. The whole idea of employing glittering generalities is to stop critical thinking, mostly by discrediting or by outright hiding alternatives. In one commonly practiced version, they lock the victims into simplistic “either/or” dualities, both of which are often the two sides of the same coin. Remember George W. Bush after 9/11: “you are either with us or against us”?
“If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words.” Philip K. Dick
The power to define is the ultimate power. (A general postmodern wisdom)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Propaganda is part and parcel of the modern social and political landscape everywhere. Since the early years of the twentieth century when its potential as a “public relations” exercise was first recognized, courtesy of pioneers in the field like Edward Barnays, who was Sigmund Freud’s nephew by the way, it has become more and more sophisticated and subtle over the years, especially with the rise of digital media and SNS etc. But its common or essential techniques have, for the most part, remained the same ever since Nazi Goebbels, the Fascists and company perfected the dark art. One of the early critical analyses of propaganda techniques was carried out by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis (IPA). Established in 1937, the IPA lists these common techniques as follows:
- Word games (name calling, glittering generalities and euphemisms)
- False connections or associations (transfer and testimonial)
- Special appeals (plain folks, bandwagon and fear)
The propagandist language of name calling, fear mongering, and the use of glittering generalities serve demagogues and political extremists well. This much is well understood now. Through the pernicious practice of name calling, the “other” (the target individual, social/political/cultural/racial group, country etc.) is vilified and dehumanized. A culture of fear is created, convenient bogeymen are created, frightening and discomforting metaphors and imagery are used to disorient and disarm the gullible masses and make them ready for control and manipulation. The result is a sense of vulnerability in the people. Immigrants, Mexicans, Blacks, Muslims in the USA, Muslims and Africans in EU, and certain sects, ethnicities and minorities in Pakistan are examples. In Pakistan, for example, once an entire sect is named and declared, “kafir”, the way to the “final solution” is paved---the total annihilation of the named and the re-defined is the logical next step which would then be carried out with an urgent sense of obligation, as a pious religious duty that must be carried out with a jihadi zeal. For example, this particular modern propaganda technique of vilification and dehumanization through toxic acts of naming and (re)-defining, so beloved of nakedly ambitious and vile little men and women of this world in general and of the ones in Pakistan in particular----the tyrants and bigots of all shades and orientations but especially the booted duffers----was very effectively used in the numerous decades-long violent “targeted” purges, the sectarian bloodbaths and ethnic cleansings, in a place like Quetta (the hometown of yours truly).
This act of name calling, or naming, is, therefore, a potent tool. For example, for the ancients, the very act of naming something or someone was an act of power, of control. To know someone’s name was to have power over them. After all, the ultimate name giver is the Creator Himself. When God told/taught the first being, the archetypal Adam, "the name of things”, He thus gave him power over all creation, made him the ashraf al makhluqaat, the khalifa, the noblest of all creatures. The difference in the modern acts of naming, however, is that since modernity lacks any sense of the sacred, is in denial of transcendence, is a totally negative theology of skepticism/cynicism, where everything is sheer “power” in this world, most, if not all, naming eventually boils down to reduction(ism), limitation, quantification, diabolism (as opposed to symbolism) and eventually to dehumanization. Modern man, after all, wants to be god himself in the absence of the Sacred.
In short: calling someone evil---and doing it repeatedly, day in day out, 24/7, 365 days a year---is, in a sense and for any special purpose and many people, turning that thing into evil. Goebbels the Nazi knew it well . Think of “India” and “Indian” in Pakistan and of “Pakistan” and “Pakistani” in India. On both sides of the border, it is now almost impossible to imagine evil without thinking about one of these categories. In fact, and this is especially true for certain ethnic groups in Pakistan---especially for the people of Punjab, or for the majority of Punjabis---it is not even possible to have a sense of the self, to have a confident identity, without at the same time thinking of the evil “other”, the evil Indian: for these people, the self has been thoroughly defined negatively, as something that exists because, and only because, it is opposed to another entity, the “evil other” (more on this issue later. For now, interested readers may wish to read a related blogpost here).
 |
| The evil "other" |
“A glittering generality (also called glowing generality) is an emotionally appealing phrase so closely associated with highly valued concepts and beliefs that it carries conviction without supporting information or reason. Such highly valued concepts attract general approval and acclaim. Their appeal is to emotions such as love of country and home, and desire for peace, freedom, glory, and honor. They ask for approval without examination of the reason. They are typically used by politicians and propagandists.”
As vague words, phrases and expressions with loads of (positive/negative) connotations, glittering generalities are what the IPA calls “virtue words” or expressions. Strongly appealing to our emotional faculties, they disable our critical faculties and make us susceptible to all kinds of manipulations. They are constructed and constantly and regularly reinforced through jingles, songs, images, dramas and movies, and catch phrases etc.: think of ISPR sponsored and produced dramas and Noor Jehan, Amanat Ali Khan and now the many Coke Studio patriotic songs. Glittering generalities are words like science, rationality, development, progress, civilization, motherland, fatherland, security, democracy, freedom, human rights, peace and love, sustainable, international community, civil society, community development, grassroots, empowerment, poverty alleviation, LGBTQ, religious, army/fawj/fawji, wardi, The Idara (institution) and so on. These are all abstract in nature, meaning different things to different people and, therefore, amenable to manipulation.
Let’s take one of these concepts, sustainable development (SD), a darling concept of the noisy secular missionaries everywhere but especially in Pakistan (the NGO mafia), to see how it works. Sustainable development as a “buzzword” is one of those concepts which are widely (ab)-used by all sorts of individuals and interests, from the ecologically destructive industrialists to slimy politicians, from NGO and civil society jihadists, social justice activists, opportunist environmentalists to compromised (lifafa) journalists, intellectuals, writers and artists. I think nobody has improved upon Lele’s early critique of the concept. He wrote way back in 1991,
“SD is a ‘metafix’ that will unite everybody from the profit-minded industrialist and risk minimising subsistence farmer to the equity seeking social worker, the pollution-concerned or wildlife-loving First Worlder, the growth-maximising policy maker, the goal-oriented bureaucrat, and therefore, the vote-counting politician.”
These noble sounding, fix-all words, these magic wands, are all suspect. In our times, they have become like sacred cows, as their particularly constructed and propagated meanings are vigilantly guarded by the powerful and the influential. Nobody can challenge them without suffering some form of retribution. Exhibit: in recent years, the USA has destroyed at least four countries in the Middle East / West Asia with the help of mere three or four, although very powerful, of these glowing generalities: "democracy", "freedom" and “women’s rights” or "human rights." To challenge these is to invite the scorn and ridicule of the Western and westernized secular-liberal mobs everywhere. Often, these are like empty vessels into which are poured the desires and the interests of the powerful, the oppressors and victimizers. Following campaigns of fear mongering, glittering generalities are then employed to give the frightened, the bamboozled and the vulnerable, a sense of security and often that of superiority. All false, of course.
 |
| The avatars of "democracy", "freedom", "human rights"! |
In this series on glittering generalities, I will try to unmask some of the more prominent glittering generalities that are now all around us, polluting the very cultural air we breathe and thrown around by everyone without a second thought. I will try to cast a critical gaze on them and try to see what they mean and try to show their deceptive nature. What I will say will, of course, reflect my own “prejudices”. Think of it as an alternative reading/understanding of these terms, an inversion (or inversion of inversion). The first one is the term “entrepreneur”. Read on in the next post.
For more, please click: Stray crumbs, Bumper Stickers
