There is No Such Thing as Spontaneous Public Opinion

Well, there has to be some basis for public opinion, doesn't there. We get our news from different places; we don't all read the same editorials, and while many of us have experiences which cause us to discount a certain part of then news, almost none of us are forming opinions from personal knowledge of this weeks headlines. If this is what you're getting at, soz, I guess I would agree.

Did I miss the whole point, again?

0 Replies

Actually I don't have a particular point, yet. I read it and said "Ooh! Yes!" and wanted to make it my new sig line. Then I thought about it and wasn't so sure. So thought it might make an interesting discussion.

It's allied to my current sig line, in some ways.

But I gotta get to bed... more later.

0 Replies

The same idea doesn't just spring up suddenly in multiple blank slates.

If we think about the broad response to the Abu Ghraib photos, that gives us some clues. A broad predisposition to think or value in a certain way is a consequence of socialization.

Also, I think we have to posit some even more fundamental propensity in this too...cruelty and mutilation are probably hitting against some basic responses at the genetic level (like fear of heights).

Given those two factors, I think that the lady quoted overstates with use of 'all'.

On the other hand, I like her phrasing 'energy and conviction', as those seem to be good words to describe what often motivates us in a 'leader'. Certainly, if we look at 'conviction', it is an understanding that Carl Rove demonstrates in how he consistently presents his product (which points out perhaps that the 'conviction' doesn't necessarily have to be real, just presented convincingly as such).

And the 'energy' notion is equally interesting. Scam artists are commonly very energetic sorts. But it is something we do want in a leader or boss too, for obvious reasons.

A positive example of the two terms might be Tutu and Mandella. What they managed to pull off in South Africa is an amazing example of dedicated and energetic leadership driven by conviction. Some will recall how certain many were thirty years ago that blacks would rise up and slaughter all the whites, who arguably deserved such a fate.

0 Replies

Quote:

"There is no such thing as spontaneous public opinion. It all has to be manufactured from a center of conviction and energy."

The only thing I'd disagree with is the use of the word "manufactured". (It just seems to have a negative connotation.)

There are some vague general ideas that we all have and there are others that we never think about at all and, as blatham said, "The same idea doesn't just spring up suddenly in multiple blank slates. ".

But for something to be "public opinion" it is implied that it is both expressed and an idea held amongst many in common.

Usually someone expresses the idea well and it crystalizes the idea for some and causes others to think about the idea and form an opinion. Getting that good expression of the idea out to the masses does take both energy and conviction.

I can't think of any "hot button" issues of the day that don't hold true to that.

0 Replies

Blatham
Blatham wrote: "A positive example of the two terms might be Tutu and Mandella. What they managed to pull off in South Africa is an amazing example of dedicated and energetic leadership driven by conviction. Some will recall how certain many were thirty years ago that blacks would rise up and slaughter all the whites, who arguably deserved such a fate."

Nelson Mandella, a perfect example of a great man causing a nation to turn away from basic revenge instincts by example, rhetoric and leadership. We've seen no finer example in centuries with the possible exception of Mahatma Ghandi, who created a new nation from an idea, not war.

Can you think of any similar persons in the Western world? Thomas Paine and Harriet Beecher Stowe, perhaps?

BBB

0 Replies

Re: There is No Such Thing as Spontaneous Public Opinion

sozobe wrote:

"There is no such thing as spontaneous public opinion. It all has to be manufactured from a center of conviction and energy."

First reaction: It sounds like social creationism to me, and it doesn't work any better than the biological kind. The East German government tried to manufacture public opinion throughout the 40 years of its existence, and utterly failed. Actually, public opinion around Dresden, where West German radio and TV couldn't be received, was famously more hostile to the East German system than anyplace else in East Germany. The source of the East Germans' actual convictions was West German TV, a dispersed caleidoscope of church- peace- and democracy activists, and permanent confrontation between the world as told in propaganda stories and the world as experienced in everyday life. None of these are "centers of conviction and energy" that could "manufacture" public opinion. This strikes me as evidence against Ms. Webb's one liner.

Second reaction: It sounds as if Beatrice Webb might be trying to avoid confronting the possibility that British leftists lost out in public opinion because their ideas didn't live up to their promises. A Murdoch conspiracy manufacturing public opinion is a much more comfortable explanation for why Thatcher succeeded, and why even Tony Blair isn't leftist in the traditional sense anymore.

But I don't actually know Beatrice Webb, so it's possible I'm being unfair to her.

0 Replies

I think public opinion does not develop much inside a cave, except that the persons inside the cave are likely to believe that the whole world is like the inside of their cave.

I think the media has power to shape their own cave by the way they write headlines, phrase news stories, use photos, place stories on a page, etc.

If most of the media, for instance, reports only the bombings and fighting in Iraq, shows only chaotic photos, seeks out sources who will put a maximum negative spin on events, and gives minimal coverage to anything else, many of the people elsewhere can be persuaded that the whole effort is a chaotic failure and there is no good to be found in it.

It has been proved again and again that no matter what the lie or for what purpose, if it is repeated often enough by enough sources, a certain number of people can be led to believe it.

0 Replies

Thomas, who may or may not have legs as ill-shaped as Margaret Thatcher's, likewise cannot see an institution (or a thesis positing effective central control within a group dynamic) without wanting to hit it with his purse.

Product or brand marketing is, of course, an example of how group behavior may be effectively altered towards a desired direction. And as behavior rides on top of mental states, we have to acknowledge that they too are ammenable to control. One quick example...in the early 70's, Renault carried a little econobox originally marketed as the R17 (or some such) but when a bright marketing firm changed the name to "Le Car", sales increased by 700%. The marketers 'tapped into' some fact of resident mental states, and changed behavior. Or, the fifties Clairol "blondes have more fun" campaign being another. Effective manipulation is surely a consequence of artistry (the charismatic person, the unusually creative ad director, etc) but also, as modern advertising shows, a consequence of a rather more scientific approach to research on what people want and what they respond to. All of which is applicable to political consensus.

I think Thomas' example of East Germans being effected more by West German TV than by East German propaganda isn't necessarily a proof against the notion of broad popular manipulation. Multiple voices surely decrease the effectiveness of any singular voice. Also, government agencies are commonly bereft of creative minds, as anti-drug public-service ads painfully demonstrate.

0 Replies

East Germany, however, could not be confined to the inside of a cave. They could look across the wall into a happy, prosperous West Germany and could not be entirely insulated from the west.

In our shrinking world, it is becoming more and more difficult for dictatorships and totalitarian governments to keep different images from the people.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

I think Thomas' example of East Germans being effected more by West German TV than by East German propaganda isn't necessarily a proof against the notion of broad popular manipulation.

Of course, the notion of broad popular manipulation wasn't the notion I was arguing against. But I can see where you're coming from. It's much easier to make ad-hominem jokes about someone's legs and invent the position of one's opponents, rather than addressing the points actually made, to say nothing of trying to understand them. For your convenience, let me repeat the notion I was arguing against.

Quote:

"There is no such thing as spontaneous public opinion. It all has to be manufactured from a center of conviction and energy."

I would have expected that you read it twice already, but apparently I expected too much of you.

0 Replies

Re: Blatham

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

Nelson Mandella, a perfect example of a great man causing a nation to turn away from basic revenge instincts by example, rhetoric and leadership. We've seen no finer example in centuries with the possible exception of Mahatma Ghandi, who created a new nation from an idea, not war.

Can you think of any similar persons in the Western world? Thomas Paine and Harriet Beecher Stowe, perhaps?

BBB

I think the only Westerners that could be compared in ANY way to Mr. Ghandi is either Fredrick Douglas or Dr. M.L. King.

Dr. King for having to courage to step forward and try to channel the justifiable anger of the black communities into a non-violent solution.

Mr. Douglas (One of the men I most admire) for having to courage and conviction to stand for his beliefs in a time when black men just weren't supposed to say such things ... ever.

0 Replies

Fedral
Fedral, I agree with your additional choices. I would add margaret Sanger to the list.

BBB

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

blatham wrote:
I think Thomas' example of East Germans being effected more by West German TV than by East German propaganda isn't necessarily a proof against the notion of broad popular manipulation.

Of course, the notion of broad popular manipulation wasn't the notion I was arguing against. But I can see where you're coming from. It's much easier to make ad-hominem jokes about someone's legs and invent the position of one's opponents, rather than addressing the points actually made, to say nothing of trying to understand them. For your convenience, let me repeat the notion I was arguing against.

Quote:
"There is no such thing as spontaneous public opinion. It all has to be manufactured from a center of conviction and energy."

I would have expected that you read it twice already, but apparently I expected too much of you.

Relax thomas...I have no intention of attempting to make you appear silly or of escaping your arguments.

The statement you were arguing against is perhaps more a poetic statement than something a logical positivist would want to deal with. But soz (a very bright girl) saw something in it that rang true, and I set out to sort out what might be 'true' about the claim.

If you wish to clarify further how you think you have something right about the matter, and which I don't, please feel free to procede.

0 Replies

It is a double process, top down and bottom up. The public as multiple opinions on an issue derived from many disparate sources. These opinions are generally diffuse and undirected. Opinion leaders can only attempt to mold and direct those diffuse opinions in a desired direction, they can not create it de novo.

0 Replies

Re: There is No Such Thing as Spontaneous Public Opinion

Thomas wrote:

First reaction: It sounds like social creationism to me, and it doesn't work any better than the biological kind. The East German government tried to manufacture public opinion throughout the 40 years of its existence, and utterly failed. Actually, public opinion around Dresden, where West German radio and TV couldn't be received, was famously more hostile to the East German system than anyplace else in East Germany. The source of the East Germans' actual convictions was West German TV, a dispersed caleidoscope of church- peace- and democracy activists, and permanent confrontation between the world as told in propaganda stories and the world as experienced in everyday life. None of these are "centers of conviction and energy" that could "manufacture" public opinion. This strikes me as evidence against Ms. Webb's one liner.

Interesting. It looks to me as if you have invalidated your own comments here.

You say in closing here that "None of these are "centers of conviction and energy" that could "manufacture" public opinion."

But your earlier statement indicates that they DID indeed create a popular opinion. The public opinion was hate for the East German government - the exact opposite of the intended effect but popular opinion none the less.

0 Replies

Interesting comments everyone, thanks.

First, in terms of Abu Ghraib -- it DID come up in a press conference or something several months ago, a carefully managed micro-statement by the Pentagon. And it wasn't covered. That seems to belie the idea that it was some sort of primal universal horror. The pure information was out there -- some of it, anyway, but the basics -- but it was not until some combination of Seymour Hersh's article (with pictures) and CBS's broadcast (with pictures) that it became so huge.

In terms of my general liking for the quote, the context may help; it came from this Op-Ed. Brief excerpt:

Quote:

Democrats have come up with all sorts of excuses, from the evils of Richard Nixon's "Southern strategy" to the "stolen" election of 2000. They usually ignore the fact that the right has simply been far better at producing agenda-setting ideas. From welfare reform in Wisconsin to policing in New York City, from the tax-cutting Proposition 13 in California to regime change in Baghdad, the intellectual impetus has, for better or worse, come from the right. As President Bush bragged at last week's party, the right is "the dominant intellectual force in American politics."

The overall thrust of the piece (which I had some problems with) was that liberals have to get going on this opinion-making if they want any power. That's something I agree with, and have discussed in various contexts here before -- the concept of fighting fire with fire, getting into the nitty-gritty and sometimes ethically hazy area of creating public opinion. Because I do feel that in some ways it has to be created. Soundbites. Tropes. And above all, images.

Interestingly, what Foxfyre sees as a liberal bias (bad stuff about the war), I see as having a conservative bias (look at what those bad Arabs are doing to us, and celebrating as they do it, they deserve everything they've got coming.) Of course it's probably some of each.

And that's my main point -- I think the conservatives have been doing an excellent job of taking Beatrice Webb's advice to heart, and given that, liberals need to do a better job of it. This is why I applaud Michael Moore overall even though I wish he would be more factually accurate. This is why I really hope that sometime soon Kerry will come out with some proactive ideas and market them damn well.

0 Replies

fishin' wrote:

Interesting. It looks to me as if you have invalidated your own comments here.

You say in closing here that "None of these are "centers of conviction and energy" that could "manufacture" public opinion."

The peace movement, "Democracy now", and the Lutheran communities in East Germany did have conviction and energy. But they weren't "centers" -- all of them were widely dispersed groups with no obvious leader. And they didn't "manufacture" public opinion -- they were simply right about the issues. Soon enough, no amount of propaganda by the East German media monopoly could cover it up.

Fishin wrote:

But your earlier statement indicates that they DID indeed create a popular opinion. The public opinion was hate for the East German government - the exact opposite of the intended effect but popular opinion none the less.

Sure, you can see it that way. But I doubt that's what Beatrice Webb, or Sozobe, had in mind.

Sozobe wrote:

The overall thrust of the piece (which I had some problems with) was that liberals have to get going on this opinion-making if they want any power. That's something I agree with, and have discussed in various contexts here before -- the concept of fighting fire with fire, getting into the nitty-gritty and sometimes ethically hazy area of creating public opinion. Because I do feel that in some ways it has to be created. Soundbites. Tropes. And above all, images.

I agree that this kind of thing could be helpful for you in winning the next elections. But the problems will come as soon as the party starts to believe its own propaganda, which is what has ruined the Republicans over the last 10 years. I can see why the rainbow-coalition-ness of the Democratic party frustrates you from a PR point of view. But it's the price you pay for the possibility that outsiders like Bill Clinton have a chance to get nominated as presidential candidates, and win elections for the Democrats. I think this price is worth paying. In today's Republican party, grown-up non-cronies of Bush (like McCain) don't have that chance. Republicans have won a couple of elections by becoming rigid and ideological, but this won't last. They're beginning to crash and burn already, and when they're done crashing and burning, their reputation will be damaged for a long time to come. For someone like me, who believes there is a good and honest case for parts of the Republican agenda --things like Social Security privatization and the voucherization of the school system -- this is very frustrating to watch. I have now reached the point that I've given up on the Republicans and started to donate money for the Kerry campaign. Propaganda has a nasty way of coming back to bite you in the butt when you need it the least.

Sozobe wrote:

And that's my main point -- I think the conservatives have been doing an excellent job of taking Beatrice Webb's advice to heart, and given that, liberals need to do a better job of it. This is why I applaud Michael Moore overall even though I wish he would be more factually accurate.

You mean, conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter? I might well be missing something here because I don't actually live in America, But my impression is that the pundits who "manufacture" their stories and political opinions -- like Michael Moore on the left and Rush Limbaugh on the right -- mostly preach to the choir. Their agendas may be diametrically opposed, but each of the two, in his own way, ends up reaffirming the liberals in their liberalism and the conservatives in their conservatism, by mobilizing their own base and disgusting their opponents'. The pundids who actually have the power to swing opinions -- those who can turn Republicans into Democrats and vice versa -- don't manufacture much. They just tell things like they are, as best they can see them. On the right, Milton Friedman's long term impact is much higher than Rush Limbaugh's, and I'm confident that on the left, Paul Krugman's long term impact will turn out to be much higher than Michael Moore's.

I like it that way.

0 Replies

Yeah, I like Paul Krugman a lot more than Michael Moore. A LOT more. I do think he is an opinion-maker, in that he says things very strongly and sound-bitingly.

I don't know about the long-term stuff. I hope so. (Again, part of why I started this discussion is that I'm not sure... my own thinking is a little fuzzy on this one.) I haven't really seen that happen yet. I am petrified that Kerry will lose, and what that would mean, and have been thinking a lot about the general concept of what needs to happen to win THIS election. (I just contributed, too.)

0 Replies

Well, I have made good experiences with focusing on the long run, and I'm confident that the defenders of good ideas will win out over the peddlers of made-up, though spectacular, propaganda stories.

I don't know how you'll decide about your signature, but this thread has given me the idea for updating my own. It's always fun to play vintage Republicans against today's Republicans.

0 Replies

There is No Such Thing as Spontaneous Public Opinion

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know