Yelena Maksimova
Dr. S. Miller
Engl. 105 84-85
Liberty Cabbage: Culture and Propaganda
I happened to live in two countries with opposite political regimes – socialism in the USSR and democracy in the USA. I was growing up in the USSR, usually finding myself obedient to the will of the ruling Communist Party, sincerely thinking (as well as many people of my age) that my country has the most humane regime in the whole world. When I got older and the Iron Curtain fell, the unadorned reality confronted me: the Soviet Union was not a peace-loving democratic country but a totalitarian regime with a explicit goal of replicating itself all over the world; in short, a monster in sheep’s clothing. What made me believe back then that my former country had such a perfect regime? A one-word answer is: propaganda. The Soviet government skillfully manipulated cultural values of the Russian people to create an illusion that we live in the country of our dreams. The bravest of us allowed ourselves to have another opinion. They listened to Radio Liberty and dreamed of living in the United States (although nobody expected the Soviet regime to fall). What is it like, we wondered, to live in a country where the government does not feed deliberate lies to its own people distorting cultural traditions and history? I dreamed about living in the United States because it was our guiding light to a real democracy. However, as it seems now, the government of the United States, just like the Communist Party in the USSR, plays on cultural values of its people to make them agree to the agenda of the dominant political and social structures.
The majority of American people would argue that they are absolutely independent in their opinions, that the United States is a leading democratic country in the world, that the American press is unbiased, etc. The arguments that follow, my experience and outside point of view may help an American reader see his or her country in a more objective light.
“I don’t know any other country where man breathes so freely.” Believe it or not, these are the words of a Soviet song popular since Stalin’s times. Loving your country, being a patriot of your country is a natural trait of American and Russian cultures. It is a good trait to keep and develop since youth. However, healthy patriotism does not correspond to politicians’ goals. For example, the Soviet government was constantly promoting the symbol of Motherland that would not forgive you if you leave it. Pravda (which means “The Truth”), the major Soviet Communist newspaper, wrote the following about émigrés (a rare occurrence since they were usually treated as nonpersons):
The overwhelming majority of those few who chose to betray their Motherland and leave the first socialist country in the world, despised and condemned by their family and comrades, are now deeply regretful of their decision to spend the rest of their lives in the decaying West. Seduced by the vain pursuit of the dollar, they now stand in the unemployment lines of the doomed world they chose. (Filatov 5)
This kind of propaganda achieved at least two goals at the same time. First, many people felt guilty for even thinking of leaving the Soviet Union and therefore stayed under government’s control inside the country. Second, it was aimed to deform the Russian patriotism by adding a sense of false superiority.
At this point, an American opponent might probably argue that his/her government would not dare to impose such lies on its people. I agree. The United States government is much more sophisticated in its manipulation of the cultural values of its citizens. Leading politicians do not directly accuse people of being unpatriotic (not usually, anyway); instead they define patriotism according to the current political situation. A recent example is the war in Iraq. The government needed public support in its campaign, so the obedient press showed the images of people actively protesting the war (unrest on the streets of New York, Chicago, San Francisco; police arresting demonstrators), and immediately after that, peaceful images of people who support the war (beautiful women, children, teenagers, with green lawns and suburban homes on the background). The press calls the latter patriots. The deformation of patriotism is obvious: unpatriotic now means anyone who does not want to support the war, does not want to bring suffering to the people of other countries, and who does not want to support American soldiers’ deaths in a foreign land. Many people will argue that some playing on patriotic feelings of the nation, which is now under constant threat of terrorist attacks, is a small price to pay for the security of the county. Unfortunately, the political games are not that innocent. It is to the advantage of the government to keep people under the threat of (a conveniently invisible) enemy to promote the laws that actually help the government keep people under control. It is also very important is to give the new laws “correct” names such as “Patriot Act” and “Patriot Act II.” It will supposedly help people think that it has something to do with real patriotism and struggle against the enemies. In reality,
[It would]
allow the Justice Department
to wiretap a person for 15 days without a warrant; federal agents could
secretly arrest people and provide no information to their family, the media or
their attorney until charges are brought, no matter how long that took; and it
would allow the government to strip Americans of their citizenship for even
unknowingly helping a group that is connected to an organization deemed to be
terrorist. (Schabner)
This resembles Stalin’s methods of fighting against the “enemies of the people” so much that the names of these acts sound like a mockery of common sense. As one Russian saying goes, “it would be so funny if it weren’t so sad.”
Describing governments’ efforts to force their peoples into accepting and supporting the policies that would only benefit the wealthy and powerful, Noam Chomsky said in an interview to Redeye Collective: “Patriotism is down to meaning you shut up and I'll relentlessly pursue my own goals.”
“Give me Liberty or Give me Death.” [1] Actually, Patrick Henry would no longer be forced to choose one. Both are now available as a package.
If I had to describe the American culture in one word, I would definitely choose “liberty” (or “freedom”). It is not only a marketing image of the United States to the outside world but also a cultural characteristic which American people value the most and will never give up. Thus, political propaganda plays on it most often. To find the support and justification for the imperialistic policies, it uses the American notion of Liberty as a universal condition, which all cultures supposedly desire to achieve. Recall the name of the current war, “Iraqi Freedom,” or one of the slogans of this war declared by George W. Bush: “We will defend our freedom. We will bring freedom to others and we will prevail.” However, “American values, especially the American conception of liberty, do not export as well as we would like to think. It is time Americans made this discovery and accepted limits of our power to shape other societies […]” (Hunt 193) As recent demonstrations in Baghdad show, many Iraqi people may now want to create an Islamic state that would be free, for example, of women who do not cover their face in public. Is this a kind of freedom American people value? “Part of what the propaganda system does is deprive terms of meaning”(Chomsky 121). The recent barrage of relentless propaganda has made the word “freedom” lose any meaning at all: it has become no more than a fetish attachment to various products like “freedom fries” and “freedom toast.” “Freedom bread,” “freedom horn” and “freedom kiss” must be next. Not that it is original or new: during World War I, for example, there were attempts to rename sauerkraut “liberty cabbage” (Nunberg). American values have, quite simply, been devalued.
In contrast with the American perception of freedom as an existing condition, most Russian people have never had freedom and therefore view it as an ever-receding horizon, a goal never to be achieved yet always to be fought for. When communists came to power they offered Russians something their propaganda called freedom. Never having known anything about what real freedom is, the working poor trusted politicians with their lives and remained slaves for another seventy years.
“One for all and all for one.”[2]
Another difference between Russian and American cultures is American individualism vs. Russian collectivism. It seems quite impossible to use these to achieve the same result: to make majority of the people so indifferent and apathetic that they will follow their governments without trying to find the causes of their actions. In reality it is perfectly achievable. “What is one? One is zero,” famous Russian poet Vladimir Mayakovsky wrote. Apparently, one person cannot influence any changes in politics or economics (even a leader needs the support of the people). Governments aim propaganda at dividing people and making them stay inside their cells. Soviet propaganda emphasized collectivism (collective will, property, ideas, etc.) so much that eventually it became too dangerous to have your own property, opinion or will, and people preferred not to share them with other people. Lack of unbiased news from abroad made Russians naïve and obedient. All newspapers were full of praise to the Soviet government from “all progressive people” of the world.
“All those who with their deeds, and not just words, strive for the deepening [sic] of détente,” says John Morgan [“the president of Canadian Peace Congress and a well-known public figure in the country”], “see how deeply corresponding [sic] to this problem are the Soviet Union’s initiatives, comprehensively founded and developed in the speeches of L.I. Brezhnev and official documents of the Soviet government.” (Bragin 5)
If the whole world supports the USSR, we thought, then our government probably conducts the right policy. So most people supported government and were kind of happy living in a world of illusions.
Some would probably argue here that the American media is usually objective and truthful. Michael Parenti opposes: “The most effective propaganda is that which relies upon framing rather than on falsehood” (7). This means that, for the individualistic society, the government also found a way to use mass media to keep people interested only in their own family and pop culture. For example, the usual news report on American TV consists of some local news (auto accidents, crime reports, fires, etc.), the president’s activities (trips, speeches, etc.), celebrities’ affairs, market news and local weather. What is wrong with people interested in their cultural life, you may ask. There would be nothing wrong if they were interested in other cultures as well, but they are not. The media does not present enough foreign political and cultural news. Sometimes, I have to watch Russian news to find out what is happening around the globe (although often that does not help either as Russian media becomes more and more Americanized). Noam Chomsky speaks about television in the United States as an instrument “designed to have certain effects”(53). He continues: “It is not trying to empower you. You don’t find messages on TV about how to join a union and do something about the conditions of your life […] It rams into your head messages designed to destroy your mind and separate you from other people”(53). Eventually, American people became largely oriented toward domestic pop culture and needs, which makes them more narrow-minded and, as a result, more manageable.
A children’s poem written in the Soviet Union in the early 1970s goes like this: A bird in a cage asks a bird on a branch of the tree: “Life in the trees – what’s all the rage? Is it much like in a cage?” The bird on the branch answers: “It’s the same in every sense, just the rods are not as dense.” (Grigoriev 41)
That little poem tells us that “cages” could be different. People can live in a democratic society, yet their cultural heritage can be destroyed just as well as that in a totalitarian regime. I am glad that I was able to write a paper on such a topic without a threat of being put in jail like the author of that poem. My hope is that American culture and society will not slide into the same totalitarian morass that eventually destroyed all empires.
Works Cited
Bragin, N. “’No’ to Arms Race.” Pravda 3 July 1977: 5.
Chomsky, Noam. The Common Good. Chicago: Odonian, 1998.
Chomsky, Noam. Interview. Redeye Collective. By Chris Spannos. 24 May 2002.
<http://www.vcn.bc.ca/redeye/interviews/chomsky.html>
Filatov, S. “Thrown Out on the Street.” Pravda 10 Dec. 1979: 5.
Grigoriev, Oleg. A Bird In a Cage. Saint Petersburg: Ivan Limbach, 1997
Hunt, Michael H. Ideology and U.S. Foreign Policy. Yale: Yale UP, 1987.
Nunberg, Geoff. ”The language wars.” Fresh Air. NPR. WHYY.
Philadelphia. 23 Apr. 2003.
Operation Iraqi Freedom. The White House. 21 Apr. 2003. <http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/>
Parenti, Michael. “Methods of Media Manipulation.” The Humanist 57 (1997): 5-7. ISU Expanded Academic ASAP. 22 Apr. 2003. <http://infotrac.galegroup.com/ itweb/iastu_main>
Schabner, Dean. “Conservative Backlash.” ABCNews.com. 12 March 2003. 22 Apr. 2003. <http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/2020/conservativespatriot030312.htm>