Ideology in International Propaganda: A Clustering Approach for Content Analysis Data

  • S. Splichal
  • A. Ferligoj

Abstract

International propaganda clearly shows a tendency of rapid growth since its first institutionalisation in the Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide of Pope Gregory XV in the seventeenth century. In different historical periods and social systems (and likewise in different communication and political theories) diverse and even controversial concepts of propaganda have been developed. Although there is no commonly accepted definition of propaganda, a large majority of definitions have some identical elements (e.g. that it attempts to influence people’s opinions, attitudes, values, actions). However, there does not exist an agreement about the essence of propaganda and its specific characteristic in relation to communication in general, to ideology, class struggle and other key social phenomena. The relationship of propaganda to ideology seems to be the most ambiguous. On the one hand, controversies result from the concept of ideology itself (e.g. differences between Marx’s, Lenin’s, Mannheim’s and other considerations of ideology). On the other hand, conceptual differences are related to the development of a specific kind of social communication — mass communication and mass media. The general characteristic of mass communication as public communication, which supposedly goes beyond particular interests because of its ‘universality’, conceals the ideologic-legitimising function of mass media.

Keywords

Propa Assure Turkey Eter Tral 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References

  1. 1.
    The Concept, propaganda, is theoretically elaborated in more detail in Slavko Splichal, Mlini na eter (Air-Miles) (Ljubljana: Partizanska knjiga, 1984).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Raymond Williams, Communications (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1976) 10–11.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cf. Kathleen Jamieson Hall, ‘Archai and National Identity’, paper at the Fulbright Conference on Communication, Society and Culture (Dubrovnik, 1982).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    For details see Agnes Heller, Vrednosti i potrebe (Values and Needs) (Beograd: Nolit, 1981) 35.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Osgood and associates hold that it is possible to decompose the perception of any ‘attitude object’ with a satisfactory degree of attitude objects’ discrimination along three dimensions: positive-negative (evaluative), strong-weak (potency) and active-passive (activity), irrespective of culture. Even if such a notion would hold (we doubt it), the three-dimensional space changes through time and thus three-dimensional denotations are not comparable. See Ch. Osgood, ‘Studies of the Generality of Affective Meaning System’, American Psychologist 17 (1962) 10–28;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. and O. R. Holsti, Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1969) 167–8.Google Scholar
  7. 6.
    The subject is an individual, a group, an organisation or any other part of the ‘subject of international relations’ as defined by international law (states, governmental and non-governmental international organisations). Only exceptionally the category of Subject, Actor or Target variable could be defined narrower than at the state level so that more than one subject exist within one state or international organisation. The following rule was adopted for coding procedure: If in one state (such examples did not exist within international organisations at the time of analysis) there exist two or more organised political groups that in regard to each other, and publically, do not acknowledge the legitimate right or sovereignty of government, then each of such groups is a separate subject (e.g. Allende and Pinochet in Chile, Sikhanuk and Lon Nol in Kampuchea, North and South Vietnam in 1973, or different groups in Lebanon in 1977).Google Scholar
  8. 7.
    Fuller report of the content-analysis methodology is published in External Radio Broadcasting and International Understanding (Ljubljana: Faculty of Sociology, Political Science and Journalism, 1975) 21–81.Google Scholar
  9. 8.
    The full report on the analysis in 1973 has been published in External Radio Broadcasting and International Understanding — Broadcasting to Yugoslavia (Paris: Unesco Reports and Papers in Mass Communication, 1977) no. 81.Google Scholar
  10. 9.
    Brian Everitt, Cluster Analysis (London: Heinemann, 1977) 54–77.Google Scholar
  11. 10.
    Anuška Ferligoj, Clustering (Ljubljana: Faculty of Sociology, Political Science and Journalism, 1982).Google Scholar
  12. 11.
    Vlado Benko, ‘Ideologija in zunanja politika’ (Ideology and International Politics), Teorija in praksa (1972) no. 5.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Willem E. Saris and Irmtraud N. Gallhofer 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Splichal
  • A. Ferligoj

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations