Manufacturing Dissent

(1)

How have the rise of digital technologies in combination

with whistleblowing influenced the dissemination of

information within the western corporate system; and to

what extent has this change in perception contributed to

dissent and (cyber) activism in relation to capitalist

hegemony?

Master Thesis New Media & Digital Culture UvA 2014/2015 Gijs van der Grinten 6184782

Supervisor: Sjoukje van der Meulen PhD

This thesis amounts to a critical review of the way information is being disseminated and utilized, through the media, for the reinforcement and enhancement of the general structure of (western) capitalist societies; with a focus on the foreign as well as domestic policies of the current hegemonic power: the United States of America. By looking at how information can circulate in the traditional systems like print, radio and television in comparison with new (media) technologies like the Internet and social media, with whistleblowing and in particular WikiLeaks as a case example, an analysis of the importance of specific information to (geo)politics and economics arises. Part 1 of this thesis consists of a societal analysis by a number of (neo) Marxist authors (Chomsky, Negri & Hardt) of the capitalist hegemony of the US, coupled to the usage of media as explained in the propaganda model of Noam Chomsky. The propaganda model claims that international corporations and the US (and its allies) seemingly work in unison. Additionally, a critical review of this propaganda model is included to arrive at a balanced evaluation of its core principles. Part 2 of the thesis will focus on the whistleblowing organization WikiLeaks and how they have been able to obtain and spread (classified) information thanks to digital technologies; with equal support and hindrance of the traditional media and power systems. A description of new media models is coupled to the possibilities for (cyber) activism and (global) societal change through technological developments as described by Evgeny Morozov. Overall, this thesis will manufacture dissent for the way in which western capitalist societies – historically as well as contemporary – are structured with regards to their general functioning; with an emphasis on media and information.

Keywords: hegemony, capitalism, traditional and new media systems, propaganda model, Chomsky, whistleblowing, WikiLeaks, geopolitics, societal change.

(4)

“My personal feeling is that citizens of the democratic societies should undertake a course of intellectual self-defense to protect themselves from manipulation and control, and to lay the basis for more meaningful democracy.”1

Noam Chomsky

In this thesis I want to explore whether Noam Chomsky’s descriptions regarding our information system, and his corresponding conviction that is displayed above, are still considered to be valid in our rapidly changing technological society. I’ll be the first to admit that my subject is very vast and complex; covering a whole range of topics that can be considered controversial – or at the very least the subject of serious debate. Everything ranging from the status and formation of truth, the creation of certain types of rationale(s) that influence individual and collective decision-making, to the functioning of the world political and economic system in relation to different modes of power, and, most importantly, considering how information pertaining to these complex narratives is being transmitted through the media. What is important for me in establishing a logical narrative with regards to this subject is that the typical academic workstyle, wherein knowledge is generated by building upon the work and research of others, and through the careful weighing of certain arguments that support or reject a certain hypothesis, will be considered to be substantive because of the extensiveness of the research into these complex subjects by the authors that have helped to formulate my arguments. By building on the general outline of their analysis I have assembled a theoretical approach that is complementary in the way at which the world is being described: namely through a (neo) Marxist perspective wherein media and

technology play an important role in steering societal behaviour at large to maintain a social, political and economic order. In this sense I want to provide a critical examination of the way our society is transforming from the more

traditional ways in which power is apparent in the presentation of information; to how the individual now has acquired new and more autonomous means of

gathering information through technological developments.

In formulating my initial analysis, I will rely for on the work and frame of thought of arguably one of the most influential living intellectuals: Noam Chomsky.

Chomsky’s description of the way media systems operate in relation to the functioning of economic and (geo)political power is, even though considered

(5)

controversial by some, immensely detailed and consists of some far reaching implications for the way in which our society functions. The starting point of my thesis will focus on especially Chomsky’s work because of the way in which he has researched the functionings of the US – and thereby largely western – media system in roughly the last quarter of the 20th_{century. The title of my thesis refers}

to one of Chomsky’s most famous pieces of work; an instrumental analysis for the way in which media filters function in relation to power: Manufacturing Consent (1988). By coupling his theories regarding the formation of US hegemony and how this works through the media system to the theories of Michael Hardt & Antonio Negri – who describe the development and extension of a US guided capitalist hegemony, which they have called Empire – I will provide a critique of the way in which the US has shaped, and is shaping, a dominant part of global affairs and dialogue through the media. This critique of US (informational) hegemony, as it presents itself in the ideological, political, economic, and military domains, will culminate itself throughout the thesis. How has this hegemony contributed to the formation of our contemporary western society?

My argumentation will focus on the effects of economic and political power – dominant in a capitalist structure – as they work through and in the media and other societal institutions – coupled to the way individuals are influenced in forming their consciousness; which results in their decisionmaking in relation to the collective steering of our society through (seeming) democratic means. First of all I want to set the general boundaries for the way in which our society is

structured by providing a (neo)Marxist description by Samir Amin, Antonio Negri & Michael Hardt. I have choses these specific authors because, in my opinion, they provide a very comprehensible description of a set of vastly complex societal structures and processes that correlate with the general global realities to which we are exposed. They state that our society, also on a global level, is hierarchically structured and describe how the hegemony of the United States has developed historically, as well as the factors that contribute and have contributed, to this global hegemony. From thereon I will focus on one of the factors to which the average citizen is, in the traditional sense, relying mostly for the gathering of information: the media. Researching if a parallel between the functioning of (US) corporate and state power exist, as well as comparing their inherent structure in

(6)

relation to western capitalist hegemony and policy, is to be the main premise in my thesis. If a symbiosis between state and corporate power structure seems paramount, this can best be explained by looking at this most direct noticable forms of top down communication that reaches the individual; namely the media. Chomsky’s propaganda model will serve as the theoretical framework to portray this symbiosis. This model claims that several filters exist within the mainstream media structure that help to reinforce and constitute state and corporate power. After a critical analysis of this model I will submit it to a practical test in relation to the whistleblowing activities that have come to light through WikiLeaks; activities that have simultaneously worked through and around these structures. Examining the institutional responses to these leaks, as well as some of the actual disclosed information, some practical realizations will become clear about the functioning of the informational filters within media. Consequently, the rise of new media technologies and the information disclosed through whistleblowing have resulted in (cyber)activism and the emergence of new media models. These developments illustrate that there is a current shift in awareness and the creation thereof thanks to technologies that differentiate from the traditional

dissemination of information in the 20th century; thereby creating new media models and corresponding possibilities for societal change.

By looking at these complex issues that revolve around information and the presentation of a certain kind of rationale – which generally seem to imply conformity to economic and political authority and thereby our general societal structure – I want to paint an ideological critique of the way in which our society is manifested; thereby creating a critical perspective of the traditional way we are presented with, and react to, specific information. It seems that the value and presentation of specific informational content is of high importance to the institutions and people in power. When other perspectives are taken into

consideration, perspectives that oppose the current status quo and accompanying narratives, like the information provided by whistleblowers; the institutional backlashes and accompanying public outcry provide evidence of a change in which this specific information is affecting and shaping the public discourse. Whether this is for better or worse is a matter of discussion, but it is evident that

(7)

there has been a deviation from the normal modus operandi of our information system.

In part 1 of this thesis I will focus on the various aspects that have contributed, and still contribute, to the development and expansion of the global capitalist structure under influence of US hegemony with regards to various cultural, idealogical, economic and political components; as described by predominantly Chomsky, Amin and Hardt & Negri. Consequently I will explain the formation of an accompanying capitalist rationale through the media as described by Noam Chomsky in his propaganda model, followed by various critiques on this model. In part 2 I will devote attention to the changing media landscape and new media models as a result of whistleblowing and digital technologies. First by taking the whistleblowing organization WikiLeaks as a case example and looking at the various ways in which they – through their leaks and resulting influence on the media structures – have contributed to a transformation of the western

informational structure. Next I will look at the various responses to WikiLeaks from within the ruling societal structures to illustrate how WikiLeaks has

challenged the existing status quo in relation to the dissemination of information. By looking at the old media models next to the emergence of new media models I will explore some of the ways in which this has contributed to (cyber)activism and the possibilities, as well as the challenges, for societal change and democratization with help of the extensive research into Internet democratization, as described in the book The Net Delusion, by Evgeny Morozov. The resulting narrative will (hopefully) prove to consist of valuable arguments against the traditional media structure in contrast to the (possibilities for the) empowerment of

communication and information gathering that lie in digital technology and the Internet. Consequently, the manufacture of dissent against the capitalist structure in general, with a focus on the role played by media, will be evident.

PART 1 HEGEMONY, CAPITALISM, MEDIA & PERCEPTION

(8)

“Globalization implies that if a problem is global then its solution must also be so.”2 _{Samir Amin}

The Earth, its inhabitants and their interactions with eachother consist of

processes that can sometimes be seen as quite simple; but at the same time they can be incomprehensibly complex. With the amount of knowledge and

information that is currently being broadcast through mainstream media

channels, in combination with the seemingly infinite information available on the Internet, it’s impossible for an individual to even approach taking everything into consideration, let alone even understand a fraction of it; even when talking about a rather limited domain like politics for example. Yet, a vast amount of the time an average individual spends today is by interacting indirectly with its surroundings through (social) media and or other more direct forms of verbal or digital

communication. Because of this interaction between an individual and its

surroundings we arrive at the formation of a certain type of consciousness that is the result of the specific content and the presentation thereof to which an

individual is being exposed throughout his or her life; coupled to his/her

interpretation. Especially in todays technologically developed society people are being bombarded with information and different points of view, as well as being able to present and share their own perspective. Everything from the knowledge being presented in politics and educational systems, to the narratives in

entertainment, advertising and all other kinds of digital and analog media; create different kind of responses in people for different ends. There is a wide range of media content available through a variety of channels that focus on a whole range of topics; where the underlying structure and functioning of our society is not a rather popular topic. The only moments in time when these discussions really occur, in most democratic societies at least, is once every four years during elections. Most of these discussions focus on the people and their personal

differences involved in these democratic process instead of the system in general. This is something that seems passively accepted, even though it is highly

influential in shaping the individual as well as the collective decisions that we make. In part 1 of this thesis I want to provide an accurate description of the framework wherein our Western society has developed up to this day with

(9)

regards to the functioning of power and information. What institutions and

processes create the kind of rationale that seems prevalent throughout our society and what are the driving forces behind the shaping of our individual and collective consciousness?

The model that serves as the framework for our society can (arguably) best be described as a capitalist system with a neoliberal ideology. The difference

between this system and the ideology is that the system functions on a practically global level because of the dominance of financial and economic power, while the ideology is specific to a mostly the western part of the world. I will focus on the capitalist system in general and how this has developed historically, while taking a critical stance against neoliberal ideology and the resulting rationale that is so decisive in how the day-to-day conduct of our world is taking shape. The inherent nature of this system and accompanying ideology is that it’s not natural at all. Just like money, it is man made and has been fabricated and controlled throughout our (recent) history and the societal development at the hands of the respective people in power. The only difference with regards to other times and systems is that today we seem to have a general capitalist system that seems truly global (with some local variations but corresponding core principles) and reaches to practically every corner of the globe. Meaning that monetary and financial means are practically the only way of conducting business; thereby highly instrumental for the exercise of power. It is important to realize that, at least in the western world, the structure and functioning of our society has for a large part been influenced by political, economic, technological and cultural developments originating from the United States (and its closest allies). This has set in motion a process of generalization and a variety of developments that are leading to an ever more globalized and integrated world. This can be historically explained because the United States was by far the most wealthiest, powerful and arguably most culturally developed country on Earth that emerged as a unique global

superpower after WWII. So, first, I will discuss a concept that is very important when thinking about the way our society functions and how it shapes the state of mind that dominates our institutions and citizens according to established doctrines. This concept is called hegemony.

(10)

1.1 Hegemony & Globalization

“Hegemony appears to me to be the exception rather than the rule in the course of history.”3

Hegemony is a concept that tries to capture the explanation for the domination of a certain type of organizational structure and ideology over others. In other words: it tries to explain how the people in power control the processes that are crucial in the functioning and interplay of (power) relations. It is associated with Marxist thinking and has found its way through the work of Lenin and Gramsci, among others. The concept covers a whole variety of processes that can make it difficult to grasp, since it could imply that there is a single point of control or influence that steers all the underlying subsidiaries. It can be applied to social, economic or political structures; whereever there seems to be a clear domination of a certain group or structure over others. I will look at the internationally operating hegemony that is still highly influential, but which arguably has been in decline for quite some time now; that of the United States.

“A world hegemony is thus in its beginnings an outward expansion of the internal (national) hegemony established by a dominant social class. The economic and social institutions, the culture, the technology associated with this national hegemony become patterns for emulation abroad. “4

When thinking about world hegemony, it is important to realize that this is not something that has occured before in human history. The hegemony of the United States is the first truly global reaching hegemony of its kind. In trying to describe how this has come about I will rely on the work of Samir Amin, Antonio Negri and Michael Hardt. For the sake of argumentation, let’s lay the theoretical foundation that the United States of America have established, maintained and expanded a global hegemony that seems dominant – or at least highly influential – for a whole variety of crucial and important processes in the functioning of our global system for at least the second half of the 20th century. So what exactly does this global system and influence look like?

(11)

“In the movement towards hegemony and the creation of an historic bloc, Gramsci distinguished three levels of consciousness: the economico-corporative, which is aware of the specific interests of a particular group; the solidarity or class consciousness, which extends to a whole social class but remains at a purely economic level; and the hegemonic, which brings the interests of the leading class into harmony with those of subordinate classes and incorporates these other interests into an ideology expressed in universal terms. The movement towards hegemony, Gramsci says, is a ‘passage from the structure to the sphere of the complex superstructures ‘, by which he means passing from the specific interests of a group or class to the building of institutions and elaboration of ideologies.”5_{Robert W. Cox}

In discussing the development of hegemony, Gramsci formulated the concept of the historical bloc: “a dialectical concept in the sense that its interacting elements create a larger unity. Gramsci expressed these interacting elements sometimes as the subjective and the objective, sometimes as superstructure and structure.”6

This concept of a historical bloc explains the dominant interaction between an overlaying perspective and a submissive subsidiary; be it social or institutional. This historical bloc can be seen as something that has formed over time and, in a reflexive or dialectical manner, forms the consequential functioning of

subsequential components. To begin my line of argumentation, I will start at the very basis in discussing the enormous complexity of all the different perspectives one can take in the historical bloc of this western society of ours; namely a

concept that has been talked about extensively for the last two decades and which process is already to a great extent underway: globalization. There are a lot of different explanations and usages possible for this term, but the simplest one would be to generalize certain thoughts and practices on our planet while diminishing historic and national boundaries.

“The term globalization has, as is often the case in the social sciences, many very different accepted usages. According to various points of view, we could take globalization to mean the establishment of a global market for goods and capital, the universal character of competing technologies, the

(12)

progression towards a global system of production, the political weight that the global system carries in the competition for global or regional

hegemonies, the cultural aspect of universalization, etc.”7

Ever since the Second World War the functioning of our world international system has been through various generalization processes leading to

globalization, under the dominant influence of the United States. The ideology and economic and political paradigms of this country have had a defining effect on the functioning of the global system. Through a historicized Marxist perspective Amin analyses the functioning of the international political and economic systems. By arguing that the elaborate spreading of capitalism is actually widely associated with globalization (Amin, 1996), he unravels a power structure that is both economic and political in nature. Even though his work originates from 1996, the inherent strategies and processes that are at work in these international power structures haven’t actually changed. Arguably they have even been vastly

expanded. The decisionmaking processes that are considered democratic and that influence the political, and therefore law-making, powers in most parts of the world (especially the dominant west) aren’t as influential in day to day life as the economic and financial decisions and activities; which by their very nature aren’t even considered democratic. Amin explains: “In this endeavour I believed it useful to highlight the new characteristics of the productive system – which is in the process of becoming globalized (as opposed to internationalized) – and the new contradiction arising from this fact: the space of production is becoming

globalized while the spheres of political and social management remain limited by the political frontiers of states.”8

So one of the first crucial premises to make is that money and power are inherently intertwined in the western, capitalist democracies (and arguably in every other regime) while the democratic influence on these international systems is limited. Even though most people are aware that money influences political decisionmaking processes (through lobbying or campaignfunding for instance) and politics influences commerce and economics (through laws or sanctions); the true Marxist analysis is that money (capital) actually represents power in its purest form. Amin explains: “On the money-power relationship Marx

(13)

also supplies the conceptual equipment which shows how money – the symbol of purchasing power – became the symbol of power, plain and simple. Money cannot therefore be treated as any other product, as vulgar economic reductionism in its most wretched manifestations – such as those currently dominant (the so-called monetarist school or liberalism, whatever that means, etc.) – would have us believe.”9

“Economics is inseparable from politics. The events of every day confirm this in a way that is more than obvious.”10

The influence and importance of money and large international corporations is obviously present and very dominant in today’s society. Not only are there numerous corporations with revenues surpassing that of most countries; they also for a large part influence our material life in the sense that they create the vast portion of our needs and (artificially created) desires: technology, food, clothes, healthcare, etc. The roles of corporations like Apple, McDonalds, Coca-Cola or Shell make them truly global operating institutions that are definitely more influential in the average person’s life than the role being played by typical nation-states or other political powers; but without the same oversight or direct influence. When this is combined with the total time people are confronted with advertising through the corporate media, it becomes clear that corporations wield a lot of power. This is all supposed to work according to ideological free market principles, but it seems that there are a lot more different processes at work here. The concept and the resulting modes of behaviour associated with capitalism are so deeply (historically) engrained in our thinking and every day life that thinking about alternatives is (understandably) not on a lot of people’s mind. Not only that, but the only perceived alternative, everything that could be associated with socialism, has been the subject of vast discussion and corresponding rejection. Amin recognizes: “On the idealogical and political levels the fundamental concepts of a socialist alternative – better socially and at least as effective economically as capitalism – based on a delinking from the global system, are once again being questioned: some deplore this fact and simply attribute the failures of experience to errors in putting the theory into practice (while the theoretical principles remain sound); others make a much more radical criticism of such attempts and

(14)

consider that the strategy which defined them no longer corresponds to contemporary challenges; some, finally, welcome the failure as it comfortingly confirms that any attempt to reject capitalism is utopian.”11 _{Today the discussion}

regarding the creation and allocation of wealth distribution has once again been reignited by, for example, the work of Thomas Piketty in his book Capital.12

“Hegemony at the international level is thus not merely an order among states. It is an order within a world economy with a dominant mode of production which penetrates into all countries and links into other subordinate modes of production. It is also a complex of international social relationships which connect the social classes of the different countries. World hegemony is describable as a social structure, an

economic structure, and a political structure; and it cannot be simply one of these things but must be all three.”13

So , the first premise in my argumentation is that there is a clear and dominant mode of operation for the global functioning of our social, economic and political structure. Capitalism in this sense is the underlying driving force in subjective and objective relations, since it deals with obtaining, creating and allocating money: which, arguably, is the most common means for people to make direct societal interactions.

“Capitalism is a system whose specificity by comparison with previous systems lies precisely in the dominance of economic authority. The law of value not only dictates economic life under capitalism but all aspects of social life (this is what is meant by market alienation). This qualitative reversal of the relationship between economics and politics/ideology rules out, in my opinion, the use of laws which are valid for modern history in the interpretation of pre-capitalist history. There is a historic discontinuity which rules out this sort of generalization. Power commanded wealth, it is henceforth wealth which commands power.”14

In looking at how wealth exactly commands power in our societal structure, there is a shared conceptual metaphor in both the work of Amin (which builds on the

(15)

Marxist analysis of Braudel) and Hardt & Negri: namely the form of a hierarchical pyramid. In this pyramid the most power is concentrated by a very small group of people and institutions at the top, the ones that hold and control the most wealth and thus power, while the base represents the large ruled over masses with the least amount of concentrated wealth and influence. This operation of power through different political and economic processes thus creates a specific social reality where there is a clear dominance of a relative small group of people and organizations over a substantially larger group of people.

Even though it is claimed in capitalist ideology that it’s processes are regulated through market mechanisms and free trade – also called the ‘hidden hand of the market’ or simply supply and demand – there are a lot of other strategies at work that are even described as ‘anti-market’ by Braudel. This anti-market could be equated with the popular coinphrase the “1%” or the elite. Meaning that the political power that influences market mechanisms is subject to a different sort of economic/monetary power that operates outside the electorate system. Hereby the true power in capitalism is “not ‘the market’ but ‘the market + anti-market which expresses itself in the actions of political power’.”15 _{This leads to what Amin}

calls polarization: the strengthening of the anti-market through the control of the market, that is in its turn dependent on the hard labour of the vast majority situated in the base.

So how does this general structure of a capitalist society influence the global system, and what are the different components that are present? For this analysis I will turn to the work of Hardt & Negri in their book Empire. In this book they claim that a new form of imperialism has been employed by the United States that spread(s) the functioning of a hierarchic capitalist mode of production and the accompanying disciplinary modes of power; which they call Empire. “The Empire we find ourselves faced with today is also—mutatis mutandis—constituted by a functional equilibrium among these three forms of power: the monarchic unity of power and its global monopoly of force; aristocratic articulations through

transnational corporations and nation-states; and democratic-representational

comitia, presented again in the form of nation-states along with the various kinds

(16)

described a global model that seems to be on par with the capitalist societal model of Amin and Braudel, for looking at the world in relation to the functioning of capital and power. Hardt and Negri describe 3 levels of global institutional power as it exists today, which can thus metaphorically be illustrated by a pyramid:

1. At the top of the pyramid there is one superpower that exercises the current global hegemony: the United States. They hold hegemony over the global use of force, but prefer to act in collaboration with others under the umbrella of the United Nations.

2. The second stage of this pyramid consists of the transnational corporations that have extended throughout the world market and which are highly influential in relation to the flow of capital, technology, populations, etc. “These productive organizations that form and supply the markets extend transversally under the umbrella and guarantee of the central power that constitutes the first tier of global power”. So that, “in effect, through the global distribution of capitals, technologies, goods, and populations, the transnational corporations construct vast networks of communication and provide the satisfaction of needs. The single and univocal pinnacle of world command is thus articulated by the transnational corporations and the organization of markets. The world market both homogenizes and

differentiates territories, rewriting the geography of the globe. Still on the second tier, on a level that is often subordinated to the power of the transnational corporations, reside the general set of sovereign nation-states that now consist essentially in local, territorialized organizations.”17

3. The base level of this pyramid corresponds with the organizations that are most directly interacting with the people and popular interests, which cannot be incorporated directly into the structures of global power. “These organizations are often understood as functioning as the structures of a global civil society, channeling the needs and desires of the multitude into forms that can be represented within the functioning of the global power structures. In this new global form we can still recognize instances of the traditional components of civil society, such as the media and religious institutions.”18

(17)

An important aspect of capitalism is the difference between the system of value, and the system of prices. As Amin states: “The system of prices, which determines the distribution of wealth, is necessarily different from the system of values. This stems not only from market imperfections but essentially from the influence of power over the market, the higher level over the intermediate level, political authority over economic authority. Because this dialectic does not interest them, all moderate empiricists ignore value, not wishing to see in it anything but a smoke screen which hides the only reality which they wish to know, the

immediate.”19 _{This is a very crucial distinction to make, since the pricing process is}

such an important one in society. Not only does this determine the value of currencies, and thereby the prices of goods, but this also creates massive

inequality and poverty since a huge portion of this process is happening without general consent or even general understanding thereof. This can be seen in the massive difference in price between identical material goods all around the world; a bread, a barrel of oil or a litre of water, that are exactly identical in objective value, can differ radically in subjective price depending on which part of the world it’s being sold. The higher the position on the global or societal pyramid: the higher the price.

“Oppression, racist, ethnic, cultural or national oppression, is not a new phenomenon. However, capitalist exploitation and core-periphery polarization, its potential colonial form, are realities particular to the modern age and specific forms of insertion into globalization.”20

When thinking about the recent history of our society and the multitude of important occurrences that have shaped our species, I think it is important not to think too compartmentalized; meaning that a holistic approach is sometimes more desirable than to look with great detail at one specific event, terminology, process, etc. One could indefinitely argue about the various interpretations and consequences of Marx’ work (and that is luckily still being done, even to this very day by for example Piketty), but I think it’s basic premises are still as true today as when Marx formulated them. Namely, that the material and physical interactions human beings have with eachother and their environment, and the way in which this process is structured and how the work and profits thereof are divided

(18)

according to ownership, are essential in the shaping of our cultural, social, political and economic realities. The clarification of this exploitation lies at the core of Marx’ work and is continuing to this very day, arguably on a global scale.

“As much of the world as possible would constitute a Grand Area, as it was called, which would be subordinated to the needs of the U.S. economy. Within the Grand Area, other capitalist societies would be encouraged to develop, but without protective devices that would interfere with U.S. prerogatives.”21

The above quote by Chomsky pertains to the planning that has been developed during, and has been implemented right after, the Second World War. Both Hardt & Negri and Amin focus on the post-war period for the development of hegemony where “a paradigm shift in the world economic and political order was taking place. One important element of this passage was the fact that the world market as a structure of hierarchy and command became more important and decisive in all the zones and regions in which the old imperialisms had previously operated. The world market began to appear as the centrepiece of an apparatus that could regulate global networks of circulation.”22_{Of course this elaborate process has}

developed during the course of many years and under the guidance of complex influential factors. “In the post-Second World War period, despite the marked nature of American hegemony, the strong national content of the strategies which defined the age maintained a degree of conciliation between universalism and political and cultural diversity. The contradiction specific to the cultural

dimension of capitalist globalization has thus only recently become apparent. It has often been attributed to the power of the media which are responsible for the contraction of the world into a ‘global village’. This reality must certainly not be left out of the picture of globalization.”23

After this introduction to the concept of capitalist hegemony on a global scale, I will move on to the formation and functioning of this ‘global village’, which functions through the media, in considering the different dimensions that shape our reality. All these systems are responsible for the creation and perception of certain narratives that create a certain ‘truth’ which is supportive to the capitalist

(19)

system, as Michel Foucault explains: ‘’Truth’ is to be understood as a system of ordered procedures for the production, regulation, distribution, circulation and operation of statements. ‘Truth’ is linked in a circular relation with systems of power which produce and sustain it, and to effects of power which it induces and which extend it. A regime of truth. This regime is not merely ideological or

superstructural; it was a condition of the formation and development of capitalism. And it’s this same regime which, subject to certain modifications, operates in the socialist countries (I leave open here the question of China, of which I know little).24

Can the influence and power of the media, in what Hardt & Negri call the ether, be seen to enhance this (US led) capitalist structure? And what is the kind of culture that is a result of this communication?

“The management of communication, the structuring of the education system, and the regulation of culture appear today more than ever as sovereign prerogatives. All of this, however, dissolves in the ether. The contemporary systems of communication are not subordinated to sovereignty; on the contrary, sovereignty seems to be subordinated to communication—or actually, sovereignty is articulated through

communications systems. In the field of communication, the paradoxes that bring about the dissolution of territorial and/or national sovereignty are more clear than ever.”25

1.2 Corporate Media as Propaganda

“There are, then, natural processes at work to facilitate the control of “enemy territory” at home. Similarly, the global planning undertaken by the U.S. elites during and after World War II assumed that principles of liberal internationalism would generally serve to satisfy what had been described as the “requirement of the United States in a world in which it proposes to hold unquestioned power.” The global policy goes under the name

(20)

“containment”. The manufacture of consent at home is its domestic counterpart. The two policies are, in fact, closely intertwined, since the domestic population must be mobilized to pay the costs of “containment,” which may be severe – both material and moral costs.”26

The processes that are at work to create the international policy of ‘containment’, and the specific policy for the US itself which consists of the manufacture of consent, function through the field of communication. The media play a very important role in the construction of (the perception of) our reality, and thus in the shaping of containment or the manufacture of consent. The importance of this role is not something that is being underestimated by the powers that be in the current power structure. “The structure and management of communication networks are essential conditions for production in the informational economy. These global networks must be constructed and policed in such a way as to guarantee order and profits. It should come as no surprise, then, that the U.S. government poses the establishment and regulation of a global information infrastructure as one of its highest priorities, and that communications networks have become the most active terrain of mergers and competition for the most powerful transnational corporations.”27 _{This becomes clear when we take the}

following comment by then Foreign Secretary (and now 2016 presidential

candidate) Hillary Clinton into consideration: “During the Cold War we did a great job in getting America’s message out. After the Berlin Wall fell we said, ‘Okay, fine, enough of that, we are done,’ and unfortunately we are paying a big price for it. Our private media cannot fill that gap. We are in an information war and we are losing that war.”28

The type of power that is associated with this implicit steering of thought and behavioural patterns is best described as symbolic; a term that is quite difficult to describe or explain since it deals with the simultaneous (re)presentation and perception of a specific reality through secondary or indirect means. Just as for example the concept of a tree can be represented by the specific letter symbols t,r,e and e in the Latin alphabet, in the English language in this case; it still remains unclear what kind of specific tree is being talked about even though it seems objectively clear what is being meant. I leave open here the linguistic and epistemological discussions pertaining to the possibilities of representing the

(21)

same concept by different symbols; this is only to illustrate the ambiguous nature of symbols.

“‘Symbolic power’ is perhaps the least understood of the fundamental types of power (economic, political, military, symbolic). For, while at its most basic level, ‘symbolic power’ is easily understood as ‘the capacity to intervene in the course of events, to influence the actions of others and indeed to create events, by means of the production and transmission of symbolic forms’ (Thompson, 1995: 17), we have to grasp something wider: the effect of the overwhelming concentration of symbolic power in

particular places, especially the media. In this concentrated form, symbolic power (including media power) is better defined as a ‘power of

constructing reality’, that is, social reality. To contest media power is to contest the way social reality itself is defined or named.”29_{(Nick Couldry &}

James Curran)

The construction of our social and cultural reality is a constant interaction

between individual and collective modes of representation, wherein the collective means of communication fulfil a dominant role because of their reach. A lot can be said about the interaction between individuals and the collective, and the reflexive forming of cognitive understanding and resulting behaviour, but that would constitute an entire different thesis. For the sake of my argumentation I just want to point out that the forming of this understanding is a process where the media plays a very important role. Even though humans and their behaviour often are not considered rational but emotional; the information that reaches them has a certain effect on their behaviour and/or consciousness: even if these effects are sub- or unconscious.

So let’s take a closer look at how this media power can best be analysed to see how it functions in relation to power and what it’s imperatives might be. Of course the interaction between an individual and (the interpretation of) information in general consists of very different disciplines and fields of study altogether, let alone their interaction with economic and political factors of power. In this case I want to illustrate the ways in which media power is instrumental in creating an

(22)

understanding between the enforcers of power, being the current capitalist global hegemony which for the large part is originating from the US, and the ‘target audience’; namely the average citizen(s). The main model that will be used to analyse this interaction is that of Noam Chomsky (and his co-authors) called the propaganda model. This model got its name from the initial term coined by Edward Bernays, even way back in the 1930’s, which is used to describe the inherent imperatives that lie within media:

“THE media by which special leaders transmit their messages to the public through propaganda include all the means by which people today transmit their ideas to one another. There is no means of human communication which may not also be a means of deliberate propaganda, because

propaganda is simply the establishing of reciprocal understanding between an individual and a group.”30_{(Edward Bernays)}

In his 1928 book Propaganda Edward Bernays, the nephew of the famous psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud, describes the most inherent psychological processes associated with what he calls the ‘establishing of reciprocal understanding between an individual and a group’. Nowadays the term

propaganda has gone out of fashion because of bad connotations, but the main principles remain as sound now as when Bernays first formulated his theory and connected practices. He is often called the father of public relations because of the role he has played in linking psychoanalytical theories with advertisement

practices. Most of Bernays’ successes lie primarily in the years preceding WWII, where he has made quite some notable accomplishments. To name a few31_:

 Coining the phrase: “Making the World Safe for Democracy” together with journalist Walter Lippman (who in turn inspired a lot of Noam Chomsky’s work) to get the American public more susceptible to the idea of the United States entering WWI. A phrase which, ironically, still sounds very familiar in promoting American foreign policy

 Getting woman to smoke: organizing a march that combined the use of celebrities and young models with elaborate media coverage in the New York City parade. This way contributing hugely to removing the taboo of women smoking in public

(23)

 Working with the (even today) contemporary corporate giants as Procter & Gamble, The American Tobacco Company, Cartier Inc., CBS, General Electric and Dodge Motors in promoting their product and services

His work is thus important because he worked with, and openly described the motivations of, what is often called ‘the elite’. This elite consist of the ruling class of capitalists – also known as the 1% - that influence a lot of important processes in the world through their practices of financialization, thus exercising economic and political power. Though the term propaganda has been badly stigmatized through its public use in WWII by the notorious Nazi propaganda minister Joeseph Goebbels, the process as it was originally described by Bernays stays the same. The minds of the masses are molded, or even manipulated as Bernays states.

“It is a natural expectation, on uncontroversial assumptions, that the major media and other ideological institutions will generally reflect the

perspectives and interests of established power.”32

The shaping of ideas, opinions and attitudes can be called by many names: advertisement, marketing, public relations, propaganda, etc. But in the end it all boils down to creating a certain media message that represents a specific perspective on a reality that, through the scientific research of psychological human traits, creates a desired effect for the manufacturers of this message. This is what Bernays has had to say about the functioning of democracy and what he calls the ‘molding of our minds’:

‘The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized.”33

(24)

The media obviously play a very important role in the dissemination of

information that contributes to the shaping of ideas and the creation of certain types of behaviour. In figure 1 below, it can be seen that the average time a global individual spends interacting with media is at least 6 hours per day:

figure 1

Through all this media consumption people are constantly being confronted with all types of influential content, especially the traditional types of media like television, radio and print. It’s no coincidence that the most watched events on television or the most read subscriptions charge the most for advertising: the larger the target audience the most desired effect will be reached in getting a message across. Not only does this influence our consumer behaviour, but it also provides us with a presentation of a certain perspective on reality. Be it for economic, political, educational or entertainment purposes.

‘Those segments of the media that can reach a substantial audience are major corporations and are closely integrated with even larger

conglomerates. Like other businesses, they sell a product to buyers. Their market is advertisers, and the “product” is audiences, with a bias towards more wealthy audiences, which improve advertising rates.’34

(25)

The functioning of the media in a neoliberal capitalist society is of course coupled to the prerequisite of making a profit. So there are a number of instances where the creation of media content serves a particular purpose. In advertising this is obvious; the presented product or service must be presented in such a way that it creates a desire in the targeted individual to buy the presented product or service. However, in issues relating to ideology, and thus the exercise of symbolic power, these objectives become a little more obfuscated.

“According to this “propaganda model” – which has prior plausibility for such reasons as those just briefly reviewed – the media serve the interests of state and corporate power, which are closely interlinked, framing their reporting and analysis in a manner supportive of established privilege and limiting debate and discussion accordingly.”35

The nature of capitalist imperatives has created the emergence of a few media conglomerates that seem to dominate a huge part of the information providing structure, but, as Chomsky states: “In accordance with the prevailing conceptions in the U.S., there is no infringement on democracy if a few corporations control the information system: in fact, that is the essence of democracy.”36_{That is because}

‘the model of media as corporate oligopoly is the natural system for capitalist democracy.’37_{The model that is most representative of the (international) media}

structure can thus best be described as that of an oligopoly; meaning that there are only a handful of organizations that supply an extremely large part of the market.

“The oligopolistic network model is characterized by broadcast systems. According to this model, for example in television or radio systems, there is a unique and relatively fixed point of emission, but the points of reception are potentially infinite and territorially indefinite, although developments such as cable television networks fix these paths to a certain extent. The broadcast network is defined by its centralized production, mass

distribution, and one-way communication. The entire culture industry— from the distribution of newspapers and books to films and videocassettes —has traditionally operated along this model. A relatively small number of

(26)

corporations (or in some regions a single entrepreneur, such as Rupert Murdoch, Silvio Berlusconi, or Ted Turner) can effectively dominate all of these networks. This oligopolistic model is not a rhizome but a tree structure that subordinates all of the branches to the central root.”38

There are only a relatively small number of media corporations that inherently need to operate according to the capitalist principles of profit and competition with a centralized means of information distribution, and their main business model runs on advertisement; which is precisely the same kind of idea shaping programming that is similar to the properties of media. The oligopolization of the media becomes very clear when we look at the ever-increasing centralization of reach and power of the very corporations that are most influential. When we look at the corporations that cater to 90% of the American public with respect to what they watch, read or listen to: it shows that in 1983 this was still in the control of 60 companies, while in 2011 this has dramatically decreased to only 6

corporations.39_{In figures 2,3 and 4 – which together from the infographic ‘The}

Illusion of Choice’ – the select choice and corporate control of the (US) media system, as well as the amount of money involved, is illustrated in comparison to some more comprehensible alternative entities:

(27)

(28)

(29)

(30)

“Those are the foundations of the industries of control of opinions and attitudes, driving people to consumerism and marginalizing them in various ways. Huge resources are devoted to this. Marketing is mostly a form of propaganda. If anybody believed in markets, which only ideologues do, but if, say, business believed in markets, they wouldn’t do anything like the marketing they do today. If you take an economics course, they teach you that markets are based on informed consumers making rational choices. But business devotes huge resources to trying to create

uninformed consumers who make irrational choices. It’s obvious as soon as you look at an advertisement.”40

The symbolic power which accompanies this dominant reach by a relatively small group of institutions seems apparent, especially when considering the

constitution of alternatives to this kind of power:

“Symbolic power requires prior organisational and economic resources (to buy cameras, own radio frequencies, produce news stories) but, if

accumulated on a sufficient scale, results over the long-term in something qualitatively different: influence over people’s beliefs, in particular those beliefs (barely articulated) through which we frame the social world. It follows that contesting media power is only possible if there exists a well-resourced social site outside media institutions from where a rival

narrative authority over the social world can plausibly be enunciated”41

Taken into consideration that the modus operandi within the capitalist

hierarchical system incorporates a largely central dissemination of information through (trans)national corporations, that are subordinated to the overarching power structure, the United States, we can see how there seems to be a problem in relation to the exercise and operation of power within capitalist democracies: “the political discourse in the U.S. and in many other democracies now depends

increasingly on privately owned and operated digital intermediaries. Whether unpopular, controversial, and contested speech has the right to exist on these platforms is left up to unelected corporate executives, who are under no legal obligation to justify their decisions.”42_{(Rebecca McKinnon) These corporate}

(31)

executives, like the ones working in the highly influential financial institutions, aren’t elected, don’t owe any explanation to anyone but their shareholders, and have literally incorporated the accompanying hierarchical structure of the societal power framework. As Glenn Greenwald states: “With the acquisition of media companies by the world’s largest corporations, most media stars are highly paid employees of conglomerates, no different than other such employees. Instead of selling banking services or financial instruments, they peddle media products to the public on behalf of that corporation. Their career path is determined by the same metrics that amount to success in such an environment: the extent to which they please their corporate bosses and advance the company’s interests.”43_{In this}

way the accompanying critical reporting that is essential for good governance and democracy isn’t prevailing within the structure of these type of institutions; they seem to cooperate with and enhance the existing economic and political structure.

“We are to understand, then, that “democracy” is a system that rejects democratic forms so as to facilitate reduced consumption and

superexploitation, with state control over the economy in coordination with domestic conglomerates and international corporations, a pattern closer to traditional fascism than to democracy. All makes sense, however, when we take the term “democracy” to mean domination of the economy and social and political life by domestic elements that are properly sensitive to the needs of corporations and the U.S. government.”44

The resulting (US) state and corporate nexus that seems to exists creates a certain type of propaganda which limits criticism and dissent, albeit all institutional and not something that is proven to come from a central point of command. As Hardt & Negri state: “The spectacle of politics functions as if the media, the military, the government, the transnational corporations, the global financial institutions, and so forth were all consciously and explicitly directed by a single power even though in reality they are not.”45_{Still, there seems to exist a rather conformative pattern}

within this spectacle of politics which enforces the general overlying power structure. Noam Chomsky: “Our propaganda system is highly sophisticated. The actors substantially understand what they’re doing, it seems.”46_{This is because:}

(32)

“A decent propaganda system does not announce its principles or

intentions. This is one of the reasons the old Soviet system was relatively ineffective, as far as we know. If you tell people, “This is what you have to think,” then they understand: this is what power want us to think. And then they may find a way out of it. It’s harder to extricate yourself from a system of unstated presuppositions than it is from explicitly stated doctrine. That’s the way a good propaganda system will operate.”47

Still, the overlap between politics and media can clearly be seen when looking at the US elections in 2008 for example, according to Chomsky: “Take the 2008 presidential election, which, like all elections, was a public relations extravaganza. The advertising industry was very conscious of its role. In fact, shortly after the election, Advertising Age gave the annual prize for best marketing campaign of the year to the Obama campaign, which the PR industry organized. There was actually discussion in the business press afterward over this achievement. There was euphoria in the business community. This will change the style in corporate boardrooms. We know how to delude better than we did before. No one had any illusions, apparently, about the candidate winning on the basis of his policies or his intentions. It was just a good marketing campaign, better than John

McCain’s.”48_{Everybody remembers the Obama posters and accompanying “Change}

We Can Believe In” and “Yes We Can” slogans. This effect was completely due to the media campaign and didn’t reflect any of his actual planned policies or resulting executive behaviour.

1.3 Criticism of the Propaganda Model

One of the pillars in my line of argumentation in part 1 has built on the work of Noam Chomsky, someone who is being called “the world’s foremost intellectual activist” as well as “the most cited living author”49_{(Peter Collier) as he ranks just}

below Plato and Sigmund Freud among the most cited authors of all time. He is currently Professor Emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Chomsky is originally heralded because of his theories regarding linguistics and the development of the universal grammar theory, but it can be argued that he is

(33)

currently best known for his criticism of media and US foreign policy; being one of the most famous left wing dissidents in the United States. The main arguments from Chomsky that I have used in my line of argumentation revolve around his explanation of the propaganda model in relation to US hegemony and the functioning of capitalism. These happen to be highly contested and complex subjects that are discussed the world over. So, naturally, besides the praise for Chomsky and his work, there is also a fair amount of criticism attached to his claims and work in general. For the sake of arriving at a balanced analysis of my usage of Chomsky’s work, I will discuss some of the most notable criticism in relation to Chomsky’s propaganda model and his explanations surrounding hegemony.

“Chomsky’s ideas about the media are probably the most quoted but least plausible of his “theories.” His analysis is very much that of an outsider who knows relatively little about the media and has scant interest in the subject except to the degree that “media subservience” serves to explain why there is no outcry against the evil he sees everywhere in the American enterprise. His theories are based on illogical, flawed or fallacious

arguments. He makes factual errors with alarming frequency, writes in a way that tends to mislead his audience, and makes sweeping statements without any evidence to support them.”50_{(Eli Lehrer)}

The above quote originates from the book called “The Anti-Chomsky Reader” by Peter Collier and David Horowitz in which, as the title aptly reveals, a number of authors provide criticism on Chomsky and his work. Eli Lehrer makes statements about the flaws in Chomsky’s work, even though some of these are not factually backed up by referring to concrete examples; exactly the same accusation he makes of Chomsky. Chomsky is furthermore being criticized for not recognizing the critical nature of the press in reporting on governmental and corporate wrongdoings according to Lehrer: “Blinded and bemused by the filters and

screens created by powerful interests, the mainstream media report only facts and stories that serve the interests of the ruling elite. A free press, Chomsky claims, is an illusion cynically perpetuated by the media. The media keep their audience amused, but their chief function is to inculcate the values that compel obedience

(34)

to the myths sustaining an aggressive and immoral capitalist system. Thus they disseminate propaganda rather than information per se. Chomsky dismisses the sometimes searing exposés of government and corporate misconduct that occasionally appear in the press as mere camouflage for the media’s larger purpose of supporting the basic power arrangements of America’s political and economic life.”51_{Lehrer makes a significant point here to criticize the propaganda}

model: the fact that there are indeed stories in the media that damage the conduct of corporations and politics/politicians. One of the most famous ones of course include the Watergate scandal, Monica Lewinsky affair and the questions raised about Obama’s birth (certificate), etc. On the corporate side we have for example Enron, the BP oil spill and the 2008 credit crunch with regards to Lehman

Brothers etc. It must be noted that, even though these scandals have been widely publicized throughout the media; they haven’t changed the general or specific underlying structure of the political and economical structures or the way in which similar entities function. It isn’t particularly so that these exposes serve as camouflage in the media for supporting the basic power arrangements in America, but the fact that these basic hierarchical power arrangements haven’t structurally changed seems to sustain Chomsky’s point. Challenging this power of the media with regards to political content and the corporate structure is nonetheless echoed by Lance W. Bennett: “Prospects for contesting media power may appear to be smaller today than ever. Observers note a combination of global media trends that have diminished the quantity, quality, and diversity of political content in the mass media. These trends include: growing media monopolies, government deregulation, the rise of commercialized news and information systems, and corporate norms shunning social responsibility beyond profits for shareholders (Bagdikian, 2000; McChesney, 1999; Herman & Chomsky, 1988).”52

“The ‘propaganda model’ of media operations laid out and applied by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky in Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of

the Mass Media postulates that elite media interlock with other institutional

sectors in ownership, management and social circles, effectively circumscribing their ability to remain analytically detached from other dominant institutional sectors. The model argues that the net result of this is self-censorship without any significant coercion. Media, according to this framework, do not have to be

(35)

controlled nor does their behaviour have to be patterned, as it is assumed that they are integral actors in class warfare, fully integrated into the institutional framework of society, and act in unison with other ideological sectors, i.e. the academy, to establish, enforce, reinforce and ‘police’ corporate hegemony. It is not a surprise, then, given the interrelations of the state and corporate capitalism and the ‘ideological network’, that the propaganda model has been dismissed as a ‘conspiracy theory’ and condemned for its ‘overly deterministic’ view of media behaviour. It is generally excluded from scholarly debates on patterns of media behaviour.”53_{(Jeffrey Klaehn)}

According to Klaehn, one of the main criticisms of the propaganda model consists of the accusation that Chomsky and Herman look at the media with an almost conspiratorial view; meaning that the mass media can be seen as an implicit and central instrument in promoting the special interests of the ruling class in

capitalist democracies (Klaehn, 2002, p. 148). To this accusation, Chomsky and Herman formulate three objections54_:

1. First of all, they say that the label conspiracy theory is precisely that: just a label that is being used to dismiss the propaganda model without providing an accurate description of what exactly a conspiracy theory is and how this can be seen in the propaganda model. In other words: the term conspiracy theory is just being applied as a stigmatizing term to dismiss the model.

2. Another objection provided by Chomsky and Herman is that they do acknowledge, depending on specific cases, that deliberate intent can be an intervening factor that can have intended and/or unintended outcomes. But the emphasis of the propaganda model lies on the patterns of media behaviour in relation to institutional imperatives; so it is formulated in terms of a structural analysis and not assuming conspiracy.

3. They state that deliberate intent, or ‘conspiracy’, in combination with unconscious hegemony or professional ideology, are for the most part unknowable and unmeasurable. They claim that there are several filter

(36)

such that media ‘interests’ and ‘choices’ serve class interests on a consistent basis.”

As Chomsky states counters: “The propaganda model does not assert that the media parrot the line of the current state managers in the manner of a totalitarian regime; rather, that the media reflect the consensus of powerful elites of the state-corporate nexus generally, including those who object to some aspect of

government policy, typically on tactical grounds. The model argues, from its foundations, that the media will protect the interests of the powerful, not that it will protect state managers from their criticisms; the persistent failure to see this point may reflect more general illusions about our democratic system.”55

So what Chomsky actually postulates is that these filters or constraints within the media apparatus aren’t deliberately or consciously produced, but happen at an almost unconscious level to a seemingly natural, objective and common-sense logic that is apparent throughout the corporate system. Even though the objective outcome of the media content seems to imply, according to Chomsky, that

decisions are being made to support a general ideological structure and elite interests; this is something that happens because of the internalized belief systems and conforming attitude which are apparent within the corporate (media) structure. A seeming necessity for thriving within this environment, something that is also echoed by Glenn Greenwald and his very recent

experiences with this structure: “Those who thrive within the structure of large corporations tend to be adepts at pleasing rather than subverting institutional power. It follows that those who succeed in corporate journalism are suited to accommodate power. They identity with institutional authority and are skilled at serving, not combating it.”56

There are a number of ways for looking at the way the propaganda model describes this implicit and seemingly unconscious conforming behaviour that ‘accommodates power’. In general this is best described by Klaehn in the following passage: “The model presumes that the interests and choices of the elite, agenda-setting media routinely serve class interests. It presumes that media typically ‘protect’ the interests of dominant elites. It contends that media will mobilize and divert, promote and suppress, legitimize and endorse, in such ways that it will be