Aestheticization as propaganda

Aesthetics is the branch of philosophy that studies the nature of beauty and the moral value of art, so aestheticization as propaganda is the process of presenting violence as an acceptable means of promoting a political aim even though it involves the injury or death of people. Anything that is said or shown through the mass media can be true or false, sincere or dishonest, but propaganda is distinguishable from conventional types of political or religious communication. In communication theory it is described as framing in that the words or images selected are packaged to sell an interpretation of events to a specific audience.

The aestheticization of violence for political purposes

Though many tools are available for political purposes, violence attracts beleaguered politicians as the simplest way to resolve any conflict or achieve any ends, because its strategies are well-known and weapons easily obtained. When asked to identify alternative nonviolent techniques, people can only haltingly visualise effective methods; moreover, skeptics can quickly raise moral and practical dilemmas to complicate any set of choices until violence appears the easiest option.

Nevertheless, to use violence as the strategy of first resort, a politician must overcome moral objections among prospective supporters and the conflict's interested parties. A military cause will not prosper until the majority agrees with the moral justification of the use of force, because all armies require logistical support from civilian populations for success. Hence, propagandists must aestheticize the violence to direct the audience's interpretation of events and so minimize consideration of the moral costs. This brings semiotics into a position of prominence both to set the frame and to deconstruct it.

An example of semiotic analysis

In January, 2003, the U.S. implemented a battle plan based on a concept developed at the National Defense University. Called "Shock and Awe", its stated purpose was the psychological destruction of the enemy's will to fight rather than the physical destruction of his military forces. The choice of name is revealing, even at a denotative level. Shock refers to the surprise and distress caused by events and, when associated with battles, means the violent interaction of individuals or groups as they join in combat. Meanwhile, awe is an overwhelming sense of wonder or admiration that may, to a greater or lesser extent, be associated with fear. But, at a connotative level, the use of the words is intended to fulfil several distinct aims:

• The words are not the actions but they represent them at a symbolic level. In reality, the army is going to kill large numbers of people, both combatant and non-combatant, but the choice is of words describing emotions that can only be experienced by those who are alive, so the implication is that enemy soldiers and civilians will be so disoriented that they will simply surrender rather than face the threatened death. Hence, the enemy casualty count will be low and the immediate gains will significantly outweigh the moral cost of the enterprise.

• All warfare involves death and destruction on a scale that would be shocking to the sensibilities of the ordinary person, so the phrase is intended to suggest a certain degree of magnificence in the technology and the manner of its delivery. Not only those on the receiving end are expected to experience awe: all external observers may be impressed by this display of power, and, perhaps, feel not a little afraid — a useful general propaganda gain to deter others from defying demands in the future.

• The word awe tends to refer to unequal power relationships, e.g. a beginner may be in awe of the skills of a professional, an ordinary mortal is in awe of a deity, etc. The implication is that this war is such an asymetrical contest that they might just as well give up before the battle is joined with such an overwhelmingly superior force.

• Figurative usages provide what the semiotician Barthes called a "pleasure of the text" (1970), i.e. the pleasurable reaction produced by a clever arrangement of signs. So figurative words are more memorable than literal words, particularly when used in unexpected contexts. Using this phrase in the otherwise literal context of declaring the opening of violent hostilities is incongruous and that contextualisation has made the phrase so memorable, effectively displacing all the imagery of imminent death and destruction that might otherwise have dominated.

• There is significant rhetorical power in monosyllabic words: they are short, punchy, and memorable. Through the careful mixing of short and long words, the impact provided by the short words stands out against the rhythmic flow provided by long words. Rhetorical theory maintains that any proposition can be expressed in a variety of ways. Hence, when persuasion is the overriding goal, the rhetorical perspective suggests that the manner in which a statement is expressed may be more important than its propositional content. In this instance, the repetition of two sounds, a binary pair of semi-onomatopoeic words, produces hyperbole. Whether written or spoken with an appropriate intonation and body language, the phrase is memorable.

This has been a brief examination of a single phrase in a continuing narrative. In Nineteen Eighty-Four, George Orwell proposed that the means to achieve complete control of people's minds or their ability to think rationally about the issues at stake is to invent a new language, more primitive and less articulate than current "oldspeak". That is what aetheticization achieves. It subverts reason through doublespeak and goodthink, and seeks to persuade the majority that the use of violence in any given context is not merely necessary or expedient, but just and glorious in the prosecution of higher ideals.

References

• Barthes, Roland (1970/1988), "The Old Rhetoric: An Aide-Memoire," in The Semiotic Challenge. tr. Richard Howard. New York: Hill and Wang.