Introduction
Culture is the central factor impacting people’s behaviors, attitudes, beliefs, and actions. It includes customs, social institutions, achievements, and constructs existing in the mentality of specific communities. At the same time, it unifies a group of people based on the similarity of their representations and beliefs. For this reason, understanding culture and how it evolves helps us comprehend the people who represent it and the reactions they might exhibit when responding to a particular trigger. Therefore, it is a potent tool for either shaping social responses or realizing why these responses emerge.
Furthermore, culture directly affects communication, as conveying specific messages requires using codes that are clear to those who share the values. In this way, it is also a potent tool that can impact processes within society and global discourse. This factor also explains why numerous researchers devoted much attention to investigating the phenomenon.
Background
The 20th century might be characterized by the emergence of two radically different views on culture. The anthropologists, such as Boas and Mead, focused on studying it to understand its principal peculiarities and how it shapes people’s lives globally (King, 2019). It led to a reconsideration of the importance of various customs and traditions and to the rise of tolerance and humanism. The second approach focused on viewing culture as a tool for shaping and changing the world to achieve desired outcomes. As a result, the views of Lasswell and Lippmann contributed to increased attention to propaganda, which became a central phenomenon of the modern era.
Early Anthropologists’ View
The early anthropologists’ specific approach to studying culture emerged from their perspective on the topic. Boas and his students viewed the phenomenon as the ultimate source for common sense (King, 2019). The idea of cultural relativity implies that there is no universal standard for measuring culture, underscoring the need for its in-depth investigation (King, 2019).
Boas and Mead, another cultural anthropologist from the cohort, believed that only real, evidence-driven analysis could replace the principles that dominated the science of that era (King, 2019). It means they focused on finding new meanings of the notion that might help explain the peculiarities of diverse communities, how they work, and how they evolve. Boas was sure that others’ lives should be viewed through an empathetic lens (King, 2019). It explained the interest in studying this field of knowledge as a means to lay the foundation for enhanced understanding. The given approach also differentiated early andrologists from other researchers, who focused on culture for its practical outcomes and to develop a theoretical basis for interventions or methods.
Mead also saw the high value in studying culture because of its unique value and the need for a better conceptualization of the phenomenon. Similar to Boas, she rejected the old approaches that emphasized the dominance of one race over another (King, 2019). Instead, she was interested in entering the mental attitudes of people with values and customs different from the traditional ones (King, 2019).
In contrast to the approaches that emerged during warfare and focused on analyzing culture to influence the public, Mead advocated accepting all existing divergences as part of more effective cooperation (King, 2019). It can be seen in the ideas of cultural relativity and the assumption that the differences in worldviews shape mentality and beliefs. In contrast, there cannot be universal or dominant ones. This group of researchers recognized the importance of the culture itself and wanted to study it to reduce biased attitudes and promote better global interaction.
Shifts in Views on Culture
Therefore, the interests and approaches of early anthropologists can be opposed to those of later anthropologists, who emerged under the influence of ideology and the need to resist external pressures. The World Wars and the Cold War introduced the need to revise culture and use it as a tool for shaping public opinion, unifying societies, and ensuring the appropriate and expected response to a given threat. As a result, this construct became an integral part of the policy and the differentiating factor helping to label countries and nations as friends or foes (Simpson, 1994). The rise of the given paradigm led to studying the phenomenon as a framework for changing the world and achieving desired outcomes. The concept of propaganda, which became especially strong during that period, also implied appealing to cultural values to strengthen specific messages.
Communication Scholars’ View
Lipmann was one of the outstanding theorists of that period, offering numerous ideas that became fundamental. In contrast to Boas or Mead, who focused on analyzing culture to cultivate better comprehension, he used it as the basis for investigating communication, its effectiveness, and how to convey messages to society (Simpson, 1994). Lippmann introduced the concept of the stereotype, or a picture of the world held in the head of every individual, which influences how people act within groups (Simpson, 1994).
He admitted that by selecting the content and presenting it from an angle relevant to a particular culture, it is possible to shape public opinion. It explained the basic principles of propaganda and its relation to people’s mentalities and representations. In such a way, Lippmann’s interest in investigating the construct was linked to warfare and the need to resist external pressures (Simpson, 1994). Propaganda, as a form of communication, became a potent tool for resolving the problem and uniting communities.
Lasswell, another communication theorist, also advocated using propaganda for particular purposes. He admitted that the scientific application of persuasion through propaganda is cheaper than violence and might yield better results (Simpson, 1994). However, the successful use of the tool depends on its proper coordination of beliefs within society, policies, and people’s representations (Simpson, 1994). In other words, propaganda is effective when the culture of a particular society is considered and used as the basis for shaping public opinion.
Lasswell also structured the personality, outlining the identifications, demands, and acceptances, which explained the need to research background and cultural representations (Simpson, 1994). The scientists recognized that communication is interrelated with the social order, and selecting the methods to interact with it was critical to understanding the degree to which particular actions or ideas are accepted (Simpson, 1994). Lasswell accepted the necessity of propaganda as a tool to resist external pressures and their phenomena; however, he differentiated its types and their applicability to specific situations.
Therefore, the research paradigm employed by Lasswell and Lippmann to study culture is linked to the benefits it might offer for communication. As a result, the ideas of black, gray, and white propaganda emerged. The significant difference between the tools lies in how facts are presented and their impact on communities.
White propaganda is designed to provide facts to highlight a particular phenomenon, emphasize its importance, and reach an audience that perceives these ideas as truthful and balanced (Simpson, 1994). Gray propaganda involves creating false information about rivals and distributing it through media that claim to be independent (Simpson, 1994). Finally, black propaganda stands for forging documents, creating false stories, and distributing them to target audiences to spread havoc, trouble, confusion, and fear (Simpson, 1994). The definitions show that the approaches to presenting information differ radically, and their success depends on the degree to which society is ready to accept the presented facts and on the current state of the value system.
Considering the facts and definitions above, Lasswell and Lippmann’s investigation of communication and culture was critical for determining how public opinion can be shaped. Both theorists accepted all three forms presented previously as means of resisting enemies. However, Lippmann rejected the use of black propaganda in domestic politics.
At the same time, Lasswell explained the tools’ increased topicality in terms of the challenges of warfare and the need to differentiate between enemy and friendly nations (Simpson, 1994). Their assumptions emerged from analyzing the existing societal values and needs. The scientists established a narrow view of communication consistent with their experiences in warfare and understanding of culture. It implied determining the speaker, the message, the addressee, and the expected effect (Simpson, 1994). The last factor can be modified by altering the message and how the speaker presents it, which became central to interpreting social communication and interactions within communities.
Central Differences
In this way, cultural anthropologists, such as Boas and Mead, and communication scholars, such as Lippmann and Lasswell, focused on studying culture. However, they employed radically different approaches to investigating the phenomenon and to applying the knowledge. The first cohort emphasized the unique importance of the construct itself, meaning it deserved research given the diversity of mentalities, values, and beliefs (King, 2019).
Boas and Mead sought to revise the notion of dominant rates and to introduce a new paradigm emphasizing the need for empathy and a deeper understanding of existing differences (Simpson, 1994). Although Lippmann and Lasswell also recognized the radical cultural differences between nations, they focused on using these differences to improve communication, shape public opinion, and resist external pressure. As a result, they created the scientific basis of propaganda as part of the cultural framework peculiar to a particular nation.
Conclusion
Altogether, culture is the all-encompassing aspect that impacts all spheres of human activity. It can help to explain responses to various triggers, people’s actions, and their values and beliefs. For this reason, the phenomenon has always attracted numerous researchers who employed different paradigms to study and interpret it. Cultural anthropologists, such as Boas or Mead, acknowledged that culture is fascinating in itself and that its analysis will generate knowledge necessary for promoting a better understanding of others and replacing old, biased judgments.
Lippmann and Lasswell utilized a more pragmatic approach to studying the phenomenon, viewing it as a tool for shaping social interactions and communications and increasing the effectiveness of propaganda. The differences between these groups’ visions arose from the peculiarities of the epoch and the tasks the scientists followed. Nevertheless, they contributed to the description of various dimensions of culture and laid the groundwork for further research, which is critical to the evolution of scientific thought.
References
King, C. (2019). Gods of the upper air. Doubleday.
Simpson, C. (1994). Science of Coercion: Communication research & psychological warfare 1945-1960. Oxford University Press.