Oh! I see what you are discussing. The Park that used to celebrate the
great achievements of the USSR on Peace Street.
A really good Vygotskian analysis of the term, propaganda, would be
fascinating to read.
As I recall the word came into the English language from Latin and a Papal
decision to "propogate the faith". Seems apt in the Soviet case. At the
level of social interaction where we are professionally involved and have
some presumably, useful knowledge to propagate (why else do They pay for
us?), how do we think of self presentation that is NOT propagating?
When teaching, this topic comes up in seeking to get students to
distinguish between education and propaganda, starting with the course they
are taking from me on the history of communication and with it, the history
So what is the difference between education and propaganda. My students and
I often had difficulty distinguishing them.
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 5:24 PM, Annalisa Aguilar <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Yes, because if we go by the rubric of [sign mediates internally with the
mind], and [tool mediates externally with the environment], which I do not
reject by the way, then propaganda (as intended), is a tool to the one who
produces it (because it is intended to influence the environment of others,
and a sign for those who consume it (the intended others to be influenced).
My inquiry isn't exactly upon traditionally-considered political
propaganda; one could also see advertising as a type of propaganda as well.
Even punishment and humiliations can be a type of propaganda, "pour
encourager les autres."
In a sense, propaganda is a kind of duck-rabbit. You see duck, I see
rabbit, depending upon what is externally projected/internally received;
nothing changes about the drawing itself, it's all perception.
Is this too facile? I feel there may be problems, and appeal to the list
to correct me on this. :)
Thinking out loud... your mileage may vary!