Conditioning #2
continuing notes on Pavolvian conditioning
Continuing notes on classical conditioning…
Pavlovian psychology considered language a conditioned reflex and this idea of using linguistics to indoctrinate the masses was explored by Soviet psychologists in the 1950s. Speech patterns and word signals were seen as triggers to reflexes of thought and feelings and propaganda techniques using this understanding of linguistics was developed. The Russian psychologist Sergej M. Dobrogaev (1873–1952), who did a good deal of this work said that “speech manifestations represent conditioned-reflex functions”. With the careful use of language the propagandist, through mass media outlets, could easily influence the mind of the masses.
Ready-made opinions can be distributed day by day through press, radio, and so on, again and again, till they reach the nerve cell and implant a fixed pattern of thought in the brain… Such is the Pavlovian device: repeat mechanically your assumptions and suggestions, diminish the opportunity of communicating dissent and opposition. This is the simple formula for political conditioning of the masses. (Meerloo, 2016, p. 47)
Meerloo goes on to explain that this Pavlovian strategy conditions people to ask themselves “What do other people think?” This is something our social brain is wired to wonder about all the time - what are the thoughts of the others around me? The propagandist uses this to his advantage to lead people to think what they think the general public opinion is (as we generally don’t naturally want to be outsiders) and create a mass prejudice that serves the propaganda. And even more so the individual becomes a voice for the propaganda, propagating it out into the social ether, so there is no doubt as to what others think.
It might also be added that certain symbols are paired with the language, this was very overt in Nazi Germany where symbolism was a key element in the propaganda. We still feel the effects of this classical conditioning, albeit in the opposite direction to a Nazi faithful German of the 1930-40s, with the swastika - evoking certain feelings, thoughts and other images.
Taken a step further the propagandist ideal scenario is to trap the mind of the masses into a hall of mirrors, of stereotypical words, slogans, images, and emergent behaviour - cutting off alternative ways of perceiving the world and making alternative value or moral judgments and actions. Anything unorthodox, any free intellectual exchange1, is perceived as dangerous, insane, stupid, or simply misinformed. The consciousness of masses is then on autopilot; thinking and responding in stereotypical ways that continually reinforce the propagandists ideology across all domains of society. For the Nazi this was called Gleichschaltung - the Nazification of Germany - a levelling and homogenising of the collective consciousness.
Under these conditions individual thinking and self-expression is suppressed, if not outrightly punished, robust intellectual debate is non-existent, and people are reduced to robots - cogs in a machine - perpetuating the mass psychosis that reinforces itself.
It seems to me that the use of language for a contemporary type of Gleichschaltung is evident all around us. Except on Substack! Here I’d like to hear your free and individual ideas about this - even in our alternative take on reality (the non-Covidian perspective) we are robust enough to consider all views2.
Meerloo, J. A. M. (2016). The rape of the mind: The psychology of thought control, menticide, and brainwashing. (Facsimile of the original 1956 Edition); San Diego, California; Progressive Press.com
Once again from Meerloo says, and I guess it’s self-evident, that any curiosity, puzzlement, doubt - are all crimes in the totalitarian state (even if the state is sprouting complete nonsense). “The mind that is open for questions is open for dissent. In the totalitarian regime the doubting, inquisitive, and imaginative mind has to be suppressed. The totalitarian slave is only allowed to memorize, to salivate when the bell rings.”
For the conditioning and closed mindedness of the opposite side of any perspective can be as much a mental prison as the one being opposed. I’m not suggesting that is us, or my readership, but something to keep in mind and to keep in check.
Brilliant, thank you. Fits like a glove in the current context and I’m afraid it’s very depressing. Really brings the slogan ‘We’re all in this together’ in perspective, doesn’t it?
This is brilliant! Can you comment perhaps on Pavlovian use of language as a means of control vs. Foucault's views on the power of language? They both see language as central. But Pavlov acts as if there can be one message while Foucault says that there can be no universals. But then the paradox of Foucault is that his adherents are implementing totalitarianism in the U.S. as we speak (cancelling people left and right and requiring certain forms of language over others) -- being more Pavlovian than even Pavlov himself.