Manufacturing Consent: Do We Really Live in a Democracy?

THINGS I'M THINKING ABOUT DEPT.

I've been intrigued by the concept of "manufacturing consent" as popularized by political theorist Noam Chomsky and economist Edward S. Herman in their book Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. "Manufacturing consent" has to do with the way media, governments, and powerful institutions shape public opinion to align with their interests, often subtly guiding what people think and believe.

It's a two word phrase--manufacturing and consent--loaded with implications.

Manufacturing is the process of producing products from raw materials using tools, machinery, and human labor. It involves transforming materials like metals, plastics, or chemicals into finished products, such as cars, electronics, clothing, or household items. It often follows a series of steps, including design, fabrication, assembly, and quality control, ensuring that the final product meets specific standards. It is considered crucial to the global economy, creating jobs, supporting industries, and providing the essential goods that society relies on every day.

Consent is the voluntary agreement or permission given by a person to allow something to happen, often in the context of personal boundaries, relationships, or legal matters. It requires that individuals have a clear understanding of what they are agreeing to, without any pressure, manipulation, or coercion. Consent is a foundational principle in ethics, emphasizing the importance of mutual respect and understanding between parties.

The idea is that media outlets, often controlled by large corporations with vested interests, influence what stories are covered, how they are framed, and what information is highlighted or omitted. This process can create a kind of consensus among the public that supports certain policies or viewpoints, even if they may not serve the broader public interest. Essentially, rather than being purely objective, media and institutions may "manufacture" agreement or acceptance of specific ideas, shaping public perception in a way that maintains the status quo or supports the interests of those in power.

 

In Manufacturing Consent Herman and Chomsky argue that media plays a significant role in American society to prepare it to willingly accept the values of the ruling elite. 

When did this switch happen (where the media is agenda driven rather than neutral) or has it always been this way? Instead of serving as a means for the public to obtain information needed to have sufficient control over the politicians and the flow of power in the country, the press now blatantly serves as a means for the elite to promote its agenda, to defend the economic, social, and political agenda of privileged and dominant groups in the society.

Edward Said addresses this manipulation from the specific manner in which our media controls Americans' view of the Middle East and the Islamic world. The author of Covering Islam: How the Media and the Experts Determine How We See the Rest of the World shows how the American news media have portrayed "Islam" as a monolithic entity, synonymous with terrorism and religious hysteria. 

One question I have here is, "Who's calling the shots?"

And the follow up: "To what end?"

The manner in which legacy media covered up President Biden's foibles and mental decline (How many times did we hear that he was "sharp as a tack"?) was such a partisan non-neutral effort to influence public opinion that it prompts us to question everything they've spewed. 

What's going on?  

As one Amazon reviewer explains, "This (Edward Said's) book tells ALL about our media prejudices and the shortcomings of our journalists, writers, intellectuals, academics, etc., when it comes to Islam, Arabs and the Middle East. It is a great analytical essay about false propaganda and the wrong views dispersed about the Middle East." 

* * * 

So, the title of this blog post asks if we are really living in a Democracy? I ask, then, how can we have a democracy without an informed public? How much do we know from first hand experience? How much do we really know of what we assume we know? So much of what we believe we know has been mediated to us. How much is spin? 

* * * 

"Tell me why you are crying my son

I know you're frightened like everyone.

Is it the thunder in the distance you hear? 

Will it help if I stand very near? I am here."

Peter, Paul & Mary

Day Is Done

Related Links

Propaganda Revisited

Crowds On Demand: Believe Nothing You Hear, and Only One Half That You See

He Who Controls the Narrative Controls the People

Is the U.S. Media a Mouthpiece for the State? Stephen Kinzer Argues "Yes"

The Purpose of Propaganda: Social Engineering

Vaclav Smil's Made in the USA: The Rise and Retreat of American Manufacturing Is A Humbling Warning

The 20th century has been proclaimed by many to be "The American Century" because of its surprisng rise as a powerhouse in the wake of Britain's decline after 300 years of global dominance. For many, this premise is unchallenged, accepted as fact. And many see the next 100 years as more of the same, with the U.S. remaining on top of the heap as the world's top dog. 

Vaclav Smil sees things differently, hence ths book about what he calls as The Rise and Retreat of American Manufacturing.,the subtitle of his 2013 assessment of the USA today. 

It's easy to see how America became a manufacturing powerhouse after WW2. Our competitors' industrial capabilities, infrastructure and populations were decimated by that war, and many had not yet fully recovered from the earlier global conflict.

For Smil, America's ascent began with the Industrial Revolution in the 1800s. Advancements in technology, infrastructure, and workforce skills turned the U.S. into a manufacturing powerhouse. These advances were mega-amped by the rise of mass production techniques (hence Huxley's A.F. in Brave New World) that boosted productivity and economic growth. 

However, from the late 20th century onward, several factors contributed to the sector's decline. (1) The rise of global competition (esp. Japan, China and Germany) eroded the U.S. manufacturing base. (2) Many American companies relocated production to countries with lower labor costs. This outsourcing lead to job losses and deindustrialization in the U.S. (3) Automation and advancements in technology reduced the need for manual labor, changing the nature of manufacturing jobs. 

And how has this played out?

Smil shows how the loss of manufacturing jobs contributed to economic inequality, regional disparities, and the decline of the American middle class. The shift away from manufacturing has also affected communities that were once heavily reliant on factory jobs (eg. Detroit) leading to social challenges such as unemployment and declining living standards.

Surprisingly, Smil still expressed cautious optimism about the future of American manufacturing, arguing that the sector can be revitalized through strategic investments in innovation, education, and infrastructure. Key recommendations include reindustrialization, advanced manufacturing and sustainable manufacturing practices to address environmental concerns and improve efficiency.

I find it interesting that some critics considered the book too pessimistic. I find it overly optimistic. Is the glass half empty or half full. We'll eventually find out.

Smil makes a solid case for the importance of manufacturing. Yet here in Northern Minnesota there is very little being done to incentivize it, even though we are rich in natural resources. Our economic base has flipped, away from manufacturing to a service economy. The biggest employers are universities, hospitals and our tourism related services. I don't see evidence of this turning around. Do you?