The Institute for Propaganda Analysis (IPA) was a U.S.-based organization operating from 1937 to 1942, composed of social scientists, opinion leaders, historians, educators, and journalists. Created by Kirtley Mather, Edward A. Filene, and Clyde R. Miller, because of the general concern that increased amounts of propaganda were decreasing the public's ability to think critically. The IPA's purpose was to spark rational thinking and provide a guide to help the public have well-informed discussions on current issues. "To teach people how to think rather than what to think." The IPA focused on domestic propaganda issues that might become possible threats to the democratic ways of life.

:For the IPA, Nazism, communism, the conservative anti-communist movement, England’s foreign policy, and Latin American dictatorships were all undemocratic. By labeling these group as such, the IPA promoted a democratic society based on freedom of speech and citizen participation in government, and also attempted to accomplish concrete goals such as preventing the rise of Nazism in America.

:The IPA's great strength stemmed from its particular fusion of academic and practical progressivism into an organized anti-propaganda critique that institutionalized the tradition of muckraking and also applied this characteristically American critical approach to the discontents of the Depression. At a second meeting in New York City, Filene provided Miller with a check for $10,000, presumably to finance the Institute in the first year. Filene's Good Will Fund agreed on June 9 to continue the funding for three years.

The institute was incorporated on September 23, 1937. The initial board of directors was Clyde R. Miller, Robert S. Lynd, E. Ernest Johnson, James E. Mendenhall, and Robert K. Speer. Added to the board later were Charles A. Beard, Hadley Cantril, Ernest O. Melby, James T. Shotwell, and Percy S. Brown.

  1. Name-calling
  2. Glittering generalities
  3. Transfer
  4. Testimonial
  5. Plain folks
  6. Card stacking
  7. Bandwagon

The institute had seven staff members based at Columbia University's Teachers College. Sociologists studied personality traits to better understand what made someone more susceptible to fascism, including the development of the F-scale. Seven tricks of the propagandist were outlined and illustrated by reference to the radio talks in a book The Fine Art of Propaganda, edited by Alfred McClung Lee and Elizabeth Briant Lee. As Clyde Miller explained in the Preface, "So far as individuals are concerned, the art of democracy is the art of thinking and discussing independently together." The book is presented as a "candid and impartial study of the devices and apparent objectives of specialists in the distortion of public opinions."

Dissolution

The IPA faced many allegations that undermined its purpose. These suggested that the IPA created "more of a destructive skepticism than an intelligent reflectiveness." The IPA lost support from many of its publishers and also faced internal conflicts through resignations by its board members and its troubled teachers. The approach of World War II also posed a problem. It would force the IPA not only to examine and criticize the enemy's propaganda, but assess America's use of propaganda as well. The IPA maintains the reason it suspended its operations in 1942 was due to lack of sufficient funds and not the war.

After war was declared on Nazi Germany the neutral stance of propaganda analysis was untenable and the IPA folded in January 1942 with the final issue of its bulletin:

:The publication of dispassionate analyses of all kinds of propaganda, 'good' and 'bad', is easily misunderstood during a war emergency, and more important, the analyses could be misused for undesirable purposes by persons opposing the government’s effort. On the other hand, for the Institute, as an Institute, to propagandize or even appear to do so would cast doubt on its integrity as a scientific body. The IPA encouraged students to think intelligently and independently on topics which they discussed. While many hailed the IPA for its guidance, others argued that the approach was "too simplistic because many messages fell into more than one category, and they do not account for differences between members of the audience, and do not discuss the credibility of the propagandist."

See also

  • Trope (politics)

References

  • Delwiche, Aaron (2005) Propaganda references from Propaganda-critic.
  • Garber, William (September 1942) Propaganda Analysis—to what ends? , American Journal of Sociology 48(2): 240–245.
  • Jowett, Garth S. & O'Donnell, Victoria (1992) Propaganda and Persuasion, SAGE Publications.
  • Schiffrin, Anya (2022) "Fighting disinformation in the 1930s: Clyde Miller and the Institute for Propaganda Analysis", International Journal of Communication 16: 3715–41
  • Waples, Douglas (1941) Print, Radio, and Film in a Democracy, University of Chicago Press.
  • PropagandaCritic.com offers analysis, with current and historical examples, of rhetorical tactics often used by propagandists, based on the framework developed in the 1930s by the IPA.