Lippmann and Bernays -- Completely Different

These two essays differ greatly in many areas. The most obvious is style. I had a bit if a rough time reading Lippmann's piece. The language he used seems somewhat aloof and very cynical. I think he's trying to raise awareness amongst his audience that members of society are becoming more and more insignificant in the realm of The Great Society. Awareness may not be the correct word. The language he is using is more coercive and what he's trying to do is move people in large numbers to act on their opinions of how society is faring. He paints a bleak picture of how "self-interested" groups do what is necessary to gain control of certain parts of society, most often political. He says there really is only one recourse we, as the others in society, have against the self-interested group - DEBATE. BUT ... the only way debate will succeed in being fair is if all parties involved are fully informed about the debated issue.

I believe Lippmann meant to rile his readymade audience and get them to act on the injustices of the prevailing self-interested groups. If members of the audience are successful in making a societal change, they will have succeeded in creating their own constructed identities.

Bernays, on the other hand, was much easier to read. He seemed more down to earth and accessible. I consider his essay to be persuasive in that he is trying to simply convince his audience of the positive aspects of rhetoric, not necessarily to act as Lippmann was trying to do. He certainly is targeting an everyday, average member of society, male and female and of different races. The examples he uses of how rhetoric is used to "educate the public to new ideas" include the change of public opinion toward the "Negro" after the Civil War, the change in fashion trends to help American industry, the change in attitude toward President Coolidge and the acknowledgement of an unknown country, Lithuania. He obviously encompassed a broad range.

These two men do agree that society would be best off if members acted in groups in order to make major changes. Bernays says, "Group adherence is the fulcrum around which broad acceptance for new ideas can most rapidly be moved (56)."

Even though I didn't really enjoy reading Lippmann, it was great to read the contrasting essays truly casting light on each other to help me understand a little better.

Dawn