Bernays and Goebbels: “the strange case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde”

K. Milburn
{"title":"Bernays and Goebbels: “the strange case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde”","authors":"K. Milburn","doi":"10.1108/ccij-12-2022-0152","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThe purpose of the article is to examine whether, if Bernays can be cast as “Dr Jekyll”, the personification of “good”, respectable public relations, and Goebbels as “Mr Hyde”, “evil”, disreputable propaganda, a comparison of their writing and work provides an insight into public relations as an activity distinct from propaganda or rather adds weight to the conclusion that both are behaviours of “self-presentation for attention and advantage”.Design/methodology/approachA comparative analysis of writings and work of contemporaries, Bernays and Goebbels, gathered from original documents, speeches and interviews from the 1920s to the mid-1940s, as well as secondary academic and historical sources, was carried out. The analysis of their views on propaganda and “public relations” was organised using the point-by-point method.FindingsThe findings support the conclusion that both activities are behaviours of “self-presentation for attention and advantage”. For Bernays and Goebbels, public relations and propaganda were always self-advantaging communication that drew attention to the positive values and behaviours of the interests they represented and masked the negative ones.Originality/valueThere are striking parallels between contemporaries, Bernays and Goebbels, including working in public opinion management for their respective governments and embracing propaganda as a means of “engineering consent”. Yet, while Bernays has been lauded as the “father of public relations” and “the PR profession's first philosopher and intellectual”, Goebbels is remembered as a “master manipulator”, “probably the most overt and arguably the most important, exponent of propaganda in history”. To the researcher's knowledge, there are no other point-by-point analyses of their work with a view to distinguishing public relations as an activity distinct from propaganda.","PeriodicalId":10696,"journal":{"name":"Corporate Communications: An International Journal","volume":"47 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Corporate Communications: An International Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/ccij-12-2022-0152","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of the article is to examine whether, if Bernays can be cast as “Dr Jekyll”, the personification of “good”, respectable public relations, and Goebbels as “Mr Hyde”, “evil”, disreputable propaganda, a comparison of their writing and work provides an insight into public relations as an activity distinct from propaganda or rather adds weight to the conclusion that both are behaviours of “self-presentation for attention and advantage”.Design/methodology/approachA comparative analysis of writings and work of contemporaries, Bernays and Goebbels, gathered from original documents, speeches and interviews from the 1920s to the mid-1940s, as well as secondary academic and historical sources, was carried out. The analysis of their views on propaganda and “public relations” was organised using the point-by-point method.FindingsThe findings support the conclusion that both activities are behaviours of “self-presentation for attention and advantage”. For Bernays and Goebbels, public relations and propaganda were always self-advantaging communication that drew attention to the positive values and behaviours of the interests they represented and masked the negative ones.Originality/valueThere are striking parallels between contemporaries, Bernays and Goebbels, including working in public opinion management for their respective governments and embracing propaganda as a means of “engineering consent”. Yet, while Bernays has been lauded as the “father of public relations” and “the PR profession's first philosopher and intellectual”, Goebbels is remembered as a “master manipulator”, “probably the most overt and arguably the most important, exponent of propaganda in history”. To the researcher's knowledge, there are no other point-by-point analyses of their work with a view to distinguishing public relations as an activity distinct from propaganda.
伯内斯和戈培尔:“化身博士和海德先生的奇怪案例”
这篇文章的目的是检验,如果伯奈斯可以被塑造成“杰基尔博士”,“好”的人格化,受人尊敬的公共关系,戈培尔作为“海德先生”,“邪恶”,臭名昭著的宣传,他们的写作和工作的比较提供了一个洞察公共关系作为一种不同于宣传的活动,或者更准确地说,增加了结论的体重,两者都是行为的“自我展示的关注和优势”。设计/方法/方法对同时代的伯内斯和戈培尔的著作和工作进行了比较分析,这些作品收集了从20世纪20年代到40年代中期的原始文件、演讲和采访,以及二手学术和历史资料。他们对宣传和“公共关系”的看法是用逐点分析的方法组织起来的。研究结果支持了这一结论,即这两种活动都是“为了获得关注和优势而自我展示”的行为。对于伯内斯和戈培尔来说,公共关系和宣传始终是一种有利于自己的传播,它将人们的注意力吸引到他们所代表的利益集团的积极价值和行为上,并掩盖其消极价值和行为。原创性/价值伯内斯和戈培尔的同时代人有着惊人的相似之处,包括为各自的政府从事舆论管理工作,以及将宣传作为一种“工程同意”的手段。然而,尽管伯内斯被誉为“公共关系之父”和“公关行业的第一位哲学家和知识分子”,戈培尔却被人们铭记为“操纵者大师”,“可能是历史上最公开、也可以说是最重要的宣传倡导者”。据研究人员所知,没有其他逐点分析他们的工作,以区分公共关系作为一种不同于宣传的活动。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信