In a book published in 1928, titled coincidentally Propaganda, the Austro-American scholar Edward Bernays, nephew of Sigmund Freud, argued that politics should borrow the weapons of advertising to manipulate public opinion. But not with the aim of building an authoritarian regime, such as those that were establishing themselves in Europe in those years. On the contrary: to save democracy. “Since our democracy has the vocation of paving the way – wrote Bernays – it must be governed by the intelligent minority who know how to organize the masses in order to be able to guide them better… Is it a matter of governing through propaganda? Let's say, if you like, that it's about governing through education.'
With the advent of universal suffrage, propaganda becomes an indispensable tool to prevent democracy from descending into chaos. Modern politicians need to make the most of a combination of images, sounds and words that evoke the right kind of popular sentiment, just as businesses use billboards and commercials to sell their products. Too bad that the first to master these techniques will not be, as Bernays hoped, the defenders of liberal democracy, but its enemies.
The perverse one "Crowd Psychology" already analyzed at the end of the nineteenth century by Gustave Le Bon, it was about to produce one of the most immense tragedies in history. Today we live in a similar situation in many respects, says the English sociologist William Davies in a disturbing essay just released by Einaudi Stile Libero (Nervous states. How emotionality conquered the world): a pilot book useful for orienting ourselves in the treacherous arm of the sea we are crossing. Trump, Brexit, the Di Maio Salvini couple in Italy and other European populisms, the spread of fake news and conspiracy paranoia on the Internet are not transitory phenomena: they mark a break in human history from which it will be very difficult for democracies to escape unharmed.
Resign yourselves, says Davies, it is the end of a civilization that lasted for more than three centuries, the one that bears the names of Descartes and Hobbes, the first with the separation between body and mind, between the sphere of reason and the sphere of the senses, the second with the idea of the state as an antidote to fear and violence and as the supreme regulator of conflicts between men. Fundamental distinctions have been skipped, the boundary between true and false and between peace and war is no longer clear. The role of experts and statistics, which until recently served to smooth out discussions and contrast facts with emotions, is under attack, trust in the media is declining every day, and thanks to Google, Twitter and Facebook "the objective vision of the world gives way to intuition". Memes, selfies and online forums have replaced books and lead articles. And politicians are promptly complying.
What voters want most, recalls Davies quoting Bernays, is a "sense of intimacy with their rulers". Successful leaders are those who know how to arouse this feeling of closeness. That's why Trump rules with tweets and Salvini offers us his monologues on Facebook or his selfies with a mouth full of Nutella or an arancino in his hand every day. That's why Di Maio summons the paparazzi when he goes to camporella with his new girlfriend. They pretend to share their most intimate sphere with us, food, love or sex, they want to reduce distances, play the part of snack companions.
On this ground, the leaders of the opposition seem taken aback. What sense of intimacy does Zingaretti convey to us? We feel closer to his brother, who enters every house with Inspector Montalbano. But he, Nicola, no matter how hard he tries to smile and speak simply, remains plastered in the double-breasted suit of a man of power. We've never seen him eat a sandwich or kiss his wife by the sea. If we then pass from the politicians to the so-called "experts", it is worse than going at night. The very good Cottarelli will maybe get some audience from Fazio, but in the elections he would get zero point zero. Monti teaches. It was precisely the growing confusion of roles between "super partes technicians" and politicians that fueled people's distrust of experts. And in any case, as Bernays warned a century ago, “abstract discussions and weighty arguments cannot be given to the public unless previously simplified and dramatized”. Or better yet, reduced to a wink via Instagram.
It remains to be seen whether these communication strategies, beyond immediate success, also guarantee lasting results, or if instead in the long run they do not turn into a boomerang. Censis has just published an impressive survey (il Foglio reports it): 55,4% of Italians think that the economy has worsened under the current government, only 10% see progress in security and public order (against 42% who perceive steps backwards), and pessimism about the future is also growing (almost half of the interviewees predict that from an economic point of view, the worst for Italy is yet to come).
The emotionality Davies speaks of threatens to backfire on those who have exploited it to scale the sky. When you're in opposition, it's easy to ride all kinds of perceptions, even the most surreal, in order to gain consensus. When it's your turn to govern, you suddenly rediscover the importance of "numbers", and Istat is once again a super partes source, especially if you've just appointed a president to your liking. Then you are forced to say that despite perceptions the economy is not so bad, the number of poor people has decreased (a pity that is thanks to the previous governments), crimes are down and illegal immigrants are much less than trumpeted in election campaign. Unfortunately, however, the winds of emotions that had filled your sails have not subsided, on the contrary they are more vigorous than ever and could make you sink just as quickly. And your selfies won't save you.
