Radio and mass media also helped construct a new codex of national identity that had nothing to do with one's class background or ethnicity through the broadcasting of songs and stories that became treasured cultural items for people across all sections of society. This new collective identity was usually based on an appeal to the paradoxical notion of belonging to a "community" made up of millions of simultaneous listeners as well as the broader national community (if the program was political in nature), which produced some of the highly emotional but irrational rhetoric associated with populism. At its root, populism feeds on the insecurity and transience of modern life that causes a citizen to reach out for anything that might satisfy the basic human instinct for belonging, even if it is as simple as listening to a song and knowing that your neighbour could sing along. Unsurprisingly, the people who emerged as major demagogues in Latin America during the advent of radio were people who could effectively capture this longing for a sense of community. Vargas in Brazil was unable to effectively cater to the needs of the people once he was in power, but Juan Peron had captured their attention even early in his career and knew how to effectively conduct his public relations as he ascended to the offices of power.
Latin American Studies 100 Blog - Ryan Heazel
Tuesday, November 4, 2014
Populism and Publicity: Week 10 Reading
20th century modernity was a novel experience for every level of society, accompanied with new tools to facilitate connection to the now truly massive urban populations by political leaders. Previously, a political speech was made to a small assembled group on topics that were of interest and relevance to the specific community where the speech was being made. This added a layer of intimacy to politics that soon became lost in the generalized speeches broadcast to millions simultaneously via radio or played over loudspeakers to thousands in a densely packed city square. The people who took advantage of these innovations and the general sense of disorientation at the beginning of the century were frequently called populists by their detractors to try and highlight a vagueness that was a result of their new mass-media vehicles rather than any personal lack of ideological clarity. Once these populists came into power, they frequently nationalized broadcasting facilities as a way of trying to harness mass media as a tool of enforcing the state's cultural agenda, not just publicizing a political campaign.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It's amazing to think how recently cross-class culture became a reality. Following the history of Latin America so closely, through the past few centuries, has really magnified this shift towards a national community that I had previously taken for granted. Your point is interesting that being apart of such a broad community ironically causes people to feel more isolated and directionless. I think the radio also created a sense of celebrity and intimacy towards the leaders that also contributed to the more negative consequences of mass communication. It was as if you could let this grad individual into your home, but had no way to truly communicate with them.
ReplyDeleteI think its interesting how you bring up the point that with the popularity of radio broadcasting, there was a certain intimacy that was lost between the leader and the audience. In some respects though, I actually feel that there was a great deal of intimacy gained (especially in populist leaders) from the emergence of radio and television because of how closely people were able to identify with and bond over the nationalistic message put forth by their leaders. In the case of the Perons, Evita became a sort of mystical icon for the Argentinian people because of her ability to speak and present herself in a way that showed powerful empathy for the descamisados and lower class people. More generally speaking though, I do think that in populism's aim toward "popularity" and its devotion to the people's will; the message that came across is one that is more generalized and more concerned with what people want to hear, rather than what they need to hear. You can see from reading the documents, that speeches tended to focus less on actual policies and measures of government, and more about creating national unity amongst the crowd; to forge a strong nationalistic bond between the people, their leader, and their land it was more powerful to use an affect of emotion (pride for the fatherland, love for the workers, etc.) to create this dynamic. Not to say that this message was just for show, but it was truly an effective means of garnering long lasting support and create almost a celebrity status amongst the leaders of the party.
ReplyDeleteI find very interesting what you wrote about populist Latin American and their connections with media. I'd like to add that it is actually media what makes them even more populist, if we take the example of the ex president Hugo Chavez, who loved the media and the media loved him back. He got at least hald of the venezuelans whatching him and being aware of what he had to say. Also, on the other hand, media is not only involved on promoting a specific image of a presindt or politician, but in the case of Mexico, the most powerful broadcaster invested money on the actual mexican president. Is something negative or positive? Well, I think it depends on the people and their reactions.
ReplyDelete