the public can be reached only through established mediums of communication

when the united states was made up of small social units with common traditions and a small geographic and social area, it was comparatively simple for the proponent of a point of view to address his public directly. if he represented a social or a political idea, he could, at no very great expense and with no very great difficulty in the early eighteenth century, cover new england with his pamphlets. he could arouse the thirteen colonies with his journals and brochures. that was because the heritage of these groups made them sensitive to the same stimuli. one man, remarks mr. lippmann, then was able single-handed to crystallize the common will of his country in his day and generation. to-day the greatest superman as yet developed by humanity could not accomplish the same result with the united states.

populations have increased. in this country geographical areas have increased. heterogeneity

126

has also increased. a group living in any given area is now extremely likely to have no common ancestry, no common tradition, as such, and no cohesive intelligence. all these elements make it necessary to-day for the proponent of a point of view to engage an expert to represent him before society, an expert who must know how to reach groups totally dissimilar as to ideals, customs and even language. it is this necessity which has resulted in the development of the counsel on public relations.

now it must be understood that the proponent of a point of view, whether acting alone or under the guidance of a public relations counsel, must utilize existing avenues of approach. modern conditions are such that it is not feasible to build up independent organs. innovators and innovations cannot create their own channels of communication. they must for a great part work through the existing daily press, the existing magazine, the existing lecture circuit, existing advertising mediums, the existing motion picture channels and other means for the communication of ideas. the public relations counsel, on behalf of the groups he represents, must reach majorities and minorities through their respective approaches.

if the public relations counsel can succeed in presenting ideas and facts to the public in spite

127

of the heterogeneity of society, in spite of the vast psychological and geographic problems, in spite of the difficulties, monetary and otherwise, of reaching and influencing populations numbering millions—if he can succeed in overcoming these difficulties by a skillful understanding of the situation, his profession is socially valuable.

absolute homogeneity, resulting in a dead level of uniformity in public and individual reaction, is undesirable. on the other hand, agreement on broad social purposes is essential to progress. agreement on broad industrial purposes may be equally desirable. without such agreement, without unified purposes, there can be no progress and the unit must fall. the men who were most effective in stimulating national morale during the war never lost sight of these underlying needs, whether they stimulated a whole nation to ration itself voluntarily and give up the eating of sugar, or whether they stimulated knitting and red cross activities and voluntary contributions to funds.

three ways are cited by mr. lippmann to obtain cohesive force among the special and local interests which make up national and social units. the public relations counsel avails himself only of the third. the first method which is described is that of “patronage and pork.” this is very largely the method relied upon by certain legislative

128

bodies to-day to maintain cohesive force. as an instance of this, the investigations of the methods used in connection with the bills to secure the building of local post offices or the dredging of harbors or rivers seem to point out that a representative from one community will promise reciprocal support to the member from another community, if he in turn will act favorably on another item. this method intensifies the feeling that all are working together, even though they may not be working for the highest interests of the country. similarly the chief executive of a city may institute certain measures to placate school teachers. he will expect the school teachers to support him on some other project at some other period.

the second method named by mr. lippmann24 is “government by terror and obedience.”

the third method is “government based on such a highly developed system of information, analysis and self-consciousness that ‘the knowledge of national circumstances and reasons of state’ is evident to all men. the autocratic system is in decay. the voluntary system is in its very earliest development and so, in calculating the prospects of associations among large groups of people, a league of nations, industrial government, or a federal union of states, the degree to

129

which the material for a common consciousness exists determines how far coöperation will depend upon force, or upon the milder alternative to force, which is patronage and privilege. the secret of great state builders, like alexander hamilton, is that they know how to calculate these principles.”

the method of education by information, which was to a great extent relied upon by the united states, for example, was evidenced in the formation during the war of such agencies as the committee on public information. the public relations counsel, through the mediums chosen by him, presented to the public the information necessary to aid in understanding america’s war aims and ideals. george creel and his organization reached vast groups, representing every phase of our national elements, in every modern method of thought communication. but even in the united states the other two methods were used to obtain cohesive force.

in fact the method least relied upon in any of the belligerent countries was that of “government based on such a highly developed system of information, analysis and self-consciousness that ‘the knowledge of national circumstances and reasons of state’ is evident to all men.”

this breakdown did not occur among small,

130

inefficiently organised groups. it occurred among the representatives of the highest development in social organization.

if this was the fate of the most highly organized social groups, consider then the problem which confronts the social, economic, educational or political groups in peace time, when they attempt to obtain a public hearing for new ideas. innumerable instances have shown the difficulty that any group faces in gaining an acceptance for its ideas.

the development of the united states to its present size and diversification has intensified the difficulty of creating a common will on any subject because it has heightened the natural tendency of men to separate into crowds opposed to one another in point of view. this difficulty is further emphasized by the fact that often these crowds live in different traditional, moral and spiritual worlds. the physical difficulties of communication make group separation greater.

mr. trotter’s conclusions from a study of the gregarious instinct are singularly apt on this point. he says that25 “the enormous power of varied reaction possessed by man must render necessary for his attainment of the full advantages of the gregarious habit a power of inter-communication of absolutely unprecedented fineness.

131