Lasswell is typically cited in communication textbooks for two reasons. One of them is that he identified three main functions of mass communication: surveillance (gathering information about the environment and making it available within the social system), correlation (evaluating the information collected, deciding what to do about it, and coordinating activities by way of response), and cultural transmission (socialization and education, maintaining tradition and cultural continuity, and what Alfred Korzybski called time-binding).
Charles C. Wright added a fourth function to Lasswell's triad, entertainment, and as Neil Postman argues in Amusing Ourselves to Death, it's the only function that matters in the television medium, or at least the need to satisfy that function is so overwhelming that it contaminates and undermines the other three.
But, anyway, back to Lasswell, and I'll get to his other claim to fame in the field of communication in a bit, but first I wanted to mention that when I took a look to see what there was about him online, I came across his Wikipedia entry, naturally enough, and was interested to learn that he was a member of the Chicago School of Sociology, in addition to later becoming a professor of law at Yale. As a member of the Chicago School, he was heavily influenced by the philosophy of pragmatism, and particularly by John Dewey, and George Herbert Mead. Mead is the founder of the symbolic interaction approach of social psychology, later popularized by Erving Goffman, which we also consider part of the field of media ecology.
Mead insisted on taking a behavioral approach, albeit one distinct from that of Pavlov and Skinner, less empirical, more theoretical, and allowing for the phenomenon of mind as a form of behavior. Dealing with human behavior in a qualitative manner leads naturally to functionalism, behavior being a function of the mind, or at least the nervous system/organism.
James W. Carey also employed functionalism in his media ecology approach, known outside of our field as American cultural studies, arguing that you cannot study an entire society empirically by way of testing and using control groups, which makes it difficult to talk about the effects of media on the level of society, which in turn is why so much emphasis was placed on behavioral studies of the effects of media content on individuals. That is, you can set up an empirical, quantitative study on whether watching a particular TV program leads to an increase in aggressive behavior, but you cannot do the same to find out whether the widespread adoption of television viewing within a society leads to increased incidence of violence. So we can get precise answers, but only for trivial questions, whereas the really interesting and significant questions need to be dealt with by other means. Specifically, you can talk about function, which implies effects (the function of informing, for example, and the effect of being informed), albeit indirectly. Carey's main influence, it's worth noting, was the seminal media ecology scholar Harold Innis, who like Lasswell was a graduate of the
I suspect that the influence of the Chicago School on Lasswell's work has been underestimated, or at least overshadowed by the fact that he relied heavily on Sigmund Freud's psychoanalytic theories as he engaged in pioneering work in propaganda analysis. Here, let me quote some of the Wikipedia entry:
More influential, however, was Freudian philosophy, which informed much of his analysis of propaganda and communication in general. During World War II, Lasswell held the position of Chief of the Experimental Division for the Study of War Time Communications at the Library of Congress. He analyzed Nazi propaganda films to identify mechanisms of persuasion used to secure the acquiescence and support of the German populace for Hitler and his wartime atrocities. Always forward-looking, late in his life, Lasswell experimented with questions concerning astropolitics, the political consequences of colonization of other planets, and the "machinehood of humanity."
The machinehood of humanity! Clearly, this was a play on the title of Korzybski's first book, The Manhood of Humanity, not surprising in that general semantics provided significant contributions to the analysis of propaganda, and general semantics was well known in the field of communication during Lasswell's time. And that's not to mention the fact that Korzybski was originally based in Chicago, and like Lasswell, later moved to Connecticut. I'm not aware of any interaction that went on between them, however. In any event, clearly Lasswell had some interest in science fiction as well as futurism, and the machinehood of humanity refers to a time when artificial intelligence outstrips human biological intelligence, making us somewhat obsolescent (in McLuhan's view, that would free humanity up to become an art form).
Anyway, what follows in the entry brings us back to behavior, as opposed to the prior emphasis on psychoanalysis:
Lasswell's work was important in the post-World War II development of behavioralism. Similarly, his definition of propaganda was also viewed as an important development to understanding the goal of propaganda. Laswell's studies on propraganda, produced breakthroughs on the subject to broaden current views on the means and stated objectives that could be achieved through propaganda to include not only the change of opinions but also change in actions.The entry also notes his influence on the Institute for Propaganda Analysis, which takes me back to my old doctoral student days, when I studied propaganda with Terry Moran in the late, lamented media ecology program. I should add that Terry's mentor in propaganda analysis was the mass communication scholar George Gordon (no connection to Lord Byron, no), who spent the last years of his career at Fordham University, and was my colleague here back when I was a junior faculty member). And of course, Lasswell was a key source for Jacques Ellul in his book Propaganda, and elsewhere, especially in Lasswell's emphasis on propaganda directed within a society to gain cooperation, as opposed to propaganda directed at other societies, and attempting to influence political, economic, and military decision-making. This helped Ellul to form the distinction between sociological and political propaganda, as well as the propaganda of integration as opposed to the propaganda of agitation. Also significant for Ellul was the shift in stress from a prior focus on propaganda as an attempt to influence people' attitudes, to Lassell's view that the main goal of the propagandist is to control people's behavior. Again, note the emphasis on behavior, and the clarification of the function of propaganda.
So, now for some fun. I looked over on YouTube to see if there was anything concerning Harold Lasswell, and actually there are quite a few videos of various individuals talking about him, and I came across this video, whose opening immediately caught my idea, with images of Marshall McLuhan, Harold Innis, and Donna Haraway (although no attempt is made to connect these scholars to Lasswell). I also found the student-eye view (my guess is graduate students made this video, but maybe they're advanced undergrads) of us professors pretty hilarious, although I hasten to add that there is some nice background information on Lasswell here as well:
So, as the video mentions, Lasswell also came up with one of the basic models of communication, in some ways similar to the Shannon-Weaver Model (which I've mentioned before here, for example, see my previous post Children are the Living Messages We Send to a Time We Will Not See), but one that is verbal rather than diagrammatic. Here it is in the form of a sentence: Who says what to whom, in what channel, and with what effect? And the fact that it helps to establish areas of research within the field is certainly useful (although I'd prefer source analysis rather than control analysis, and audience analysis is now often referred to as reception instead).
In the field of media ecology, we see this type of point-to-point communication as a special case, but more generally view the process as one of communing, sharing meaning, binding communities together and establishing continuity over time, in addition to sending signals across distances. And communication also involves interacting with an environment. Channel implies a link between sender and receiver, a connection, and not an environment that surrounds the communicators, envelopes them, and provides the basis for their communication.
Of course, on a more basic level, the model is biased towards the sender, rather than being a receiver-oriented model, which would look like this:
And with what effect?
And now for the flip side, let's hear all about democracy:
I don't know about you, but I find Lasswell's commentary, and especially his insight on the relationship between economic balance and democracy, altogether impressive. Ah, Harold, I think we could really use the likes of you these days!