“Reactionary”

Are You Being Manipulated?

The language used in political and social discourse plays a crucial role in shaping public perception. One term that frequently appears in rhetoric is “reactionary,” often employed to dismiss or delegitimize a particular viewpoint or group. But what if hearing or seeing this term is a sign that you’re engaging with media designed to manipulate you? The term “reactionary” is often conflated with conservatism and can be a signal to the presence of propaganda techniques intended to shape your perspective.

The Power of Political Language: A Tool for Manipulation

Political language is not merely a neutral means of communication; it’s a tool that can be wielded to influence and control. As George Orwell famously wrote in his essay “Politics and the English Language,” “political language… is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” Orwell’s insight into the manipulative potential of language remains profoundly relevant. The term “reactionary” often serves as a rhetorical weapon, used to paint individuals or groups as backward or resistant to progress, without engaging with the substance of their arguments.

This use of language to marginalize dissenting views is a classic example of what Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman describe in “Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media” as the “propaganda model.” Chomsky explains how media and political elites use selective language and framing to manufacture public consent for certain ideas while silencing or discrediting others. When you hear the term “reactionary,” it’s worth considering whether you’re being exposed to this kind of manipulation, where the goal is not to inform, but to persuade by casting opponents in a negative light.

Conflating Reactionary with Conservatism: A Propaganda Tactic

The conflation of “reactionary” with conservatism is a common tactic in modern political rhetoric, one that simplifies and distorts complex ideological differences. Conservatism, at its core, is about preserving traditions and values that have proven effective over time while being open to gradual, prudent change. In contrast, reactionaries seek to return to a previous state of society, often advocating for a reversal of recent changes they view as harmful.

However, as Jacques Ellul discusses in “Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes,” propaganda thrives on creating clear-cut distinctions between “us” and “them,” “progress” and “regression.” By labeling conservative ideas as “reactionary,” propagandists can dismiss them as outdated or extreme without addressing their merits. Ellul explains how this technique taps into emotional responses, bypassing critical thought and pushing the audience toward a desired conclusion.

Historical Lessons: When the “Reactionaries” Were Right

Some might argue that labeling opposition as “reactionary” is justified, particularly when the opposition hinders necessary social progress. However, this perspective fails to account for instances where so-called “reactionaries” were later proven right, not out of a desire to resist progress, but out of a deeper understanding of the complexities and risks involved in radical change. History offers numerous examples where those labeled as “reactionaries” for opposing progressive policies were, in retrospect, advocating for more sustainable or effective approaches. Dismissed and persecuted at the time, with the benefit of hindsight, it’s clear that their concerns were well-founded. Let’s consider additional historical examples:

1. The Industrial Revolution: During the Industrial Revolution, many who opposed the rapid mechanization of industries were labeled as reactionaries. These individuals raised concerns about the social and economic upheavals that would follow the displacement of skilled labor, the exploitation of workers, and the environmental degradation. While progressives of the time championed the industrial advancements, the warnings of these “reactionaries” have been validated by the long-term consequences of industrialization, such as income inequality, labor rights issues, and environmental crises.
2. The Russian Revolution: In the aftermath of the Russian Revolution, those who opposed the Bolsheviks were branded as reactionaries. They warned that the radical shift towards communism would lead to authoritarianism and widespread repression. History has shown that these warnings were prescient, as the Soviet Union devolved into a regime characterized by mass purges, forced labor camps, and severe restrictions on freedom.
3. The Cultural Revolution in China: During China’s Cultural Revolution, individuals who resisted Mao Zedong’s radical policies were denounced as reactionaries. These policies, which aimed to eliminate “counter-revolutionary” elements, led to massive social upheaval, the destruction of cultural heritage, and millions of deaths. Those who resisted were advocating for caution and stability, and their concerns were tragically validated by the suffering that ensued.
4. The Cuban Revolution: During the Cuban Revolution, those who resisted Fidel Castro’s rise to power and the subsequent shift to communism were often labeled as reactionaries. They warned that the radical changes would lead to economic stagnation, loss of personal freedoms, and international isolation. In the decades that followed, Cuba’s economy struggled under the weight of central planning and trade restrictions, and the country remains one of the most repressive regimes in the Western Hemisphere, validating many of the early concerns voiced by these so-called reactionaries.
5. Venezuelan Economic Policies: In Venezuela, the implementation of socialist policies under Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro was initially praised by progressives for their focus on wealth redistribution and social welfare. However, those who opposed these policies, warning of economic mismanagement and the dangers of excessive government control, were dismissed as reactionaries. As the country plunged into economic collapse, with hyperinflation, widespread poverty, and shortages of basic goods, the warnings of these reactionaries were starkly validated, revealing the deep flaws in the policies they opposed.

These examples demonstrate that opposition to radical change is not always rooted in irrational fear or resistance to progress. Often, it reflects a deep understanding of the potential risks and unintended consequences that can accompany sweeping reforms.

Recognizing the Red Flags of Propaganda

When you encounter the term “reactionary” in political or media discourse, it’s a signal to engage your critical thinking skills. This term, especially when used pejoratively, often indicates that you’re dealing with a narrative that may be more about manipulating perception than about promoting an honest and open discussion. It’s a cue to start looking for other mechanisms of propaganda, such as logical fallacies, selective use of evidence, or emotional appeals designed to bypass rational thought.

As Orwell warns, “if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” The next time you hear “reactionary” used to dismiss a viewpoint, take a step back and examine the argument being made. Is it based on sound reasoning, or is it an attempt to manufacture consent by labeling opposition as inherently flawed? By recognizing these red flags, you can better navigate the complex landscape of modern media and protect yourself from being swayed by manipulative rhetoric.

Be Wary of Labels

In conclusion, the term “reactionary” is often a rhetorical tool used to discredit and dismiss rather than to engage with the merits of an argument. Its use in political and media discourse should be a red flag that signals the potential presence of propaganda. By understanding the history of the term, recognizing its conflation with conservatism, and considering historical examples where “reactionaries” were later proven right, we can approach such rhetoric with a healthy skepticism. The key is to remain vigilant, question the narrative, and seek out logical reasoning rather than allowing labels to shape our perspectives.

Further Reading:

• George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language”
• Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman, “Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media”
• Jacques Ellul, “Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes”
• Theodor Adorno, “Cultural Criticism and Society”