Noam Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent argued that the mass communications industry influences public perception in ways that benefit elite interests, all without overt coercion.
The book critiques not only the nature of the media but also the very concept of “consent.” Chomsky contends that “consent” has been rendered meaningless by the pervasive use of propaganda to manipulate the masses. This view heavily contrasts with the conservative or right-libertarian understanding of consent as the cornerstone of a free society and something that should not be taken lightly. However, Chomsky might also need to consider whether the same issue applies to “rebellion,” which he and his peers helped inspire in the 1960s. Can rebellion, too, be manufactured?
The term “rebellion” has largely been appropriated as a left-wing term. Protesters who had supported the fiscally conservative Tea Party movement in the US were, essentially, rebelling against encroaching state power. Yet, they are often portrayed differently by the media and political analysts. The Washington Post, for example, has described the movement as a “reactionary force” rather than recognizing it as an act of resistance against authority. Meanwhile, left-leaning thinkers and activists—among the likes of Noam Chomsky and Richard D. Wolff—have found renewed attention in various media outlets, repackaging 1960s-era ideas of rebellion for a millennial audience.
However, despite the rise of star activists, modern education and parenting have stifled the self-actualization of youth. In its place, excessive coddling not only emphasizes the safety of the young but also goes so far as to manufacture even their experiences of rebellion. What once emerged organically in youth is now stage-managed by older authority figures. Children march, chant, and paint protest signs for various social causes. But when teachers and parents encourage these actions, they are not true acts of defiance. Instead, they become guided exercises—the antithesis of real rebellion. Ironically, people who argue for more power to the state and establishment see themselves as part of the “resistance.”
Journalist Midge Decter detailed this phenomenon in her book Liberal Parents, Radical Children. Decter observed how an older generation of educated, progressive parents raised radical children through a combination of intellectual crippling and overindulgence. While the parents of these radicals were considered “enlightened,” their children typically fell short of achievement, emerging as “hippies, dropouts, or potheads.” She attributed this to the parents’ “crime” of “loving” their children far too much. This included calling them strong while they were “still weak to avoid the struggles that would have fed their true strength.” She also named the socialization of children in American government schools as a factor which further hindered intellectual achievement due to the failure to cultivate high literacy skills.
Contrary to mainstream opinion, a “child activist” who—under parental influence—attends a street protest does not attempt to defy authority. The accompanying adult would have foisted their beliefs upon the child, who uncritically adopts them after being pulled into the activist scene. In climate activism, “intergenerational collaboration” refers to different age groups working together to find environmental solutions. For those on the younger end of this “collaboration,” however, plus their lack of experience and perspective at that stage of life blurs the line between indoctrination and willful engagement. Efforts such as these display an attempt to direct “rebellion” in ways that are expected by authority figures, aligning with more “progressive” tendencies. Some young people have noticed this shift, even citing how being conservative has become “a little edgier” than joining movements like Greenpeace.
What was once considered “revolutionary politics” has gradually become the new status quo. Those who lived through the counterculture period of the 1960s have now become the ones in positions of authority, such as media anchors, university professors, policymakers, and business leaders. The more conservative-minded have increasingly become afraid to speak up in public places and forums, where unchecked arrogance on the other side reigns with little acknowledgment of a shift in the political status quo. American conservative writer William F. Buckley, Jr. observed this situation as early as 1951 when he detailed his undergraduate experience at Yale. In his book God and Man at Yale, Buckley observed that the students at Yale were being conditioned to accept Keynesian economic principles and denounce Christianity. Individualism, he insisted, was being destroyed under the pretense of American liberalism. One thing he noted was that although most students studying there at the time believed in God, the institution had not served its “masters” by championing entirely different beliefs.
If “consent” is said to be meaningless due to its supposed tampering by capitalist forces, the same logic could be applied to “rebellion,” with the only difference being that it now comes from the left. The downplaying of consent in our society constitutes a game of mental manipulation that undermines freedom and builds a pathological framework on which to view the world. It is also often the case that those very same individuals who dismiss the idea of “consent” fail to recognize the manufacture of “rebellion,” which has become far removed from its original meaning. Perhaps it is time to question whether the rebellion against this supposed false consent is, in fact, the actual result of conditioning, and not the opposite.
