Peter Mandelson enjoyed being the living embodiment of spin, which is the belief that if you are skilful enough you can get the public to buy almost any line.
Fittingly enough, he now illustrates the limitations of spin. The concept of spin is essentially contemptuous of human beings, believing that they can be sold a pitch, no matter what the relationship of that pitch to reality.
It is also contemptuous of those who work in the media. Mandelson used to refer to some media people as "captured castles", believing they were so addicted to the diet of gossip and unattributable quotes which he fed them, that they were entirely in his thrall. It is safe to bet that many of those captured castles were pouring boiling oil on him from the ramparts in the last few days.
Many have pointed to Mandelson's not inconsiderable talent, which he at least would like us to believe was directly responsible for Labour's election success. But at what price? New Labour may now be popular among the middle classes, but at the cost of rendering expendable what were once core values. Its policy appears to be decided by focus groups.
It is scarcely a tribute to the values of spin that Labour may be re-elected, not because of the success of its policies, if it still has any, but because there is no credible alternative for the British electorate.
A German academic, Elisabeth Noelle-eumann, studied extensively the mechanisms by which public opinion changes. Despite all our protestations of independent thinking, most of us are exquisitely sensitive to the reaction of others to our opinions. Few care to be outside the consensus. Where Noelle-Neumann would diverge sharply from the spin merchants is in the importance of commitment to beliefs, even if those beliefs are misguided, in those who change public opinion.
Spinning is basically a cynical attempt to put the best possible gloss on a situation and to conceal unsavoury elements until forced to reveal them, no matter how much that may diverge from the truth.
Noelle-Neumann contends that long-lasting change in public opinion comes about when those seeking such change are actually indifferent to public opinion, in stark contrast to seeking to manipulate it at every turn. Society operates by a complex series of mechanisms which ensure conformity.
She is quite benign towards such mechanisms, as she points out that society cannot function unless there is a basic consensus among those in that society. This, how ever, conflicts with our self-image as independent thinkers, so none of us likes to admit that we would not stand up for cherished beliefs if such beliefs became unpopular. The sad reality is that most of us have no idea where our opinions have come from, or why they change.
Noelle-Neumann believes that in every situation where dramatic changes arise in society, first an avant-garde is formed who are so convinced of the rightness of their beliefs that they are willing to defy the mechanisms which normally ensure conformity. The principal way in which society ensures conformity is by public disapproval, sometimes as imperceptible as a raised eyebrow, or as obvious as a thundering editorial in a paper of record.
THOSE who form the avant-garde are impervious to such signs of disapproval, and once this group forms a critical mass, eventually what Noelle-Neumann terms a spiral of silence begins to form. In other words, it requires more and more courage to defend what you believe to be true.
People may not change their core values, but they fall silent, which is taken for assent. Eventually, all right-thinking people think more or less the same way. Those who see the oppressiveness of this are in danger of being ascribed the status of reactionaries if they challenge it.
Few have the stomach to be perceived as out of touch or reactionary. Spin is a much cruder attempt to manipulate public opinion, because it is a much more conscious attempt to manipulate people's beliefs, much closer to slogan than substance. Not that the two cannot overlap. Spin can be used to defend an emerging consensus, but it is usually much easier to spot, and therefore provokes more resentment.
The most successful changes in public opinion come about almost invisibly, so that the avant-garde eventually becomes a new establishment, censoring what is and is not acceptable.
However, every establishment consensus of necessity has insiders and outsiders, those who can do no wrong and those who can do no right. The Catholic Church is an interesting example of change in consensus. At one time in Irish society, it was able to establish the norms, to punish with disapproval those who did not meet them in a way that was sometimes oppressive.
The reaction against this has been so extreme, that the Catholic Church has now almost achieved pariah status. Just as the previous state of affairs was in many ways unjust, the new consensus can be equally vicious. The treatment of the Irish Sisters of Charity's donation of lands and buildings worth some £25 million is an interesting case study.
The nuns announced they were giving three acres in Dublin 4 to the corporation for housing for the elderly and other projects. They also gave St Vincent's Hospital two convents and some land, and from the sale of the remaining land proposed to fund some worthwhile projects, including trust funds to serve the former residents of industrial schools. Media reaction was at best muted and the story was mostly relegated to the property pages.
Earlier this week, unfair and as it turns out unfounded allegations were made that somehow the sisters were doing all of this to the detriment of the blind. The allegations were given blanket coverage, including a front-page spread in the Irish Independent. The negative allegations, however unfair, fit the prevailing media consensus, the sisters' generosity does not. Ultimately, spin becomes easy to spot. Sadly, a spiral of silence is much harder to challenge.
bobrien@irish-times.ie