Culture as a tool of manipulation

Historical and Cultural References: Gramsci and Cultural Hegemony

The reflection on the power of culture as a means of governance has deep roots, and one of the most significant contributions comes from Antonio Gramsci. In his Prison Notebooks, Gramsci developed the concept of cultural hegemony, highlighting how the ruling class maintains power not only through political and economic coercion but also through the control of dominant ideas and values within society.

Gramsci saw culture as a positive means to create social cohesion and promote change. Cultural hegemony, in fact, could be used to generate consensus around a collective emancipation project, in which the oppressed would become aware of their transformative power. In this vision, culture was not merely a reflection of existing power relations but a tool for overcoming them.

Thinkers like Paulo Freire, in his Pedagogy of the Oppressed, expanded on this perspective, emphasizing how education and culture can foster both individual and collective liberation, enabling people to think critically and act to change the system.

 The Distorted Evolution of Cultural Hegemony

If Gramsci saw cultural hegemony as a possibility for social construction and cohesion around values of progress, today we often witness a distorted use of culture as a means to fragment and manipulate. Instead of uniting and promoting a deep understanding of structural problems, culture is employed to create divisions around marginal or artificial issues, producing cultural entropy — a symbolic disorder that disorients people and distances them from the central issues of their lives.

This distorted evolution translates into the creation of false topics, that is, issues that do not represent the most urgent or systemic problems but that capture the public’s attention through polarization and emotional conflict. Noam Chomsky, in Manufacturing Consent, demonstrated how the media can construct narratives useful for maintaining power by distracting public opinion. Similarly, Hannah Arendt, in The Origins of Totalitarianism, highlighted how social fragmentation was a fundamental tool for controlling the masses.

 The Creation of Conflicts on “Imaginary” Topics

Today, culture is often exploited to create divisions around imaginary or excessively simplified topics, diverting attention from fundamental structural problems such as sustainable economic development, the fight against job insecurity, social inequalities, and the climate crisis. This mechanism develops through various steps.

First, emotionally engaging topics are identified, choosing issues capable of eliciting strong and immediate reactions, such as generational, identity-based, or symbolic conflicts. An example is the supposed contrast between young and old, often summarized in the narrative of “gerontocracy,” or the conflict between tradition and modernity. Next, opposing categories are created, reducing the complexity of reality to a binary opposition: “us versus them,” “young versus old,” “progressives versus conservatives.” This approach exploits the natural human tendency to identify with clear categories, catalyzing public attention.

The conflict is then amplified through the media, social networks, and cultural institutions, until it becomes a dominant theme. The polarizing narrative thus constructed makes rational confrontation difficult and shifts public attention onto symbolic battles, moving it away from structural problems. For example, instead of addressing job insecurity, the discussion focuses on whether young people are “lazy.” Instead of analyzing the sustainability of pension systems, the generational conflict is fueled. Meanwhile, the climate crisis is sidelined by symbolic debates about traditions or cultural practices.

Finally, this dynamic produces cultural entropy: the excess of superficial and divisive debates generates collective confusion, obscuring true priorities. In this cultural chaos, people become more vulnerable to manipulation, unable to clearly identify the real problems that require complex and shared solutions.

 Culture as a Tool of Control

This distorted use of culture produces two main effects that deeply impact society. The first is the distraction from real problems: divisive narratives act like a smokescreen, diverting public attention from structural issues such as the economy, the environment, and education. These symbolic and superficial conflicts maintain the status quo, preventing people from recognizing and addressing the true sources of inequality, making it harder to organize for change.

The second effect is social fragmentation, accompanied by the consolidation of power. The creation of opposing factions undermines people’s ability to build cross-cutting alliances to solve common problems. In this context of division, those who control the narrative stand as the only legitimate mediators, further strengthening their position of power and perpetuating a system that privileges a few at the expense of the collective good.

 A Conscious Use of Culture

To counter this manipulative drift, it is essential to return to a conscious and constructive use of culture, as advocated by Gramsci.

This first means promoting critical thinking, educating people to recognize manipulation and to distinguish between real problems and artificially created ones. It is also necessary to reject polarization, avoiding falling into the traps of simplistic oppositions and instead striving to understand the complexity of issues. Finally, we must focus on structural priorities, bringing public debate back to fundamental topics such as social equity, sustainability, and collective well-being, in order to build a fairer and more conscious society.

CASE STUDY: GERONTOCRACY

“Gerontocracy,” a fictional example chosen for this case study, represents the construction of a divisive narrative that portrays a supposed generational conflict between the young and the elderly. It is useful to illustrate how cultural manipulation can be designed, disseminated, received, and ultimately unmasked. This study does not merely describe the manipulative process but also aims to provide tools to reframe the issue constructively.

Designing the Narrative: How a Division is Built

The construction of the gerontocracy narrative begins with identifying an emotionally engaging topic: the idea that the elderly, by virtue of their social position and control over resources, hinder progress and deprive the young of opportunities. The theme is designed and amplified by communication professionals and influential figures, with the aim of creating deep divisions.

The Actors Involved and Communication Strategies

The construction of the narrative involves several actors, each with a strategic role in shaping public opinion. Communication marketing experts create messages capable of exploiting strong emotions, such as the frustration of young people over job insecurity or the anxiety of the elderly about social change. Journalists and commentators amplify these stories through articles and debates that simplify the problem, reducing it to a binary opposition: young “innovators” versus old “conservatives.” Influential cultural figures, such as writers, artists, and university professors, legitimize the conflict with arguments that appear rational and scientific, giving the narrative an air of unquestionable truth.

The communication relies on well-established techniques to manipulate public perception. Emotional framing plays a central role, portraying the young as heroic victims and the elderly as selfish oppressors, simplifying reality and preventing a deep understanding of the true causes of hardship. The repetition and amplification of the narrative through traditional media and social networks help root the polarized vision in collective perception, making it seem like an undeniable truth. Finally, the appeal to moral conflict charges the issue with ethical significance, turning the confrontation into a battle between “right” and “wrong,” rather than between perspectives that could be complementary.

Reception of the Message: Individual and Collective Psychological Effects

Once the manipulative narrative spreads, it generates profound psychological effects at both individual and collective levels. The emotional and simplified nature of the message activates basic needs and psychological mechanisms, influencing people’s behavior and perception.

At the individual level, one of the main effects is identification with the victim. The message allows individuals to side with the “right” side. For young people, for example, the gerontocracy narrative becomes a way to justify their frustration, providing an immediate explanation for their hardships. Similarly, for the elderly, the same narrative can generate guilt or provoke a defensive reaction. Another individual psychological effect concerns the need for belonging. The manipulative narrative creates a strong sense of group identity, where young people feel part of a community that shares the idea of being oppressed, thereby strengthening emotional bonds within the group and creating an increasing distance from the “other,” namely the elderly. Moreover, the simplified message reduces analytical capacity. The emotional charge of such narratives makes it easier to accept the simplified version of facts without examining the complexity of the situation, providing a reassuring answer that requires no further reflection.

At the collective level, one of the main effects of manipulation is social fragmentation. Polarization leads to the division of society into opposing factions, making cooperation between groups with common interests increasingly difficult. This mutual isolation hampers collective progress and fuels conflict. Another collective effect is the mutual reinforcement of beliefs. Within groups, the manipulative narrative self-perpetuates: people seek confirmation of their beliefs and reject opposing views, creating an environment that continuously reinforces a partial view of reality. Finally, those who try to unmask the manipulation are often marginalized, accused of betraying the group. This mechanism prevents the emergence of constructive debate and reduces the chances of engaging with alternative perspectives, keeping the group closed and isolated.

Scenarios of Division Degeneration

When a manipulative narrative, like that of gerontocracy, becomes predominant, it can have serious and dangerous consequences for society. Generational polarization can escalate into increasingly intense social conflicts. Young people, feeling marginalized and voiceless in political decisions, may react with acts of rebellion or growing contempt toward institutions, perceived as dominated by an elderly ruling class detached from their needs. This resentment can escalate into verbal clashes, and in some cases, even physical conflicts, further exacerbating social division.

In parallel, the manipulative narrative can be used to justify shifts in power, fueling discriminatory policies that favor one part of society at the expense of another. For example, drastic interventions such as the forced retirement of the elderly or the exclusion of young people from crucial decision-making processes could be legitimized, attempting to “restore balance” according to a partial and unilateral vision. Such policies risk further weakening the social fabric and creating new inequalities between generations.

Finally, the social fragmentation resulting from a manipulative narrative can be exploited by power groups to justify the use of authoritarian measures, presented as necessary to “reunify” society. In this way, those who control the narrative can strengthen their power, consolidating their control over society and stifling any attempt at criticism or cross-generational alliance-building.

Recognizing that a narrative is manipulative is the first step toward reframing the problem in constructive terms. In this process, critical thinking and education play a fundamental role.

Reframing the Problem

To address the gerontocracy narrative, it is essential first to assess the real causes of the problems it masks. In reality, generational conflict is merely a distraction from more serious structural issues, such as job insecurity and economic inequalities. Focusing on the division between young and old prevents an understanding of the real causes of social and labor difficulties affecting broad sectors of the population.

Moreover, it is important to dismantle the complicities that fuel this manipulative narrative by identifying who actually benefits from it. Often, they are economic and political actors who, by exploiting social fragmentation, manage to consolidate their power or divert attention from their responsibilities. The goal is to expose those who gain from this type of division, to limit their influence on public perception.

Finally, it is necessary to escape the dialectical trap that fuels the conflict. A false problem, like that between young and old, has no concrete solution but rather perpetuates the paradox of division. Instead of taking opposing sides, the key is to reframe the issue in terms of collaboration. The central question should be: How can young and old work together to tackle common challenges, joining forces and resources from both generations? Only in this way can a more cohesive society oriented toward collective well-being be built.

The Role of Schools

Schools have a crucial role in forming aware citizens capable of facing the challenges of the contemporary world. First, it is essential that students learn to recognize manipulations present in media messages. This means developing the ability to deconstruct content, analyzing not only the language used but also the sources and interests behind it. Being able to identify the communication strategies used to influence opinions is a fundamental skill in an increasingly complex and polarized media context.

Secondly, schools should promote synthesis, teaching students to see conflicts not as deadlock situations but as opportunities to create solutions that can meet the needs of both sides involved. This approach fosters a constructive and cooperative attitude, rather than fueling division and exclusion.

Finally, it is essential for schools to build cognitive resilience, preparing students to handle the excess of informational stimuli that characterizes our digital era. It is important for students to learn to maintain a critical approach, able to discern what is truly useful and relevant, avoiding succumbing to emotional or social pressures that could lead them to hasty or superficially influenced judgments.

In conclusion, “gerontocracy,” as an example of a divisive narrative, clearly shows how cultural manipulations can fragment society, turning an apparent generational conflict into a dialectical trap that diverts attention from real problems. However, reframing the problem by shifting it from the conflict between young and old to a deeper reflection on the value of intergenerational transmission, on the role of mentorship, and on the need to create new symbolic resources, offers a way out. It is possible to transform conflict into a dynamic of cultural evolution, where continuity and innovation work together to build a better society.

But to achieve this, it is not enough to merely unmask the manipulative narrative. A leap in the level of schooling is needed — for today, even schools risk becoming part of the problem.