Chevron has been embroiled in an environmental case concerning their operations in the Amazon rainforest. The controversy and legal wrangling has been going on for quite a while. Just Google “chevron amazon lawsuit” and you’ll see what I mean. Today I’m not commenting on that case per se, but what I am commenting upon is a tactical maneuver by the Rainforest Action Network (RAN).

In a recent article from NGO Watch, it was stated that Chevron said they had been relieved of the liability for the environmental problem via a release from the Ecuadorian government. Per the article, RAN rebutted the claim by Chevron saying:

” ‘By focusing energy on evading responsibility instead of cleaning up the mess in Ecuador, Chevron is letting children suffer from some of the world’s most heinous environmental destruction when they could be doing something about it.’ “

Principle wrapping is a tactic for study.

In the article from NGO Watch, the quote was attributed to Rebecca Tarbotton, Program Director of Rainforest Action Network.

This particular quote caught my attention. It caught my attention because I am currently dealing with the principles of propaganda in researching a new book. In my research, I deal with the principles of propaganda as laid down in the seminal book Propaganda, written by Jacques Ellul.

This 1965 classic deals with the elements of communication and what makes a successful message. One of those elements Jacques discusses is the Fundamental Currents of Society, and within those currents he places the Four Values of Daily Life. One of those four values is youth, or we can interpret that as children. He maintains that bringing into a message any of the four values, and their support thereof, will greatly increase one’s argument and make that message more effective.

So very well-played. Bringing the children into the argument. We see this happen periodically and are somewhat accustomed to it. But do we really realize why it works? Why bringing the children into the argument can contribute to the effectiveness of the message?

Jacques Ellul discusses this in-depth. He says, also within the Fundamental Currents of Society and within what he describes as the Four Sociological Suppositions, that the prime objective of humans is to attain happiness. Seems reasonable, yes? And he supports the notion that without youth there can be no progress in society and that without progress humans cannot obtain the happiness.

So, is the argument really about the principle of the protection of children, or is the argument actually about the principle of the attainment of individual human happiness?

To whichever principle you subscribe, the fact remains . . . wrapping your argument in a principle can be very effective. And the bigger the principle, so much the better.