Julia Mazurkiewicz-Sułkowska

Features of Propaganda Language in the Security Service Documents of the Polish People’s Republic and the People’s Republic of Bulgaria

Introduction

Features of propaganda language in the security service documents of the polish people’s republic and the people’s republic of bulgaria. Examine propaganda language in Polish & Bulgarian Communist security service documents (1945-1989). Analyzes surveillance of intellectuals, administrative styles, metaphors, and similarities.

Abstract

This article examines the propaganda language used in documents produced by the security services of the Polish People’s Republic and the People’s Republic of Bulgaria. Based on archival materials from 1945 to 1989, the study examines the surveillance of intellectual circles. There is an interesting blending of administrative and bureaucratic styles in these texts, as well as elements of propaganda. Although the documents are official in nature, they contain a great deal of epithets and military metaphors, and they stress the necessity of combating political opponents. The analysis reveals numerous similarities between the examined collections as well as certain differences, particularly in the intensity of propagandistic elements.

Review

The article, "Features of Propaganda Language in the Security Service Documents of the Polish People’s Republic and the People’s Republic of Bulgaria," tackles a fascinating and under-explored area within Cold War studies and critical discourse analysis. The authors propose to analyze the specific linguistic characteristics of propaganda embedded within official security service documents from two key Eastern Bloc nations between 1945 and 1989. A significant strength lies in its foundation on archival materials, offering an empirical basis for understanding how state security apparatuses communicated, particularly concerning the surveillance of intellectual circles. The abstract effectively highlights the intriguing stylistic blend of administrative and bureaucratic language with explicit propagandistic elements, promising a nuanced examination of these historical texts. The outlined analysis of epithets, military metaphors, and the emphasis on combating political opponents suggests a robust content analysis approach. The abstract also notes the identification of both similarities and differences between the Polish and Bulgarian collections, specifically mentioning variations in the "intensity of propagandistic elements." While this comparative aspect is highly promising, the abstract leaves some questions about the specific criteria or theoretical framework used to define and measure this "intensity." Further detail on *how* the blending of administrative and propaganda styles is conceptualized and dissected would strengthen the methodological clarity. For instance, understanding if certain stylistic features are unique to documents concerning "intellectual circles" versus other monitored groups would add another layer of depth to the analysis. Overall, this article presents a compelling and original contribution to the study of propaganda, state control, and linguistic manipulation in authoritarian regimes. By focusing on security service documents, it moves beyond traditional analyses of overt media propaganda to reveal how ideological language permeated even the ostensibly objective administrative records of the state. The comparative dimension across two distinct, yet ideologically aligned, socialist states significantly enhances its potential impact, offering valuable insights into both universal and context-specific features of Cold War political discourse. This research promises to be highly relevant for scholars of history, linguistics, political science, and media studies, shedding new light on the mechanisms of power and persuasion.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.