In spite of the enormous literature on propaganda recently surveyed by a committee of the Social Science Research Council, there has not as yet emerged a generally accepted definition of propaganda. Consequently, any discussion in this field requires at the outset some statement or general indication of what one is dealing with, in order to reduce misunderstanding. As political scientists, we are taking a strictly pragmatic view of propaganda, as completely removed as possible from the area of psychological controversies. We have, for the purposes of our studies, considered only such propaganda as is manifested in the organized activities involved in efforts to get people to take a particular step, such as to vote for Roosevelt, or to abstain from objecting to a particular step, such as the United States’ entry into the World War. These efforts, when promotional, may be denominated “a propaganda campaign.” Such a campaign proceeds by the organized dissemination of propaganda appeals. But these same appeals can, and do, operate without any organized promotion; and still they tend to influence those whom they reach. Many different kinds of individuals carry these appeals—teachers, writers, gossips, etc. From the viewpoint of propaganda analysis, they may be called “propagandizers.” In the course of a typical campaign, there appear propagandizers who indulge in various activities which are significant in spite of their unorganized nature. Different is the propagandist who participates in a propaganda campaign.