MANIPULATION
1. Words and domains
The transitive verb to manipulate, as in « No manipulates N1″ works within two structures:
Manipulate1: N1 refers to a non-human, inanimate object, such as acontainer or a body part, such as spinal manipulation.
Manipulate2: N1 refers to a person as a synthesis of representations and capable of self-determination. Manipulating2 is exploitative; manipulating people is using them as objects or instruments.
To manipulate is the head of a rich and homogeneous family of derivative words including manipulation, manipulator, (non-)manipulative, outmanipulate2, “to outdo or surpass in manipulating2” (MW, Outmanipulate).
Manipulation2 can affect all areas of human activity:
— Political, ideological and religious spheres.
— Everyday psychology: a manipulator, manipulative behavior.
— The military domain: White propaganda has a domestic source and targets domestic public opinion; it can be misleading the public. Black propaganda has a hidden source and purpose. It appears to come from a well-meaning and harmless source, but actually it comes from an evil or hostile one.
— Commercial action and marketing techniques are used to encourage or manipulate people to buy one product over another or nothing at all. These techniques are used to « bait and hook » customers, see gradualism.
In these different areas, manipulative influence may overlap, combine or contradict argumentative persuasion.
2. Acting Together: From Cooperation to Manipulation
Manipulation is a resource that can be activated when a person M is pursuing a goal φ. To achieve this goal, M and needs a contribution from another person, N, to achieve this goal.
2.1 Overt Goal Negotiation
(i) M believes that φ is in the interest of N’s interest, and N agrees
N has a positive representation of φ. He considers φ to be important, pleasant and in his interest; N pursues φ spontaneously and independently. Thus, M and N need each other, and they cooperate to achieve φ.
If N’s commitment is less immediate, M will take a more open approach and try to persuade N to work with her in order to achieve φ. N knows that M intends to make N do φ, and they will talk about it.
(ii) Doing φ is not really in N’s interest
N doesn’t care about φ. He will not spontaneously cooperate with M in order to achieve φ. M can then act on N‘s will or mental representations.
(a) Acting on the will to do
In this situation, M can try to persuade N to do φ. M can threatens N (ad baculum), try to blackmail or bribe N (ad crumenam), tru to move N to pity (ad misericordiam), try to charm or seduce N (ad amicitiam), see threat; emotion.
N still has a negative view of φ, but M’s arguments, if they are arguments at all, have changed N’s willingness to act, and she will eventually agree to act in favor of φ even if she does not like it. N reluctantly performs φ as a favor to M, raising the question whether N has been manipulated.
(b) Action on representations of the action to be taken
M can reframe φ so that it appears to be pleasant or favorable to N and in her best interest. As in case (i), N agrees to do φ because it seems beneficial.,
In case (a), N will do a dangerous job, because it pays well. In case (b), N will do a dangerous job, or one that he thinks is dangerous, s. M can combine the two strategies. “You can do it for me, it’s not that dangerous”. These two situations are not necessarily manipulative. M has openly presented the goal φ to N; N has been persuaded to do φ for arguably good reasons; the work may not actually be all that dangerous, and it pays well.
M acts manipulatively only if she knows that the work is dangerous, but knowingly misrepresents it, by concealing the danger from N; lying is the basis of manipulation.
(iii) Doing φ goes against N’s interests and values
Now, φ is clearly against the interests of N. Under normal circumstances, N would automatically oppose M in her attitude toward φ. Nevertheless, M can still persuade N to do φ deliberately.
— To persuade N to deliberately do something contrary to his interests or values. For example, in an extreme case N could be persuaded to commit suicide or to sacrifice herself, even though she does not want to die, in the name of a higher interest or value,:“God, the Party, the Nation, ask you to…”; “You must sacrifice your children to make our cause prevail.”
— To convince N that the action he is being asked to take is in his best interest. For example, M might urge N to sacrifice herself even if N is doesn’t want to die, saying, “You will go to Heaven”. The discourse and arguments used by M to persuade N to agree to φ are manipulative because they do not respect a hierarchy of values that is considered natural. On the basis of highly questionable arguments, N has been induced to do something that no human being would reasonably commit. This is a case of brainwashing.
2.2 Covert Purpose
In the above cases, N is more or less aware of what she is committing to do. Deep manipulation, on the other hand, is characterized by M hiding her true intentions or the true nature of the goal φ, which is in fact unacceptable to N. M will use a secondary goal, as a decoy (φd):
(i) φd is positive for N: N is made to believe that it is in his best interest to perform φd
(ii) φd fatally leads to φ
(iii) N ignores (2)
(iv) N achieves φd and M pockets the bet.
There is not necessarily any verbal exchange, or even contact between M and N during this process. N may be harmed, and may or may not realize that she has been manipulated. N may lose the game without knowing that he was playing a game.
An example could be that of a salesman who sells a large encyclopedia to consumers who are hardly aware that they have bought anything, who can hardly read, who have no use for that kind of book, and who, in any case, cannot afford to pay the bill. The salesman succeeded in framing the sales interaction, φ, as an ordinary, friendly conversation, φdecoy with no financial implications.
3. “Pious lies”
In the past, children refused to take the cod liver oil they needed for their health because it tasted awful. Parents tried to mask the taste by adding sweeteners. Their’ intentions were good, but they had to hide the fact that it was always the same disgusting cod liver oil. « He who wills the end will have the means »
Calvin attributes to monks who wanted to save people by any means necessary, because the end justifies the means. The following excerpt deals with the multiplication of the relics of the True Cross:
What other conclusion can be drawn from these considerations but that all these were inventions for deceiving silly folks? Some monks and priests, who call them pious frauds–that is honest deceits for exciting the devotion of the people, have even confessed as much.
John Calvin, A Treatise on Relics, [1543][1]
The concept and practice of “patriotic fraud” in elections could be seen as a modern version of the practices that Calvin attributes to medieval monks.
4. Manipulation and power practices
The status accorded to manipulation is based on notions of power and action. Should power be exercised through reason and valid argument, or, in a Machiavellian perspective, does it necessarily require the use of violence and lies, as seen from a Machiavellian perspective?
I must confess that the so-called cultured circles of Western Europe and America are incapable of understanding the real balance of power. These people must be considered deaf and dumb.
Telling the truth is a petty-bourgeois prejudice, while lying is often justified by the intended outcome. (Lenin, quoted in V. Volkoff, [Disinformation, A Weapon of War], 1986[2]
Discussing the vital need to keep secret the place and time of the Normandy landings, Churchill said:
“In wartime”, I said, “truth is so precious that it should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies”.
Churchill was discussing of Operation Overlord with Stalin at the Tehran Conference, November 30, 1943 [3]
The answer to the previous question could be:
[The] truth is incontrovertible. Panic may resent it, ignorance may deride it, and malice may distort it, but there it is.
Winston Churchill, Speech in the House of Commons, May 17, 1916[4]
5. Argumentation and manipulation
5.1 Argumentation and Propaganda
The study of discursive schematization is the study of the processes by which the speaker arranges a synthetic, coherent and stable meaning. This constructed meaning is neither a manipulation2, not reality itself, nor an illusion of reality, but rather a significant view of reality. In order to communicate, the speaker must necessarily manipulate1 the discursive material, but this process is not necessarily intended to manipulate2 the interlocutor. Manipulation2 presupposes deliberate falsehood. Assuming that all speech is manipulative would over-dramatize the process of signification.
A very thin thread separates the study of argumentation as defined by the Treatise on Argumentation from that of political propaganda, as defined by Domenach. For Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca, “the object of the study of argumentation is the study of the discursive techniques allowing us to induce or to increase the mind’s adherence to the theses presented for its assent.” ([1958]/1969, p. 4; italics in the original). Domenach defines the object of propaganda as “the creation, transformation or confirmation of opinions” through multisemiotic processes, such as images, music, demonstrations and mass mobilization) » (Domenach 1950, p. 8).
This difference may be that between ratio-propaganda and senso-propaganda as defined by Tchakhotine (1939, p. 152). The former is effective “by persuasion, by reasoning”, and the latter by “suggestion” (ibid.), that is, indirectly, by manipulation2.
5.2 Manipulation and lying
Lies and hidden intentions decisively contrast argumentation with manipulation; a lie can be an active lie, asserting a known falsehood, or a passive lie, failing to tell the whole truth, or relevant parts of it. Manipulative discourse relies on lies, which may be presented as “alternative facts.” Confusing hints, false cues and misleading perspectives are presented as truths. Spin doctors know how to mix some true information with false information to make the whole believable.
Denouncing manipulative discourse means denouncing lies. However, there is no formal way revealing errors and lies. Exposing lies requires a substantial knowledge of the subject. For this reason, as Hamblin says, “[the logician] is not a judge or court of appeal: and there is no such judge or court” (1970, p. 244). However, as a responsible citizen, she must denounce manipulation and act in favor of a better-informed picture of reality, see Evaluation.
[1] John Calvin, A Treatise on Relics. Trans. and intro. by Valerian Krasinski. 2nd ed. Edimburg: Johnstone, Hunter & Co, 1870. Quoted from http://www.gutenberg.org/files/32136/32136-pdf.pdf (08-17-2017)
[2] Vladimir Volkoff, La désinformation, arme de guerre. [Disinformation, a weapon of war]. Lausanne: L’Âge d’Homme, 1986, p. 35.
[3] In The Second World War, Volume V: Closing the Ring (1952), Chapter 21 (Tehran: The Crux), p. 338.
[4] Quoted from https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill