Science in Christian Perspective
A Sociologist's Perspective
The Manipulation of Human Behavior
DAVID 0. MOBERG
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Marquette University,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
From: JASA 22 (March 1970): 14-17.
Despite the fact that most people react negatively to the idea of being manipulated, much human behavior aims at manipulating others. The necessity for orderliness in human relationships demands social control over individual and group behavior. Socialization and other forms of control in the family, education, employment, welfare institutions, law, corrections, medicine, politics, mass communications, salesmanship, churches, science, and every other realm of human endeavor involve varying forms and degrees of "manipulation." Much of this takes place in a manner and context that allow man to feel as if he is free and independent, but there are many limitations to human freedom. The goals of control in every society include the "containing" of persons, perspectives, and groups which are interpreted as "detrimental" to societal welfare. Since all men are to a degree autonomous, they have moral responsibilities. Understanding the nature and consequences of social control can increase liberty, as does the fact that we live in a pluralistic society. In their manipulative behavior, Christians ought to implement scriptural values.
As Americans, we tend to react against anyone who is labeled a
"manipulator."
We fear such persons, thinking that they may use their manipulative influence
upon us or upon our wives, children, and friends. People who are not members of
labor unions hence tend to be highly critical of COPE, the Committee
on Political
Education of the AFL-CIO, in its efforts to get laboring people to the election
polls and to stimulate them to vote for politically
"liberal" candidates.
When they pour large funds of money into key electoral districts,
they are charged
with "manipulating the vote."
Likewise, some have been very critical of the propagandistic activities of the
American Medical Association, which has given its members extra assessments in
order to pour millions of dollars into its campaign against
"socialized medicine;"
it has successfully prevented the passage of numerous pieces of proposed social
legislation and thus has "manipulated" the political fortunes of our
nation. Efforts of the National Association of Manufacturers, the
Foundation for
Economic Education (publisher of The Freeman), and Human Events to promulgate
their interpretations of liberty are interpreted as propagandistic
"manipulation" by those who do not sympathize with them, as are the
publications and
fulminations of Carl Mclntire, Billy James Flargis, and Howard
Kershoer. Meanwhile,
the followers of these and similar "right wing" gentlemen
are convinced
that their movement is giving "the true facts," educating the nation,
and sounding a clarion call to freedom while the American Civil
Liberties Union,
Americans for Democratic Action, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference,
the National Council of the Churches of Christ, and other
organizations are distorting
information, suppressing truth, and stealthily and subversively
"manipulating"
the masses, moving them gradually into the morass of "creeping
socialism."
The point I wish to emphasize through these illustrations is that our
own in-groups,
the groups with which we personally identify ourselves, never manipulate; they
educate, inform, warn, guide, persuade, explain, edify, instruct,
enlighten, disseminate
the facts, disclose, unmask, clarify, affirm the truth, and defend the public
weal. Our own group is honest, frank, plainspeaking, truthful,
trustworthy, pure,
scrupulous, and without equivocation. Our own group is consistent with history,
with the welfare of our nation, and with the great traditional virtues of our
faith.
It is only out-groups, groups from which we are alienated by
aloofness or antagonistic
nonmembership, that manipulate. They indoctrinate, propagandize,
garble data, misinform, pervert the truth, deceive, misrepresent,
cloak the facts,
falsify, misinterpret, engineer consent, engage in pressure politics,
lobby, and
go about spreading lies in cunning craftiness. Their members are equivocators,
propagandists, subversionists, masqueraders, brainwashers, or
scoundrels who are
anxious to stab us or our cause in the back. They are sly, stealthy,
surreptitious,
evasive, secretive, beguiling, double-tongued, hypocritical, and
insidious prevaricators
or charlatans.
In other words, manipulation is always an act of somebody else. We influence;
others manipulate. We educate; others indoctrinate. We disseminate
truth; others
disseminate lies and half-truths. We give men the kind of education
that liberates;
other so-called educational programs are suspect because they tend to enslave
their students in isms of one sort or another.
As Piet Hem, the Danish poet-philosopher, put it in his "grook" about
Mankind, men are good to their brothers and want to mend their ways, but they
do not want to mend their own.1 There is a paradox in all this. None
of us wants
to be manipulated, but all of us are inclined to want the power, the
status, the
honor, and related results of manipulating others.
Manipulation Is Inevitable
Manipulation is present in varying degrees in all areas of man's social life.
Parents manipulate their children. Spouses manipulate their mates.
Teachers manipulate
their pupils. Employers manipulate their employees. Social workers manipulate
their clients. Parole officers manipulate their parolees. Medical
doctors manipulate
their patients. Political parties manipulate their candidates and prospective
candidates. Editors manipulate their authors and reporters.
Publishers manipulate
their editors. Salesmen manipulate the thought processes and actions of their
customers. Pastors manipulate their congregations. Young men manipulate their
girl friends. In every instance, there is a certain amount of
feedback and attempts
at countermanipulation.
Anticipatory socialization is present in many of these realms of
human activity.
Expecting to become a businessman in the future, the student of
business administration
begins to act and think like a businessman. Hoping to become a
college professor,
the graduate student adapts his behavior and thought processes toward
the professorial
role as he understands it. Planning to be a mother in the distant
future of adult
life, the little girl acts toward her dolls as she thinks mothers should act or
as she sees them act toward their babies. What men hope to become thus helps to
make them what they actually do become.
There are great variations in the techniques used in the numerous patterns of
manipulative social control. The robber uses a different set of
methods for manipulating
his victims from those of the blackmailer. The confidence man uses
methods which
differ from those of the shoplifter. The Don Juan who seduces
"innocent"
girls uses methods which are not the same as those of the panderer
finding clients
for his prostitutes. The evangelist's methods are not the same as those of the
dictator to whom full political powers of censorship are added to conventional
propaganda. A church's board of Christian education or the nominating committee
of a professional society does not manipulate its "pawns" as readily
as the sales manager reassigning territories to his staff. The parent
cannot
Manipulation is always an act of somebody else. We influence; others manipulate. We educate; others indoctrinate. We disseminate truth; others disseminate lies and half-truths.
use the same techniques on his teen-agers as he used on them when they were of
pre-school age. Nevertheless, manipulation is present in all of these
activities
to some degree.
Man's Sense of Freedom
The degree of manipulability varies greatly. It is a product of the resistances
internal to the person as well as of external conditions in the
social situation.
The more subtly and effectively men are controlled by their
environment, the less
is the degree to which they ordinarily realize they are being controlled. The
better they have learned to "follow the rules," the freer
they feel.
Every person is a product of his society as well as of his biological heredity.
He is controlled by that society to a very high degree. The language he uses is
determined by it. The basic customs, folkways, mores, and laws which regulate
his behavior are given to him by society. His Weltanschaunng is
acquired chiefly
from his society and the subcultural groups of wlsich he is a part. The food he
eats (and that which he refuses to eat) is culturally determined, as
well as culturally
provided.
Some portions of these social pressures and influences upon us are relatively
easy to perceive, but others are not evident until we have stepped actually or
vicariously outside of our own culture and subculture through study, reading,
television, conversations with cosmopolitan people, and other experiences. We
readily perceive the soldier of an occupying army or the policeman on
the corner
as lie controls human behavior, but informal social controls arc more difficult
to identify. We tend to cloak the latter under the guise of
naturalism; we assume
that our refusal to eat insects, snakes, or horseflesh is part of "human
nature," for our own cultural ways of doing things are not
normally questioned.
But we sec Hindus who refuse to eat meat as "contrary to human
nature"
on the basis of the same ethnocentric interpretations. Yet the Hindus know that
beef-eating is not only pagan and sub-human but that it also will
make them ill.
Both our values and the Hindus' are products of social control;
society has manipulated
us.
As Alfred McClung Lee expressed it, "When things go well, we may like to
dwell on how free and independent our will is."2 We may even like to think
that we personally are the masters of our fate and the captains of our souls.
When, however, things do not move smoothly, we may blame outside determinants
for our experience. Divine Providence, luck, heredity, magic, economic factors,
society, or other influences are then assumed to control our ill fortunes.
The feeling of being autonomous or being controlled is not the same as actual
conformity or nonconformity with manipulative social pressures to which we all
are exposed.3 When social controls have become a part of our own
personal internalized
habits and values, we conform "of our own free will" without recognizing the fact that social forces modify and direct our behavior.
The type of social control most difficult to sense is that which
operates by virtue
of the fact that each person is a product of his society. To a
considerable extent
the society guides his behavior by virtue of having formed his nature . . . .
The concept of the human as a person with a responsible and free mentality . .
. thus appears to he sociologically inadequate because it fails to
recognize the
amount of control which the person cannot resist because he is utterly unable
to perceive it.
This, nevertheless, does not remove all personal responsibility from
the individual,
for lie experiences many pressures from diverse sources, and there are usually
many alternatives of action open before him within the scope of his
"conditioned
freedom." From this range of freedom open to individual choice within his
socially controlled and culturally determined situation, each person
is responsible
for much of his behavior.
Social Limitations on Freedom
The degree of unanimity in society is related to the degree to which
its members
feel controlled. Those who wish to return to the mythical "good
old days"
when everybody presumably shared the same religious, moral, ethical,
and cultural
values actually are desirous of returning to an age in which men
were, as a whole,
much more manipulated and controlled by influences external to the person than
they are now. Indeed, our modern interest in manipulation and control
may be due
to a considerable extent to the breakdown of the older forms of social control
which has resulted from industrialization, urbanization, and other
radical changes
in modern civilization. No longer is every detail of a person's conduct subject
to the scrutiny of next-door neighbors who are concerned about every area of a
person's life, to the restraint of a church that attempts to make
conforming automatons
out of its members by providing them with a guidebook of rules and regulations
that has clear black and white answers for every problem and thus
makes it unnecessary
to make any decision other than a "Yes" or a "No"
to any given
opportunity, to the influence a school that is closely linked with the church
and helps to control behavior in a manner and direction consistent with those
of other community institutions, and to the pressures of an employer who holds
direct sanctions over family life and leisure-time activities.
The degree of freedom and control varies greatly, in other words, with social
conditions. There are great differences among societies as well as
from one community,
functional grouping, or subculture to another within the same
society. These differences
apply, among other things, to the degree of manipulation, the forms or types of
manipulation, the techniques of manipulation, the goals of
manipulation, and reactions
to manipulation.
The goals of social control once were uniformity. Today, with the great variety
of groups and perspectives in society, the goal tends to he
individual consistency
within a general framework of societal welfare. Individuality is prized, and it
can be exhibited to a far greater degree than in the past, for its acceptable
boundaries have been vastly extended. Supreme Court decisions related to mass
entertainment and freedom of the press reflect the expansion of
personal liberty
and increase the individual's responsibility for
controlling his own behavior instead of being "protected' by the
narrow conceptions
of "public morality" which greatly limited personal choices
under past
conditions.
There are varying degrees of resistance to manipulative social
control, We expect
complete conformity from the convicted criminal who is undergoing a
prison sentence.
We expect little conformity from persons who are considered to be
"creative"
in the performing arts-but the actors who play the various dramatic
roles created
by these creators must conform strictly to the demands of their parts and the
instructions of the producer. We arc free to resist the orders of our
employers,
but usually exercising this freedom frees us of our jobs!
People who are labeled as nonconformists sometimes conform highly to
one another;
their subgroup has become for them a manipulative overlord. Their nonconformity
is restricted to limits which, in our society, are gradually expanding with the
legal breakdown of certain rules that have hampered the civil liberties of many
subcultural groups.
The alternative choices that are open to individuals are themselves
cultural products.
They are not unlimited, and the exercise of choice even among the
limited possibilities
is subject to numerous restrictions that could be labeled
"manipulative."
I am free to fly to Australia, but the financial costs, my sense of obligation
to many duties, and other restrictions related to such a trip hamper
my freedom.
Our modern interest in manipulation may be due to a considerable extent to the breakdown of the older forms of social control which has resulted from industrialization, urbanization, and other radical changes in modern civilization.
One of the tasks before every society is that of "containing" persons
and groups which are detrimental to social welfare. Thus we imprison criminal
offenders who are deemed incorrigible, and we place the bounds of probation and
parole upon others. We lock up drug addicts while they are in process
of physical
and psychological rehabilitation. Parents may "ground"
their teenagers
after they have indulged in conduct that they feel is not consistent with their
own welfare or that of the family. The most effective constraint of all is that
which comes from within the mind or "heart" of the person-that which
rests upon realistic selfconceptions, high moral values, and
wholesome spiritual
commitments. "Inner containment" of self-control, good self-images,
a high sense of responsibility, and the like must supplement and complement the
"outer containment" of structural arrangements in society in order to
have the most effective preventive and rehabihtative impact on
deviant persons.5
Manipulation in Science
One of the major goals of science is manipulation of either its subject matter
or of human reaction and
adjustments to it. The human aspects of this are especially significant to the
social and behavioral sciences.
We aim to develop laws and principles of human behavior which will enable us to
predict and thus to control individual and group behavior.
A great deal of manipulation is connected with research. The funding agencies,
whether government agencies, foundations, or universities, control
the resources
necessary for scientific research. By making funds available for
certain subjects
and not for others, they manipulate the growth and development of the
respective
sciences. In our society generally the physical sciences have prospered in this
regard, for material things are much more marketable than the
intangible principles
for human behavior and social organization which result from research
in the social
and behavioral sciences. In recent years, research resources for the
social sciences
have greatly expanded, but this has not uniformly applied to all areas. Family
research, urban studies, analyses of military organizations and communications,
and more recently medical sociology have moved ahead rapidly, while
such subjects
as the sociology of religion and humanistic studies have lagged behind.
Manipulation on another level occurs in research and development
projects to test
the effectiveness of certain types of treatment. When an experimental group is
paired off with a control group, one group gains the benefits or
suffers the damages
of the treatment, while the other does not, The subjects are thus manipulated
for the sake of science!
"The engineering of consent" through marketing research, advertising,
and public relations work has become a major enterprise in our
society; our sciences
provide a foundation for it. Whenever we attempt through the media of
mass comunicatinns,
educational institutions, political action, and other means to change
the attitudes
and behavior of people, we are trying to manipulate them. We
manipulate them also
through the "technological fix" of making automobiles and
highways safer,
buildings less hazardous, parts of industrial machines more shielded, electric
circuits better controlled by rheostats and protected by fuses, water supplies
purer, aircraft guidance systems more efficient, and a multitude of additional
changes. Most of the manipulation to which men are subjected in open democratic
societies protects their welfare, enhances their individuality, and is desired
by the majority.
A Moralistic Evaluation
In conclusion, let me add a few directly evaluative comments. First,
let us face
the facts. All men are controlled to a very high degree. Much of this
manipulation
is desirable. Order in society is maintained by manipulation; this order is a
basic prerequisite to freedom even while it also limits our liberty.
Understanding
the nature and extent of social control therefore comprises a first step toward appreciating and realistically
appraising our
freedom.
Second, we have self-consciousness and are not the passive victims of
social pressures.
We are autonomous beings with a responsibility to decide between the limited,
yet in our society extremely extensive, alternatives before us. Our
responsibilities
to man and God flow out of our autonomy, our ability, and indeed our necessity
to decide among the alternatives that lie before its at the moment of
decision.
Third, understanding can help us control the social controls that constrain us.
Knowing the consequences of alternatives makes it possible for us to
choose with
greater liberty rather than less. Social science research reveals the
limitations
of cultural influence on our behaviors as well as its ubiquity.
Fourth, multiple memberships and orientations in our pluralistic
society produce
a high degree of freedom, for they promote recognition of
alternatives of choice
and in our open society allow a broader range of viable choices than was true
in the days of our grandparents. Dialogue as in the Minneapolis-St.
Paul "Town
Meeting of the Twin Cities." the mingling of all social classes
within church
congregations and other groups, and a concern for all mankind and not
merely for
those of our kin or nation can help to balance our knowledge of which choices
promote human dignity and the will of Cod and which ones subtly erode
them. Because
we, are "multivalent men," our freedom is enhanced.7
Fifth, as far as our own attempts to manipulate others are concerned,
let us make
certain that our goals are what they ought to be. When and if we have
the proper
ends in mind and use means that are fully consistent with those ends,
our "manipulating"
can promote Cod's purposes by upholding the welfare and dignity of man who is
created in His Image. We also need to heed in true humility the
scriptural admonition,
"Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, for you know
that we who
teach shall be judged with greater strictness.
For we all make many
mistakes (James 3:1-2, RSV). Not only teachers,
but all other manipulators as well, are in a vulnerable position of high moral
responsibility and can easily heap condemnation on themselves.
FOOTNOTES
1Life, vol. 61, no. 16, P. 61, Oct. 14, 1966.
2Alfred MeCluog Lee, Multivalent Man (New York: George
Brazifler 1966), p. 5.
3Ibid., pp. 5-6.
4Rohert E. L. Fans, "The Discipline of Sociology," in Robert
E. L. Fans, Editor, Handbook of Modern Sociology
(Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1964), p. 6.
5Walter C. Reckless. "A New Theory of Delinquency and
Crime,"Federal Probation, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 42-46,
December 1961.
6see Lee, op. cit., pp. 44-47.
7Ibid., esp. pp. 5-6,
19-21, 311-326