Eric Baldwin is an electrical engineering senior and Mustang Daily libertarian columnist.
Words are fascinating things.
They are symbols that allow minds to evoke ideas and emotions in the minds of others. Humans are social creatures and we place a great deal of value on the thoughts and actions of those around us, seeking to influence them in our preferred direction. We expend a great deal of effort using our word-symbols to manipulate and condition each other and ourselves.
While any act of communication might be understood as manipulative — simply by the introduction of concepts and emotions into the minds of others — there is an important difference between healthy communication and manipulation; the one elevates the processes of thought and analysis while the other attempts to subvert them.* Although there are many directions in which the problem can be analyzed, the two most interesting uses of word-manipulation that I see involve misrepresentation and distraction.
To misrepresent something is to describe it falsely, to drive a wedge between perception and fact. Our human process of understanding is slow and error-prone; there is no guaranteed method of obtaining understanding (though science is pretty darn good in its own sphere). We have sped up the learning process by means of communication; books, classrooms, nearly every facet of life conveys covert or overt information. There is so much to learn today that we rely more on each other than on ourselves; how much of what you know is what you know from your own experience, and how much is second-hand? We’re used to obtaining information from others — it is far more normal than piecing it together for ourselves.
We’re used to obtaining information from others, and when we hear it over and over again without information of our own to compare it against, we tend to believe it. When we hear something that reinforces the beliefs we already hold, we tend to believe it. When we hear what we want to hear, we tend to hold it against a lower standard of evidence, because, hey, it sounds so good.
To distract is to shift attention from a true point of interest to a false one. By identifying false or peripheral conflicts as pivotal, we deflect inquiry away from the actual point of conflict — guaranteeing that the true elements of our position will remain unaddressed and unchallenged.
I recently watched “Tangled,” the Disney retelling of the Rapunzel tale. The villainess of the story was interesting in that she maintained her power by means of words, concepts and deception rather than magic or physical control. She masqueraded as Rapunzel’s mother, constantly presenting her actions as thoughtful, caring and good. As long as the princess struggled over the question of whether or not her “mother” was a good mother or a bad one, she was under her control. Only when Rapunzel took a step back and asked whether or not she was her mother at all could she be free. The villainess controlled the princess first by controlling her access to information, and second by giving her a meaningless dilemma that distracted from the real issue.
Most people’s behavior is a rational response to the beliefs they hold, to their perceived information. By controlling the perception, the behavior is controlled. When facts are misrepresented so as to construct a comprehensive set of false perceptions, the person can be controlled without the use of force. Force reduces people’s choices against their will; misrepresentation warps people’s choices by deception.
There are a lot of words we use for misrepresentation. “Hate” is a powerful example; it solicits powerful emotions and knee-jerk reactions, putting the accused on the defensive. How often does it accurately describe the internal state of the accused? “Unpatriotic” is another illustration. By framing the issue, the person, the event, any attempt at response is reactive and necessarily weakened.
Gay marriage and abortion are two big conflicts laden with distraction, or attempts at it. How often do the opposing sides even argue about the same thing? Does anyone actually discuss the central points of conflict, or do they simply rush to engage the enemy somewhere else, somewhere safe, full of noise and very little light?
If we use words to manipulate others, how much more do we use them to manipulate and massage ourselves! If we can describe our bad behavior with a word that has fuzzyponyrainbow associations, we can do what we want while praising our virtue. “Patriotism” is good (and so is “Patriotism is the last resort of scoundrels”). “Security” is a juicy one. “Tolerance” and “broadmindedness” attract a lot of this.
We have a vested interest in self-deception because we like to hold values that cannot all coexist. We want to have our philosophical cake and eat it too. To acknowledge a contradiction is to suffer until it is resolved. Misrepresenting those values allows us to embrace them all at the same time without immediate pain — but not without consequences. Expending our energy on peripheral conflicts leaves us too tired to address the real problems. We must be uninquisitive and mentally lazy to uphold the deceptions we so desperately desire.
But to do these things requires us to internalize a disrespect for thought, for inquiry, for intellectual integrity, because they are our enemies. To adopt manipulation as a way of life is to disrespect ourselves and everyone else as thinking, choosing beings. To maintain our manipulation requires us to reinforce and perpetuate the conditions that permit them to exist; thoughtlessness and deception. We must embrace a reluctance to question and a tendency to scream.
When was the last time you saw someone actually lay their beliefs on the line, actually render themselves vulnerable to questions? We don’t do that, because, deep down, we know we’d lose something we’re not willing to give up.
If you want to live an honest and noncontradictory life, you must love truth for its own sake. If you don’t, if you love something else more, you’ll figure out a way to get what you want while pretending that you have what you need. You must learn your own capacity for error and self-deception — and you must learn it deep. Surround yourself with people who will hold you mentally accountable — it will teach you self-inquiry. Meet lots of people who intelligently disagree — it will teach you humility. If your beliefs are true, why should they need to be shielded from inquiry? Gain the skills to defend them! Nothing exposes mental weakness (or gives so much opportunity for improvement) as putting things in writing. It’s not enough to believe the right things; you must believe the right things for the right reasons. The only reason to be mentally and morally weak is to defend things not worth defending.
* Of course, our concepts of thought and analysis are themselves ideas that we were instilled with along the way. The question is how well they reflect reality. Of course, our ideas about reality were also at least partially instilled along the way … Ask a philosophy major about that one sometime.