Thought Manipulation: The Use and Abuse of Psychological Trickery by Sapir Handelman Page A
Authors: Sapir Handelman
Ads: Link
the resurgence of tyranny? How it is possible to stop manipulative, vicious demagogues from gaining popular support and public appealing? How does society prevent the repetition of the same mistakes?
Around the end of World War II, the intellectual mainstream, including the likes of the well-known sociologist Karl Mannheim, was occupied in searching for rational ways to prevent such social crises. The core of the scholars, who overestimated human intellectual power, believed in the possibility of creating a better world by the rational constructing and marshalling of society. They were entrenched in the utopian belief that every social problem can be solved rationally. Modern socialism, defined as the rational planning of society, became the ultimate alternative to fascism, while capitalism became vilified as almost synonymous with the tyranny of capitalists. Hayek’s work provides a conclusive attack on the socialist paradigm while laying the foundation for an opposing capitalist vision.
Hayek’s political philosophy is extremely important with regard to the study of manipulative behavior, this mysterious and elusive phenomenon. Aside from Hayek’s struggle against fascism, his thought provides the theoretical background to limit governmental regulation in general and to block regulation without objective criteria in particular. (There is no objective test to quantify the damages of manipulative influences.) Based on his theoretical framework, his followers were able to argue that regulation according to abstract criteria, or more precisely regulation without an objective standard, is likely to develop into unlimited regulation that endangers liberty.
Before proceeding to the discussion on regulation in the advertising market, I briefly sketch a necessary general background that is intended to clarify the basic ideas behind the extreme suspicions of Hayek, Friedman, and other protagonists of the free market system regarding government regulation in the murky area that manipulation in general and advertising in particular operate.
LIBERTY, RESPONSIBILITY, AND “MENTAL FREEDOM”
Hayek’s political thought turns on the dichotomous distinction between two spheres: the mental dimension and the physical one. Generally speaking, thoughts and feelings are personal to each individual, while the worldly domain is common to everybody. To sharpen this distinction, I propose labeling the mental or cognitive sphere the subjective world and the physical dimension the objective world.
We can say that every person recognizes two worlds, each of them subject to different sets of rules and mainly dissimilar terminology. We observe, examine, and analyze the objective framework in terms of substance and energy, while the subjective system is subject to principles that we do not fully understand. (Part of the reason is that we do not identify the mental world in terms of substance and energy.) Therefore, using terms from the material world to describe the mental one— mental blocks, airhead, and brain freeze, for example—is meaningless unless we regard them as metaphors. This is consistent with Hayek’s view on the term “mental freedom,” or as he calls it, “inner freedom.”
According to Hayek, freedom has only one meaning—lack of coercion. The term belongs to the physical sphere and not to the mental one, which is, of course, connected to a different frame of terminology. The practical meaning is that choices or decisions, in the mental meaning, might be subject to influence but definitely not to coercion. Therefore, “coercion of thoughts” might be a metaphor, but literally it is a meaningless sentence. Accordingly, putting manipulation and coercion in the same category is confusing and valueless. The severe result is that muddling terms, such as “coercion of thought” or “subject the will,” encourage individuals not to take responsibility for their lives and decisions. Such terms indicate that people have
Around the end of World War II, the intellectual mainstream, including the likes of the well-known sociologist Karl Mannheim, was occupied in searching for rational ways to prevent such social crises. The core of the scholars, who overestimated human intellectual power, believed in the possibility of creating a better world by the rational constructing and marshalling of society. They were entrenched in the utopian belief that every social problem can be solved rationally. Modern socialism, defined as the rational planning of society, became the ultimate alternative to fascism, while capitalism became vilified as almost synonymous with the tyranny of capitalists. Hayek’s work provides a conclusive attack on the socialist paradigm while laying the foundation for an opposing capitalist vision.
Hayek’s political philosophy is extremely important with regard to the study of manipulative behavior, this mysterious and elusive phenomenon. Aside from Hayek’s struggle against fascism, his thought provides the theoretical background to limit governmental regulation in general and to block regulation without objective criteria in particular. (There is no objective test to quantify the damages of manipulative influences.) Based on his theoretical framework, his followers were able to argue that regulation according to abstract criteria, or more precisely regulation without an objective standard, is likely to develop into unlimited regulation that endangers liberty.
Before proceeding to the discussion on regulation in the advertising market, I briefly sketch a necessary general background that is intended to clarify the basic ideas behind the extreme suspicions of Hayek, Friedman, and other protagonists of the free market system regarding government regulation in the murky area that manipulation in general and advertising in particular operate.
LIBERTY, RESPONSIBILITY, AND “MENTAL FREEDOM”
Hayek’s political thought turns on the dichotomous distinction between two spheres: the mental dimension and the physical one. Generally speaking, thoughts and feelings are personal to each individual, while the worldly domain is common to everybody. To sharpen this distinction, I propose labeling the mental or cognitive sphere the subjective world and the physical dimension the objective world.
We can say that every person recognizes two worlds, each of them subject to different sets of rules and mainly dissimilar terminology. We observe, examine, and analyze the objective framework in terms of substance and energy, while the subjective system is subject to principles that we do not fully understand. (Part of the reason is that we do not identify the mental world in terms of substance and energy.) Therefore, using terms from the material world to describe the mental one— mental blocks, airhead, and brain freeze, for example—is meaningless unless we regard them as metaphors. This is consistent with Hayek’s view on the term “mental freedom,” or as he calls it, “inner freedom.”
According to Hayek, freedom has only one meaning—lack of coercion. The term belongs to the physical sphere and not to the mental one, which is, of course, connected to a different frame of terminology. The practical meaning is that choices or decisions, in the mental meaning, might be subject to influence but definitely not to coercion. Therefore, “coercion of thoughts” might be a metaphor, but literally it is a meaningless sentence. Accordingly, putting manipulation and coercion in the same category is confusing and valueless. The severe result is that muddling terms, such as “coercion of thought” or “subject the will,” encourage individuals not to take responsibility for their lives and decisions. Such terms indicate that people have
Similar Books
