Dotsenko E. L. Psychology of manipulation: phenomena, mechanisms and protection. Biography Manipulation from different sides

Moscow State University Publishing House

Dotsenko E. L.

Psychology of manipulation: phenomena, mechanisms and protection. - M.: CheRo, Moscow State University Publishing House, 1997. - 344 p. ISBN 5-88711-038-4

The scientific monograph is devoted to interpersonal manipulation. The problem of psychological influence is developed at the intersection of such branches of psychology as the psychology of communication and personality psychology.

It will be of interest not only for psychologists, but also for psychotherapists, political scientists, and philosophers. It will also be useful for teachers, managers and representatives of other professions who deal with people.

ISBN5-88711-0S8-4

K. L. Dotsenko, 1997 CheRo, 1997

MANIPULATION FROM DIFFERENT SIDES 7

Chapter 1 methodological orientation 15

1.1. Paradigm selection 16

Paradigmatic coordinates......... 17

Paradigm Correlation 22

Why hermeneutics? . ". 24

1.2. Hermeneutics of action 29

Action as text 30

Availability of contexts 32

Interpreter qualification 36

Description language problem 37

Chapter 2. What is manipulation 42

2.1. Phenomenological description 42

2.1.1. Phenomenological representation

or discretion? 43

Origin of the term “manipulation” ... 44

Metaphor of manipulation 47

2.2. Psychological definition of manipulation... 48

Initial milestones: 40

Feature extraction 60

Formation of criteria 62

Definition of manipulation 58

2.3. Psychological impact 60

Chapter 3. Prerequisites for manipulation 63

Cultural preconditions of manipulation 65

The manipulative nature of society 68

Interpersonal foundations 73

Interpersonal community 74

Deformations of communication 77

Manipulative evasions 79

3.4. His name is Legion (Manipulator

and each of us) 84

Multiple Personality 86

Intrapersonal interaction 88

The inner world of a manipulator

and his victims 92

Technological requirements 97

The place of manipulation in the human system

relationships 100

The procurator's premonition, or the boss's diligence

secret guard 105

Chapter 4. Manipulative technologies 108

4.1. The main components of manipulative influence 109

Purposeful transformation of information 109

Hiding the impact 113

Means of coercion 114

Targets of influence 114

Robotization 116

4.2. Preparatory efforts of the manipulator. . 117

Contextual design 117

Selection of targets 122

Making contact 125

4.3. Managing interaction variables. . . 128

Interpersonal space 129

Initiative 131

Direction of impact 132

Dynamics 136

4.4. Information and power support 137

Psychological pressure 137

Information design 140

Chapter 5. Mechanisms of manipulation

IMPACTS 146

“Technology” and psychological “mechanisms” - the coincidence of reality and metaphor 146

Mechanisms of psychological influence…………….. 148

Hold contact 148

Mental automatisms 160

Motivational support 163

5.3. Types and processes of manipulative influence 156

Perceptual puppets 167

Conventional robots 160

Living guns 162

Guided Inference 163

Exploitation of the addressee's identity 166

Spiritual abuse 168

Bringing into a state of increased submission 169

Combination 170

5.4. Generalization of the model

psychological manipulation 172

5.5. Destructiveness of the manipulative

impact 176

The experience of “making” the tragic Mozart 178

Dotsenko Evgeniy Leonidovich - Doctor of Psychology, Professor, Head of the Department of General and Social Psychology of the Institute of Psychology, Pedagogy, Social Management of Tyumen State University.

In 1986 he graduated from Moscow State University. Since the same year he has been working at Tyumen State University. In 1990-1993 he completed postgraduate training at Moscow State University. In 1994 he defended his PhD thesis on the topic “Personal mechanisms of defense against manipulative influence.” In February 2000, he defended his doctoral dissertation on the topic “Semantics of Interpersonal Communication” (scientific consultant Professor A.G. Asmolov).

Scientific interests: fundamental and applied aspects of psychosemantics (subjective semantics) in the field of personality psychology, communication psychology, and physicality psychology.

Books (2)

Don't be a parrot, or How to protect yourself from psychological attack

In everyday life, we often have to deal with events that, in their psychological effect, resemble military operations. They are trying to “get back at us”, “take their anger out” or “take advantage of us” - in short, they try to use us without asking us about it.

Therefore, each of us regularly has to solve the same problem: how to protect ourselves from unwanted influence from communication partners.

Of course, you can escape (for example, leaving, silence), you can attack yourself, you can hide behind defenselessness, frighten with unpredictability, etc. Or you can control the situation so that the collision energy produces useful work. Then conflicts become a means of identifying problems, polemics cease to be a disguised form of personal attacks, even anger turns into a helper, losing its destructive power.

www.koob.ru
Dotsenko E. L.
Psychology of manipulation: phenomena, mechanisms and protection. - M.: CheRo, Moscow State University Publishing House, 1997. - 344 p.
ISBN 5-88711-038-4
The scientific monograph is devoted to interpersonal manipulation. The problem of psychological influence is developed at the intersection of such branches of psychology as the psychology of communication and personality psychology.
It will be, but also for psychotherapists, political scientists, philosophers. It will also be useful for teachers, managers and representatives of other professions who deal with people.
ISBN 5-88711-088-4
© E. L. Dotsenko, 1997 © CheRo, 1997
Table of contents
MANIPULATION FROM DIFFERENT SIDES.........7
Chapter 1 METHODOLOGICAL ORIENTATION..... 15 1.1. Choosing a paradigm............... 16 1.1.1. Paradigmatic coordinates......... 17 1.1.2. Correlation of paradigms............ 22 1.1.3. Why hermeneutics? ............ 24 1.2. Hermeneutics of action......................... 29 1.2.1. Action as text............... 30 1.2.2. Availability of contexts......... 32 1.2.3. Qualification of the interpreter......... 35 1.2.4. The problem of description language......... 37
Chapter 2. WHAT IS MANIPULATION......... 42 2.1. Phenomenological description......... 42 2.1.1. Phenomenological representation or discretion?.................... 43 2.1.2. Origin of the term “manipulation” ... 44 2.1.3. Metaphor of manipulation......... 47 2.2. Psychological definition of manipulation... 48 2.2.1. Initial boundaries......................... 49 2.2.2. Feature extraction............ 60 2.2.3. Formation of criteria......... 62 2.2.4. Definition of manipulation......... 68 2.3. Psychological impact......... 60
Chapter 3. PREREQUISITES OF MANIPULATION....... 63 3.1. Cultural prerequisites for manipulation..... 65 3.2. The manipulative nature of society....... 68 3.3. Interpersonal foundations......... 73 3.3.1. Interpersonal community......... 74 3.3.2. Deformations of communication............ 77 3.3.3. Manipulative evasions......... 79 3.4. His name is legion (the Manipulator in each of us)... 84 3.4.1. The multiple nature of personality...... 86 3.4.2. Intrapersonal interaction...... 88 3.4.3. The inner world of the manipulator and his victim.................. 92 3.5. Technological requirements......... 97 3.6. The place of manipulation in the system of human relations.................................. 100
The Procurator's Premonition, or the Diligence of the Chief of the Secret Guard.............................. 105
3
Chapter 4. MANIPULATIVE TECHNOLOGIES..... 108 4.1. The main components of manipulative influence.................... 109 4.1.1. Purposeful transformation of information................................ 109 4.1.2. Concealing the impact......... 113 4.1.3. Means of coercion........... 114 4.1.4. Targets of influence........... 114 4.1.6. Robotization............... 116 4.2. Preparatory efforts of the manipulator 117 4.2.1. Contextual design........ 117 4.2.2. Selection of targets........ 122 4.2.3. Establishing contact.......... 126 4.3. Managing interaction variables... 128

www.koob.ru
4.3.1. Interpersonal space...... 129 4.3.2. Initiative............ 131 4.3.3. Direction of impact........ 132 4.3.4. Dynamics............... 136 4.4. Information and power support..... 137 4.4.1. Psychological pressure......... 137 4.4.2. Information design....... 140
Chapter 5. MECHANISMS OF MANIPULATIVE INFLUENCE.................... 146 5.1. “Technology” and psychological “mechanisms” - the coincidence of reality and metaphor...... 146 5.2. Mechanisms of psychological influence. . . 148 6.2.1. Maintaining contact............ 148 5.2.2. Mental automatisms......... 150 5.2.3. Motivational support........ 163 5.3. Types and processes of manipulative influence.................... 156 5.3.1. Perceptual puppets......... 157 5.3.2. Conventional robots......... 160 5.3.325D>16 16 31 194.....
L € 0 €2a r &r@
`g– T g‘ Q ï ° @Ðò €ð ` ` `
(y –P%ðò†b \ Z pg h k ¥ %Â@ ƒ h ð&°& _ q _ o‚b _
`P yf°y
ð … Ðò €ð P0
u
W °*Pð & k o i j &P " €ò‚^ *P _ q _ rg b _
132

www.koob.ru video fragment.............. 244 7.2. Fraudster and victim:
who got more? .......... 252 7.2.1. The story of how the great strategist took control of the former leader of the nobility............
252 7.2.2. Was the great schemer a great manipulator?......... 260 7.3. Dialogue as a research method........ 262
Chapter 8. DEFENSE TRAINING
FROM MANIPULATION.............. 265 8.1. Is protection needed?........................ 266 5
8.2. Creation of a “radar”......................... 270 8.2.1. Sensory level.......... 271 8.2.2. Rational level........... 272 ​​8.3. Expansion of the peaceful arsenal........ 275 8.4. Psychotechniques of coping.......... 278 8.5. Personal potential............ 281
Chapter 9. IS IT POSSIBLE TO LEARN
DO NOT MANIPULATE?.......... 286 9.1. Control or pushing?......... 288 9.2. Education or development?......... 295 9.3. Correction or rationing?........ 303
Conclusion...................... 315
Applications................................... 318
Literature...................... 328
Subject index................... 335
Summary...................... 342
MANIPULATION FROM DIFFERENT SIDES
(instead of introduction)
“I work as editor-in-chief of regional television. Recently, I urgently needed one of the programs that had already aired: I wanted to refresh my memory of some details so that there would be no discrepancies...
I go into the studio and explain what I need to the director, who was busy with personal matters at the time.
It’s clear that she didn’t want to look for the film I needed, so she pretended that she didn’t remember anything like that. I'm trying to explain what that show was about. The director still continues to “not understand.” I couldn’t restrain myself - I said something rude to her and left.
In the corridor, the anger subsided and a great idea came into my head. I go into the editors’ department and, as if addressing no one, I say that we recently aired a good program about... We need to see if it can be submitted to the competition. The author of this program almost breaks out: “This is my program. I will bring it now." Before I had time to make coffee for myself, the film was already on my table.”
The story described by the television worker is noteworthy because in it the same person, within a short time, was in two situations containing successful manipulation. The only difference is that in the first he turned out to be the injured party, and in the second he himself turned into a manipulator.
The manipulator and his victim are the main roles, without which manipulation will not take place. Accordingly, these two will have different approaches to manipulation... However, if for implementation manipulative influence, the indicated two positions are sufficient, then By revising manipulation, the number of points of view increases.
To the positions of manipulator and victim included in the interaction process, many external ones are added. IN
In the context under consideration, we highlight the position of a research psychologist, psychotechnician and moral philosopher.
I give the floor to everyone whose positions have just been mentioned. Each of them will be able to explain in their own way,
why this book was written.
7
So, research psychologist.
Starting with W. Wundt, who developed separately physiological psychology and the psychology of peoples,
psychological science developed from two platforms: from the side of the individual human psyche - in the individual aspect, and from the side of culture - in the social aspect. At the same time, their gradual rapprochement took place, and the junction between them often turned out to be one of the growth points of psychology. The current state of the field of interest to us confirms this idea: in recent years, both the psychology of communication and the psychology of personality have been intensively developed, and at their junction a little-explored zone has emerged,
containing the secret of psychological interaction. Accordingly, three possible points of consideration can be identified.
Firstly, manipulation can be considered as a socio-psychological phenomenon. The main problems stem from the questions: what is manipulation, when does it occur, for what purposes is it used, under what conditions is it most effective, what are the effects it produces, is it possible to protect against manipulation, how can the latter be organized?

www.koob.ru
Secondly, manipulation is a knot in which the most important problems of the psychology of influence are intertwined: the transformation of information, the presence of power struggle, the problems of truth-false and secret-explicit,
dynamics of shifting responsibility, changing the balance of interests, and others. The literature on psychological influence contains many interesting empirical studies and observations that are still awaiting their theoretical understanding and revelation of the patterns behind this diversity. There is hope that solving a set of problems in relation to manipulative influence will provide means for solving similar problems for the entire range of problems in the psychology of influence.
And thirdly, interest in mechanisms of protection against manipulation moves us into the field of personality psychology,
since it involves close attention to intrapsychic dynamics associated with decision-making processes, intrapersonal communication, integration and dissociation. The study of manipulation in this aspect highlights new facets of the problem of mutual transitions between external and
8
internal activity, shifting the subject of research to the plane of general psychology.
Thus, the study of manipulation touches on a wide range of problems, ranging from fundamental theoretical ones to applied and descriptive ones.
Practical psychologist (often as a psychotechnician).
For more than ten years now, we have been witnessing a process of active participation of psychologists in carrying out direct orders “from the outside,” previously unprecedented for domestic psychology. In addition to the elusive social order, psychologists began to receive very specific, financially backed requests for work, the distinctive feature of which was organized influence on people: group trainings,
group psychotherapy, business games, training in management methods, business communication, etc. The availability of ready-made technologies for such an impact creates the possibility of using them by non-specialists.
The psychotechnical effect produced by these technologies gives the customer the impression that the technologist is highly professional. As a result, technology, having begun an independent life according to the laws of the market, allows for the possibility of its use as a means of achieving inhumane goals.
Under what conditions does the technology of psychological influence become manipulative? This is a question, the search for an answer to which is one of the tasks of this work.
Often the psychologist himself - whether he wants it or not - becomes a hired manipulator. It happens,
for example, when he is ordered to undergo a psychodiagnostic examination in order to give the appearance of a scientifically (or psychologically) justified decision to a decision already taken by the administration. A similar thing is sometimes observed when certifying personnel or forming a reserve for leadership positions - the examination becomes a means of putting pressure on subordinates or even settling scores with undesirables.
Manipulative notes are quite often heard in the very request of customers: teach how to manage, tell me how to influence, advise what I should do with him/her/them, etc. In most cases, the psychologist is in a difficult situation of choice: on the one hand, You can’t become a tool in someone else’s game, but
9
on the other hand, to refuse means to withdraw, giving way to a non-professional, and to lose the opportunity to change the customer’s ideas to more constructive and humane ones. Knowledge of the patterns of manipulation allows a specialist to more competently build his line of behavior in such conditions.
There are many cases when clients themselves expect the psychologist to manipulate them, and sometimes they directly put him in the position of a manipulator in relation to themselves. Several examples of typical manipulations in relation to a consulting psychologist are described by E. Bern. Sometimes a psychologist is asked to teach or help protect against someone’s manipulation. An example would be a client’s complaint that her husband intimidates her and makes her life unbearable. Being in a formal divorce, he does not leave; moreover, he intends to move in with her in the apartment she receives. It turned out that all the scenes begin with his “special look,” which brings this woman into a state of fear and readiness to endure all the bullying. Quite often, the problem of protection against manipulation is an integral part of other, complex problems. Therefore, knowledge of the laws of manipulation will help a practical psychologist improve his professionalism.
Moral philosopher.
The magical power of words is manifested in their “vitality” and “perseverance.”
The first means that once a concept has appeared, it cannot be destroyed - it can only be modified. On the one hand, the concept defines the existence of the designated phenomenon - it gives rise to its “life” in people’s ideas. As soon as the general public becomes aware that, say, manipulation exists in the world, then this manipulation begins to be noticed everywhere. And then there is a temptation - especially among interested researchers or science politicians - to extend this concept to the largest possible class of phenomena. If desired, manipulation -
or at least its elements - can be found in almost any fragment of interaction. But is this really so - a question that requires an answer.
On the other hand, the content of the concept flexibly adapts to the needs of new generations and the tasks of new times. With manipulation, which originally meant only dexterity
10
and qualified actions, the same thing happened - now this term is used in relation to the interaction of people. The change is striking in that in the first meaning to manipulation (for example,
medical or engineering) were respectful of the skill of the people who performed them. In the second meaning, manipulation means something reprehensible.

www.koob.ru
This is relative to "survivability". The “pusiveness” of the words reflects their amazing activity and effectiveness.
The practice of using a term over time leads to modification of other concepts, especially related ones. As soon as the same phenomenon from “Machiavellianism” was repainted as “manipulation”, it began to give new shades to such concepts as “management”, “control”, “programming”, etc.
In addition, a concept that designates a phenomenon requires that something be done with this phenomenon. IN
In the case of manipulation, there is often a desire to experience its power in its pure form - and this cannot but be alarming. At the same time, in parallel with the talk about manipulation, the problem of how to protect yourself from it also arises - and this should already be recognized as a positive result of the emergence of the term “manipulation” in this meaning. Investigating the noted points is also among the tasks of this monograph.
Manipulator.
For some reason, it is generally accepted that manipulation is bad. Do you remember why the beautiful Scheherazade told fairy tales to her formidable ruler Shahriar? With the help of manipulation, for almost three years (!) she saved not only herself, but also the most beautiful girls of her country from death. Dozens of such examples can be found in folklore alone. Not only during the fairy tales of “1001 Nights”, but also in our everyday life, manipulation plays the role of a means of soft protection against the tyranny of rulers, the excesses of leaders,
bad character of colleagues or relatives, unfriendly attacks from those with whom
I had a chance to communicate.
To a large extent, this is why manipulation is of interest not only to researchers, but also to the general public. Another reason for this interest is that
11
Many people, managers in particular, still find it difficult to imagine effective management without the use of manipulation. The views of both ideological and spontaneous manipulators turn to psychology for help in the hope of finding clues. An army of interested readers scours the masses of literature in search of information on how to influence people. It is not surprising that the appearance of books specifically devoted to this issue invariably meets with both attention and support.
Psychological knowledge really helps to manage people more effectively. For example, if it is known that fat people are usually good-natured and love to eat, then it makes sense to take this into account so that, if necessary, you can get such a person to have a favorable attitude toward you. Or vice versa - put him in a bad mood, if necessary. Another example. If, say, we accept C. Jung’s position that the gender of a person’s soul and his biological sex do not coincide, then it becomes clear how one can push a man around,
whose masculinity is beyond any doubt. It is enough to question this masculinity at the right moment - and the man will rush to prove his masculinity again and again.
In short, almost any book on psychology - as long as the latter is in its current state - helps to manipulate people more effectively. This is especially true for this book about manipulation.
Since many manipulators are just self-taught, there is no doubt that there is benefit in books that would help manipulators improve their skills. The question is not whether to manipulate or not - all people regularly do this. It is important to learn how to manipulate carefully without arousing suspicion on the part of your victims -
why cut the branch you're sitting on...
Victim of manipulation.
Almost all academic psychology is built on manipulative foundations. In it, a person is thought of as a subject, often as an object - of perception, obtaining information, influence, education,
education, etc. There are many examples: the desire to divide people into types, to identify correlations,
allowing forecasting
12
to determine human behavior depending on certain conditions, the desire to establish universal (true for all people) patterns, etc. All this leads to a stereotypical approach, to the unification of knowledge about a person.
The psychology of individual differences in this context appears as a weak exception, confirming
Big Rule.
There is no doubt - the information obtained by academic science is useful and necessary. Now we are talking about the fact that this knowledge and approaches are a great gift for manipulators. And since this has happened, then perhaps it’s time for psychology to also look into how to defend itself from the manipulators it has trained.
On the one hand, it is important to find out what is happening in the soul of a person who is under manipulative pressure. It happens, neither now nor later, when you have already been fooled, you cannot understand where this or that emotional reaction comes from, why there is a desire to explode and say stupid things, although outwardly everything looks so peaceful... A detailed analysis of internal processes, as is known, helps mastering them.
On the other hand, it is also equally important to study the experience of successful defense: how to cope with external pressure, where the strength to fight back comes from, what means and techniques people use, etc.
All this will help us learn to solve the problem of protecting against manipulation practically: where can we find support for organizing resistance to the aggressor, what means can be used for this, how such means can be created, what tactics can be used, etc.?
No less important is the problem of creating conditions in which the need for protection against manipulation would be reduced. This problem arises where psychological services are created. It is known that any psychological service, if it strives to become full-fledged, develops towards total coverage of the people on whom it is created. How to make a service serve rather than suppress -

www.koob.ru, albeit a somewhat utopian, but not without meaning (especially common sense) question.
* See, for example, [Kovalev 1987, 1989; Grof S. 1993].
13
* * *
So, dear readers, now you know the range of problems related to the topic of interpersonal manipulation.
The decisive consideration that prompted me to work on this topic was that good manipulation, which has a precisely defined and long-lasting effect, is a work of art - the art of influencing people. The manipulative performance delightfully balances a variety of elements, sometimes in rather bizarre combinations. In most cases, destroying such an artificial (as well as skillful) structure is not difficult, while coming up with and successfully implementing a good manipulation is more difficult than defending against it. Therefore, protection against manipulation is largely a technology. And as you know, technology (or craft) is easier to master than art. Therefore, a close examination of the problem of manipulation, it seems to me, gives more advantages to the victims of manipulative intrusion, rather than to the manipulators.

E.L. Dotsenko, building his scale of levels of attitudes towards interaction from the object pole to the subjective pole, relied on the typology of G.A. Kovaleva. He identified five types of relationships. The classification is based on the criterion of symmetry of relationships between partners: on one pole - the attitude towards the other as a value, presupposing equality of interests (subject-subject relations), on the other - the attitude towards the other as a means of achieving personal goals (subject-object relations).

Rice. 1. Scale of interpersonal relations [Dotsenko, 1996, p. 102]

According to E.L. Dotsenko, “from dominance to community there is a transition from extremely asymmetrical relations, when one subject dominates another, to equal ones, allowing us to unite together to solve emerging problems. The same changes occur with force: at first it is rough and simple, directed towards/against another, then it becomes softer, more refined, even spiritualized” [Dotsenko, 1996, p. 103]

A brief description of each level is given in Table 3.

Table 3

Description of the levels of interpersonal relationships [Dotsenko, 1996, pp. 102-103]

Two poles on the E.L. scale Dotsenko denote the poles of an objective and subjective relationship to a person. But this scale also uses criterion of interests. The interests of the other are first ignored (with dominance and manipulation), then taken into account to the extent dictated by the objectives of the struggle (competition), then agreed upon (partnership), and then there is a desire for unification (commonwealth).

However, in the proposed E.L. When assessing the classification of interpersonal relationships taking into account the interaction of interests of partners, some modern authors find contradictions. Firstly, a person may have various, including conflicting, interests, and he himself does not always understand them. Secondly, coercion and manipulation can be used in the name of the interests of another person, and not contrary to them, and sometimes contrary to one’s own interests (for example, a mother checks homework and forces her son to redo his homework instead of relaxing after work and watching TV). Third, violence and suppression can be done impulsively rather than consciously, and completely contrary to one's own interests.

Dotsenko E. L. Psychology of manipulation: phenomena, mechanisms and protection. - M.: CheRo, Moscow State University Publishing House, 1997. - 344 p. (Individual chapters)

Chapter 2. WHAT IS MANIPULATION…………………………………………………………………..2

2.1. Phenomenological description…………………………………………………………………………………..2

2.2. Psychological definition of manipulation................................................................. .......................................4

2.3. Psychological impact………………………………………………………………………...10

Chapter 3. PREREQUISITES OF MANIPULATION……………………………………………………………..11

3.1. Cultural preconditions of manipulation ……………………………………………………………...12

3.2. The manipulative nature of society…………………………………………………………………………………....14

3.3. Interpersonal foundations………………………………………………………………………16

3.4. His name is legion (the Manipulator in each of us)..................................................... ....................................21

3.5. Technological requirements................................................... ........................................................ ...................27

3.6. The place of manipulation in the system of human relations.................................................... ........................28

Chapter 4. MANIPULATIVE TECHNOLOGIES.................................................... ...............................................32

4.1. The main components of manipulative influence.................................................... ......................32

4.2. Preparatory efforts of the manipulator………………………………………………………..36

4.3. Managing Interaction Variables........................................................ ...........................................41

4.4. Information and power support.................................................... ........................................................ ..45

Chapter 5. MECHANISMS OF MANIPULATIVE INFLUENCE.................................................... ...............49

5.1. “Technology” and psychological “mechanisms” - the coincidence of reality and metaphor............................49

5.2. Mechanisms of psychological influence………………………………………………………..50

5.3. Types and processes of manipulative influence……………………………………………………….54

5.4. Generalization of the model of psychological manipulation.................................................... ...............................61

5.5. Destructiveness of manipulative influence.................................................... ...........................................62

The experience of “making” the tragic Mozart……………………………………………………………….64

Chapter 6. PROTECTION AGAINST MANIPULATION.................................................... ........................................................ .......67

6.1. The concept of psychological defenses......................................................... ........................................................ ..........68

6.2. Types of psychological defenses........................................................ ........................................................ ................71

6.3. Psychological defense mechanisms................................................................... ........................................................ ....78

6.4. The problem of recognizing the threat of manipulative intrusion.................................................... ............82

6.5. Do we need to protect ourselves from manipulation? ........................................................ ...................................................87

The story of how the great schemer took control of the former leader of the nobility………..89

Chapter 9. IS IT POSSIBLE TO LEARN NOT TO MANIPULATE?................................................. ......................93

9.1. Control or pushing around? ........................................................ ........................................................ ...............94

9.2. Education or development? ………………………………………………………………………………………………97

9.3. Correction or normalization? …………………………………………………………………………………101

Chapter 2 WHAT IS MANIPULATION

A preliminary idea of ​​manipulative phenomena can be drawn from the following examples.

Example 1. A granddaughter asks her grandmother to show her how to cut out an apron for a doll (assignment for labor lessons). The grandmother explained, but five minutes later there was another question, then another and another. Finally, the naive consultant can’t stand it and takes on and finishes the work on his own. The granddaughter internally triumphs.

Example 2. You are known as a good specialist in your field of activity. In addition, you willingly talk about your own work experience, which earns you a favorable attitude from your colleagues. However, often, by asking you about how to solve a particular problem, they also manage to extract information from you that is considered a trade secret and for which it is customary to pay.

Example 3. A subordinate comes with a question that he himself cannot solve due to lack of authority. The boss, in order not to betray his reluctance to solve it, begins to gradually “inflame” the subordinate - to scold him for real and imaginary shortcomings. He finally explodes, becomes louder, and gets offended. The denouement follows immediately: “First learn to control yourself - then come.”

^2.1. Phenomenological description

First, let us briefly introduce the phenomenon of psychological manipulation and the cultural context that gave rise to it, which serves as a semantic support for researchers in understanding its essence.

The peculiarity of manipulation is that the manipulator seeks to hide his intentions. Therefore, for everyone except the manipulator himself, manipulation appears more as a result of reconstruction, interpretation of certain of his actions, and not as a direct discretion. In this regard, a reasonable question arises: is manipulation a phenomenon, that is, a phenomenon comprehended in sensory experience, an object of sensory contemplation?

There are three sources of information about the existence of manipulation.

1. ^ Position of the manipulator. Each person has visited it many times: either as a child twisting ropes out of adults, or as a parent driving a child into a position of guilt, or as a fan seeking attention from the object of adoration, or as a buyer seeking the favor of a seller, or as a subordinate. avoiding responsibility for omissions in work.

2. ^ Position of the victim of manipulation. It is enough to change the role pairs noted above - and we are ready to remember situations when the insincerity of our partners was revealed, when we felt annoyed for falling for someone’s bait: we let it slip, offered, promised, agreed, did, and then it turned out that the complaints were played out, promises were ambiguous, friendliness was superficial, and qualifications were exaggerated. And it turned out that all the actions of our partners were aimed only at achieving the goal they needed, which, for some reason, they did not tell us about.

As we see, the experience of people who have been in these positions gives grounds to judge manipulation as a phenomenon given to a person directly and subjectively. At least on this basis it can be argued that manipulation is a phenomenon. Everyone has a subjective experience of this kind, no matter what word they use to describe it.

3. ^Position of an external observer. A person who is not involved in manipulative interaction has to reconstruct its details and character: restore the missing links, think for the participants. Your own experience comes to the rescue. On the one hand, the observer himself had to manipulate; this experience allows the actions of others to be interpreted as manipulative. On the other hand, the experience of being a victim of manipulation makes us more sensitive to manipulative attempts. The task is greatly simplified if we know the intentions of the initiator of manipulation from his own words or from information given to us by the authors of works of art (literature, cinema).

At the same time, moving away from both positions allows us to see additional details. As a rule, larger units of live interaction are revealed to the observer, such as “continues to evade”, “flutters powerlessly”, “went into deep defense”, “fusses around all the time”, etc. True, one has to pay for this as a loss of the natural emotional involvement in the situation, and a decrease in the reliability of judgments.

The payment turns out to be so significant (as well as necessary) that a theoretical problem arises, and the practical task is to learn to distinguish manipulation from other types of psychological influence. We need a tool that allows us to do this accurately enough. Such a tool - a kind of pointing finger - should be the definition of manipulation as a type of psychological influence.

Manipulus - the Latin progenitor of the term "manipulation" - has two meanings:

A) handful, handful (manus - hand + pie - fill), b) small group, heap, handful (manus + pi - weak form of root). In the second meaning, this word, in particular, denoted a small detachment of soldiers (about 120 people) in the Roman army. In the Oxford English Dictionary, manipulation in its most general sense is defined as the handling of objects with a special intention, a special purpose, as manual control, as movements made by the hands, manual actions. For example, in medicine, this is an examination, examination of a certain part of the body using hands, or medical procedures. The presence of dexterity and dexterity when performing manipulation actions is specially noted.

Close to the indicated meaning (as a result of expanding the scope of use) is the use of the term “manipulation” in technology. First of all, these are skillful actions with levers performed by hands. The levers and handles themselves are often called manipulators. As mechanisms became more complex, manipulators began to be called simulators or artificial substitutes for hands: special devices for complex movement of objects with remote control. For example, for loading and unloading rods with nuclear fuel.

Metaphorically speaking, the Oxford Dictionary defines manipulation as “the act of influencing or controlling people or things with dexterity, especially with a disparaging connotation, as covert control or manipulation.” It was with this content that the word “manipulation” replaced the previously used term “Machiavellianism” in the political dictionary.

There are at least two reasons for this replacement. Firstly, there was a shift in the leading emphasis from an evaluative view to a technological one when approaching this phenomenon. And secondly, the range of phenomena to which the term “manipulation” began to refer has expanded - it was no longer so much about the qualities of individual political leaders, but about the activities of entire institutions and government entities. It is used in relation to the media and political activities aimed at programming the opinions or aspirations of the masses, the mental state of the population, etc. The ultimate goal of such efforts is control over the population, its manageability and obedience.

In the political science literature, starting from the 60s, two big problems were discussed in detail. The first was devoted to debunking the manipulative nature of the media (in socialist literature the definition of * bourgeois" or "imperialist" was added). The second concerned the practice of “brain washing” in the dungeons of the intelligence services of China and the USSR, which was encountered by participants in the wars on the Korean Peninsula and Vietnam who were captured.

In the psychological literature, the term “manipulation” has three meanings. The first is completely borrowed from technology and is used mainly in engineering psychology and labor psychology. In the second meaning, borrowed from ethology, manipulation is understood as “the active movement by animals of the components of the environment in space” (as opposed to locomotion - the movement in space of the animals themselves) [Brief Psychological Dictionary] “with the predominant participation of the forelimbs, less often the hind limbs, as well as other effectors" [Fabry 1976, p. 145]. In these two meanings, the term “manipulation” can be found in psychological literature since the 20s. And since the 60s, it began to be used in a third meaning, this time borrowed from political science works.

Gradually - almost without modification - the word “manipulation” began to be used in the context of interpersonal relationships. Thus, the process of expanding the scope of its application has reached the area that is the focus of this work. Namely, both in terms of the object (intersubjective interaction) and the subject (mechanisms of influence), the phenomenon of manipulation turned out to be among problems that directly concern psychology.

So, the term “manipulation” in the meaning we are interested in was twice transferred from one semantic context to another. The term, when used figuratively, is a metaphor. Therefore, before we begin to define manipulation as a concept, it is necessary to clarify its actual content as a metaphor.

We have already found out that in its original non-metaphorical meaning, the term “manipulation” denotes complex types of actions performed by hands: controlling levers, performing medical procedures, arbitrary handling of objects, etc., requiring skill and dexterity in execution.

A transitional step to metaphor was the use of the term “manipulation” in relation to the demonstration of tricks and card games, in which skill is valued not only in carrying out false distracting techniques, but also in hiding true actions or intentions, creating a deceptive impression or illusion. The connection with the original meaning is especially clear in the name “magician-manipulator” - one who specializes in tricks that exclude complex mechanical or electronic devices, double assistants, etc. All their tricks are “sleight of hand and no fraud.” The main psychological effects are created on the basis of attention control (distraction, movement, concentration), the widespread use of psychological set mechanisms, stereotypical ideas and illusions of perception. As will be shown later, all these elements persist in interpersonal manipulation.

The complete transfer of the word “metaphor” into a new context - and the generation of the metaphor that interests us - leads to the fact that the objects of manipulation actions are no longer understood as objects, but as people, while the actions themselves are no longer performed with hands, but with the help of other means.

As a result, manipulation in a figurative meaning is the desire to “get your hands on”, “tame” another, “lasso”, “catch on a hook”, that is, an attempt to turn a person into an obedient tool, as if into a puppet.

However, the metaphor of taking over is, although a core feature derived from manipula, but by no means the only one constituting psychological manipulation. In the process of its formation, as we have seen, this feature was supplemented by other qualities. Firstly, manipulation is characterized by skill, dexterity, and mastery of execution. Indeed, a clumsily concocted effect does not fall under that intuitive sense of manipulation that we are accustomed to being guided by. And secondly, manipulation involves the creation of an illusion. It would not make sense to call an action manipulation if it was done explicitly. A bad illusionist is one who cannot create the illusion required by the design of the trick, all of whose tricks are in plain sight. A bad puppeteer is one who is unable to make the audience forget that the characters in the play are just puppets. Therefore, manipulation in a metaphorical sense also involves creating the illusion of independence of the recipient of influence from outside influence, the illusion of independence of the decisions he makes and the actions he performs.

Thus, the complete metaphor of psychological manipulation contains three important features:

The idea of ​​“getting your hands on”

A prerequisite for maintaining the illusion of independence of decisions and actions of the recipient of the influence,

The skill of the manipulator in performing influence techniques.

^2.2. Psychological definition of manipulation

Example 4. At an extended meeting of the trade union committee, apartments in a new building are being distributed. Employee M., who was not included in the list of recipients, states that on that list there are people whose living conditions, family composition and other characteristics are such that he has a greater right to receive an apartment than they do. The chairman of the trade union committee asks: “Who exactly do you mean?”

The trade union leader's question can be regarded as a simple desire to clarify M's statement. However, something forces the latter to fade away or flare up. What are we seeing here: a work issue or an attempt at hidden influence? And if the second is true, then can this be called manipulation? In general terms, can any hidden influence be considered manipulation?

The need to define manipulation is obvious. Below is an attempt to give the actual psychological definition of the concept of “manipulation”. Of course, we are talking about a working definition, which can be clarified if necessary. To do this, an analysis of the existing ideas about manipulation in the scientific literature is carried out, the content and number of features that should be included in the required definition are substantiated.

The first step that was natural to take to solve the problem was to contact the authors who worked on the problem of manipulation. In them we find a discussion of the problems of using manipulation [Bessonov 1971, Volkogonov 1983; Schiller 1980; Key 1989; O"Connor at all 1990; Paine 1989; Rozenberg 1987; Vilar 1972], the effects of behavior manipulation, the art of manipulation, protection from it, etc. However, most sources do not contain a definition of manipulation. Of all the works that we were able to review, only one is entirely devoted to the problem of determining a set of criteria that adequately outlines the range of interpersonal phenomena classified as manipulative. In the rest (with the exception of ) there is practically no justification for the composition of the criteria.

Turning to dictionaries also turned out to be unproductive, since none of the six available English-language dictionaries on psychology contained the article “Manipulation” (or “Machiavellianism”). Only one sociology dictionary defines manipulation as “a type of exercise of power in which the possessor influences the behavior of others without revealing the nature of the behavior that he expects from them.”

In relation to the reality that is found in interpersonal relationships, it seems that each researcher or user has to determine independently.

The criteria that were planned to form the basis of the required definition were extracted only from those texts in which the authors either gave their own definitions of manipulation or discussed manipulation as a concept in sufficient detail. In the first case, the definition was divided into its constituent characteristics and, in this form, entered into the table. 2. In other cases, the selected features were immediately transferred to Table 2. (For clarification, I suggest the reader compare R. Goodin’s original definition with the contents of the table: manipulation is “power applied covertly and contrary to the presumed will of another.” The grounds for dividing a single formulation into isolated criteria taken from the author's explanation of his views.)

After this, the frequency of use of the selected features was calculated. The results are presented in table. 3, from which it is clear that most of the signs are criteria for “one-time use” - another evidence of the lack of development of the concept of manipulation.

Following this, the task arises of finding a means that allows for the selection of criteria necessary and sufficient for constructing a definition of manipulation.

Most authors in solving this problem apparently proceed from their intuitive understanding of the essence of manipulation. A successful technique - analysis of manipulative situations - was used by J. Rudinov, which allowed him to make significant progress in understanding the specifics of manipulative influence. However, the selection of situations for analysis still remains a subjective matter, and the assessment of a situation as manipulative strongly depends on its interpretation and completeness of the description.

table 2

(with definitions broken down into criteria)

Definitions

Bessonov B.N.

A form of spiritual influence of *hidden* domination carried out by force

Volkogonov D. A.

Dominion * over the spiritual state, * control * changes in the inner world

Goodin R. E.

Hidden * use of power (force) * contrary to the perceived will of another

Yokoyama O. T. (Yokovama O. T.)

Deceptive * indirect influence * in the interests of the manipulator

Proto L. (Proto L.)

Hidden * influence * on making a choice

Riker W. N.

Such a structuring of the world * that allows you to win

Rudinow J.

Inducing behavior *through deception* or by playing on the perceived weaknesses of another

Sagatovsky V. N.

Schiller G.

Hidden * coercion, * programming of thoughts, intentions, feelings, relationships, attitudes, behavior

Shostrom E.

Management and * control, * exploitation of another, * use as objects, things

Robinson P. W. (Robinson P. W.)

Masterful * management or * use

It seems natural to me in this case to use the metaphor of manipulation as a reference means of highlighting the minimum required set of essential features. Presumably, it is metaphor that is the source of that intuitive understanding that researchers try to explicate every time when defining manipulation. (Or by selecting situations containing manipulation, as J. Rudinov did.)

Table 3

Signs used to determine manipulation

(numbers in the last column indicate serial numbers

Criteria

Hidden, indirect, deception

Exploitation, domination

Management, control

Coercion, use of force

Structuring the world

In the interests of the manipulator

Contrary to the will of another

For the sake of winning

Using others as things, objects

Treating another as a means, an object, an instrument

Inducement

Playing on weaknesses

The nonviolent way

Indirect impact, influence

Spiritual Impact

Programming thoughts, intentions, etc.

Focus on spiritual state, inner peace

Skill and dexterity

1. Signs 14 and 15 specify the generic affiliation of the concept being defined - this is a type of spiritual, psychological impact on a person, group or society. The 16th and 17th criteria are also adjacent here, indicating mental structures - targets of influence.

2. An important dimension of a moral nature is introduced by signs 9 and 10. The manipulative position is characterized by treating another as a means for the manipulator to achieve his goals, reducing the qualities of a decision-making subject in another. From the height of the manipulator’s own “I,” the other turns into “it,” and is reduced “to the level of things subject to control and management” [Shostrom 1992, p. 5], when “one subject views another as a means or a hindrance in relation to the project of his activity, as an object of a special kind (“talking instrument”)” [Sagatovsky 1980, p. 84-85].

3. A number of signs (2,3,5,6,7,8) relate to the manipulation function. Most terms, however, cannot be considered successful. “Management” and “control” are too broad and universal and require additional restrictions. “Exploitation” and “domination” carry a noticeable political connotation, which does not allow them to be used in relation to psychotherapeutic situations or the educational process. In addition, they contain a strong negative assessment, which I would like to avoid. Criteria 2, 3 and 5 indicate the desire of the manipulator to actively influence events, structuring the world according to his interests.

The problem of balancing the interests and intentions of the parties to the interaction is indicated more clearly in signs 6, 7 and 8. The sign “in the interests of the manipulator,” as noted, is inaccurate, since manipulation can be carried out in the interests of the manipulated (at least in part). For example, in order for someone else to quit smoking, drinking, etc., sometimes they use the most inventive techniques, including manipulative ones. “What makes these actions manipulative is not that they are contrary to his interests (certainly they are not), but that they are contrary to his will. Or, more precisely, his supposed will." At the same time, E. Shostrom [Shostrom 1992] points out that manipulation can be used for protective control of the situation, desires and actions of a communication partner. This refers to a proactive influence to reduce one’s own anxiety, to remove uncertainty, etc. Consequently, the addressee is manipulated before he decides on his desire, and regardless of whether he resists. The term “will” does not allow us to take into account this class of phenomena. The clarification “alleged” only partly removes these difficulties.

Another important criterion may be the “for the purpose of winning” feature. The semantic composition of the Russian “winning” and the English “win” includes three meanings: overcoming something or someone, achieving some superiority over a rival or adversary, and obtaining benefit or benefit for oneself. It is obvious that the criterion “for the purpose of winning” covers the entire field of values ​​of the characteristics combined in this group. It is only necessary to clarify: the winning is one-sided, since of the four possible combinations - “I won - he lost”, “I won - he won”, etc. - only the first pair corresponds to manipulation.

4. Signs 1, 14 and 17 record one of the most noticeable features of manipulation - the hidden impact. At the same time, R. Goodin insists on the optional nature of this attribute: “Since manipulation must be misleading, there must also be concealment of some information,” which means that “the analysis of manipulation as concealment or distortion of information turns out to be too narrow.” The conclusion is true only for one group of manipulation methods. Other methods, on the contrary, involve the creation of new information, the designation of new boundaries in it, the introduction of new variables for discussion (see, for example,).

This difficulty arises due to the lack of distinction between (a) concealment and distortion of information that constitutes the content of the influence, (b) concealment of the fact of influence itself, and (c) concealment or distortion of information about the intentions of the manipulator. Given this distinction, an objection to (a) does not mean a rejection of the other two. On the contrary, if in the definition of manipulation we make (b) and (c) mandatory, then the “hidden influence” criterion will receive an unambiguous content.

An attempt at manipulation only has a chance of success if the fact of influence on the addressee is not realized by him and the final goal of the manipulator is unknown to him. Otherwise, either the attempt will be unsuccessful, or it will no longer be manipulation. Let's show this using an example taken from an article by J. Rudinov.

Example 5: Jones complains that he is the target of regular manipulative attempts on the part of his wife. Here's a typical example. He was getting ready to go to the weekly poker game. It was at this moment that the wife appeared in a translucent shirt in a seductive pose, playing with buttons. Jones protested: he didn't want to be tempted right now - then he'd miss the game. Jones believes his wife isn't really interested in sex. Although he had been especially busy the last two weeks and came home late, the frequency of sexual encounters was higher than usual. He accused her of trying to manipulate him into leaving him at home. His wife agreed with him, adding that she knew as well as Jones how often they had sex recently, and that they both knew equally well why they were doing it.

J. Rudinov, based on the analysis of this case, concludes that manipulation can be carried out not only through misrepresentation, but also by (open) playing on the weaknesses of another. But is the situation described an example of manipulation? If we turn to the metaphor of manipulation, it turns out that this case does not correspond to it, since no one has illusions about who wants what. Yes, this is a play on Jones' weakness, but it is not manipulation of him (but it could have been so if Jones had not figured it out). In the terms of V.N. Sagatovsky, this is a “reflexive game,” that is, the desire to outplay another by taking advantage of some advantage.

5. The next group of signs (4,12,13) ​​correlates with another important impact variable - strength (or vice versa - weakness). In relation to interpersonal interaction, power can be defined as the nature of the relationship between communication partners, expressed in the presence of some advantage of one in relation to the other, important for achieving the goal of influence [Ershov 1972], the use of which allows one to overcome the partner’s resistance. This could be physical strength, financial wealth, official position, professional qualifications, abilities, argumentation, communication skills, etc. It is obvious that strength is a necessary element of almost any type of influence. And if so, then, while remaining the most important variable in the analysis of mechanisms and methods of influence, the concept of force cannot serve as a sign that differentiates various types of influence.

6. It remains to discuss the 11th criterion - exactly the one that was proposed by J. Rudinov in an article specifically devoted to the definition of manipulation. One gets the strong impression that the author, by focusing on the problem and introducing a new technique - the analysis of specific situations - managed to discover one of the important dimensions of manipulation.

Example 6. Brown's son was humming some annoying tune. The father knows that his son always strives to do everything against him, rejecting any attempts at joint activity. Therefore, in response, he cheerfully picked up the melody with the hope that he would stop his annoying singing.

The author shows that the sign of manipulation here is not reflexive calculation - one can imagine a situation where multi-stage anticipation still does not form manipulation. The decisive moment is Brown's desire to encourage his son to commit a certain action.

But not every impulse constitutes manipulation, but only one when we do not simply join someone’s personal desire, but impose on him new goals that presumably were not pursued by him. For example, someone asks us for directions to Minsk, and we falsely direct him to Pinsk - this is just a deception. If he may suspect deception, we show him the right path in the hope that he will reject our hint as deceptive - this reflexive move is also not manipulation, since the other’s original intention remains unchanged. To develop the example of J. Rudinov, we can say that manipulation will take place if the other one was going to go to Minsk, and we made him want to go to Pinsk.

Or he wasn’t going anywhere at all, but decided to do something thanks to our influence.

If we again use the metaphor of manipulation to verify the criterion under discussion, we will find good confirmation. The requirement that the recipient of the influence retain a sense of independence in the decision made is perfectly satisfied if he himself wants to do what the manipulator needs. Therefore, the sign “motivation” or “inducement” seems to be a successful means of limiting the range of phenomena attributable to manipulation.

It should be noted that the proposed criterion only at first glance challenges the usual ideas, according to which manipulation includes actions to form stereotypes [Schiller 1980; Goodin 1980], to create a certain impression or attitude towards a particular person. It seems that the point here is rather a matter of unreflecting ignorance of the final motivational orientation of cognitive influences. After all, what is important, say, is not the impression of someone itself, but its motivational completion, which, in fact, gives the whole complex of techniques the general meaning of manipulative influence. Chapter 3 PREREQUISITES OF MANIPULATION

Manipulation, like many other events in the sublunary world, does not appear on its own - there are always certain forces and conditions that contribute to or directly bring it to life. And, of course, there are always people through whose activity these forces and conditions operate. In this chapter we will find out where manipulators come from? Why, among other means of achieving their own goals, do people choose manipulative ones? What factors and circumstances contribute to this?

In a preliminary review, E. Shostrom, with reference to other authors, proposed the following list of reasons for manipulation: a person’s conflict with himself (F. Perls), distrust of other people, inability to love (E. Fromm), a feeling of absolute helplessness (existentialism) , fear of close interpersonal contacts (J. Haley, E. Byrne, V. Glasser) and an uncritical desire to receive the approval of everyone (A. Ellis). A systematically trained psychologist would consider himself obliged to add to this collection, paying tribute to other famous colleagues. Then he would expand the list of reasons why people become manipulators. It would undoubtedly include the desire for symbolic (sublimation) mastery of communication partners as objects of sexual desire (3. Freud) - with a corresponding division into active and passive manipulators; as well as the natural in form implementation of the compensatory desire for power (A. Adler) [see, for example, Bursten 1980]. Manipulation could also be considered as a reproduction of the methods of influence that both market and totalitarian societies apply to their citizens: manipulative reproduction supports itself because such behavior receives systematic positive reinforcement in the form of social success (B.F. Skinner) or due to the passive filling of the individual semantic vacuum with pseudo-values ​​cultivated in such societies (V. Frankl).

Obviously, there are many reasons for manipulation; It is also clear that they cannot be considered on the same level. They have different origins and have different ontological status. Their breeding can be done on the basis of some introduced scheme. I will use the almost obvious distinction between the following ontological sections (levels): culture (universal human context), society (a set of social contexts), communication (interpersonal context), personality (motivational intrapsychic context) and technology (context of activity, its operational composition). Despite the degree of obviousness of such division, attempts to find a single basis for their identification, especially criteria for their unambiguous breeding, turn out to be unproductive. It is especially difficult to separate the levels of interpersonal relationships and intrapersonal communication. However, one can try to turn such a logical difficulty into a productive idea with new explanatory possibilities. This is an idea