manipulation, discourse and cognitive science: preliminary hypotheses
DESCRIPTION
(2002). Presentation at the symposium on 'Manipulation and totalitarian ideologies in the twentieth century', Ascona (Switzerland). Louis de Saussure.TRANSCRIPT
Manipulation, discourse Manipulation, discourse analysis and cognitive analysis and cognitive
science: methodological science: methodological perspectivesperspectives
Louis de SaussureUniversity of GenevaAscona, sept. 2002
Manipulation: issuesManipulation: issues
• Semantic complexity, conceptual vagueness• Etymological meaning / metaphorical
derivation• Implications: Power and hidden strategies• Goals: sincere consent
Manipulative Manipulative discourse discourse : : hypotheseshypotheses
• MD is not a discourse typenot a discourse type according to pure linguistic criteria.
• MD is a type of usetype of use of language.• Identification of a manipulative
discourse is therefore a pragmatic pragmatic problemproblem.
An An a prioria priori definition definition
• MD is a discourse that is produced MD is a discourse that is produced to persuade the addressee of a set to persuade the addressee of a set of propositions P1…Pn with specific of propositions P1…Pn with specific means Msmeans Ms.– P has some precise characteristics,
particularly on the truth-functional level.– Ms have characteristics according to the
goal of conveying the propositions P.
P and truthP and truth
• The main characteristic of P is the discrepancy of P with its objective truth-conditional value or with the truth of truth-functional conclusions normally drawn by the addressee.
Manipulators, liars andManipulators, liars and psychoticspsychotics
• The manipulator is not a psychoticnot a psychotic: He knows that P is not, or may not He knows that P is not, or may not be, consistent with realitybe, consistent with reality.
• The manipulator is not (simply) a liarnot (simply) a liar. He produces axioms / dogmas.
• The manipulator short-circuits normal short-circuits normal information processinginformation processing and reality / likeliness checking.
Px as a moral statementPx as a moral statement
• When P is a moral statement (or equivalent, as a desired state of the world and of the society), then there is no truth-conditional checking but an evaluation of the acceptability of the statement with regard to the ethical values / background of the addressee.
Cultural and moral Cultural and moral checkingchecking
• The proposition P is then evaluated with regard to the moral culturemoral culture of the concerned society.
• The moral culture C is a set of moral assumptions that sanction the acceptability of P.
• The weaker C, the stronger P, the The weaker C, the stronger P, the more successfully P is conveyedmore successfully P is conveyed.
Evaluation of PEvaluation of P
Consistency of Pwith states of affairsassumed to be true
Consistency of Pwith states of affairs
assumed to be desirable
And / or
Consistency of P withother Prop. forming an argumentation
Consistency of P withother Prop. forming an argumentation
Local and global meansLocal and global means
• Local meansLocal means (about processing of a given utterrance or discourse)
• Global meansGlobal means (about external factors that influence context construction)
Linguistic local strategies: Linguistic local strategies: some casessome cases
• Rhetorical devices, syntactic-semantic features
• Connotative lexical items, misuse of concepts / presuppositions and implicatures
• Religious and religious-like concepts and imitation of religious “style”
• Unmotivated or questionable analogies• Metaphor, vague terms and general
fuzziness
• Attitude• Prosodic features• Appeal to emotion• Typeface and layout
Non-linguistic local strategiesNon-linguistic local strategies
Linguistic Linguistic global global
strategiesstrategies
• Spreading and repetition of specific words• Generalization of a new terminology• Elimination of some lexical items• Unmotivated or misleading analogies
(again)• Acronyms, abbreviations, numbers• Naming of elements of the everyday
environment
Non-linguistic global Non-linguistic global strategiesstrategies
• Group pressure• Power and punishment• Construction of the god-like image of
the manipulator, or of transcendent-like dogmas
• Fuzziness creates trouble (a double-binddouble-bind and an assumption about self assumption about self incompetenceincompetence).
• The only way to solve the double-bind is the belief in the manipulator’s wordbelief in the manipulator’s word.
• The manipulator appears as the saviour but is in fact forcing the addressee into a relation of intellectual, psychological intellectual, psychological and moral dependenceand moral dependence.
Fuzziness againFuzziness again
The manipulative intentionThe manipulative intention
• The central way to avoid identification of the manipulative intention resides in the god-god-like imagelike image of the manipulator.
• Cognitive assumption: humans are equipped with a mind-reading abilitymind-reading ability (theory of mind).
• This applies normally to other humansother humans, but cannot apply legitimately to a god-like cannot apply legitimately to a god-like creaturecreature. The manipulated blocks some aspects of this natural ability when interpreting the manipulator’s discourse.
Not everybody...Not everybody...
• …is manipulation sensitive. It needs to be accepted that the speaker is not an ordinary human being.
• Knowledge of the mechanisms of manipulation and proper analysis of discourse
Thank you for your Thank you for your attentionattention