Marketing and Agency
Agency I define as our ability and responsibility to make decisions. Or the decision not to make a decision. My personality type especially holds Agency as a key concept, but I also find it essential for my theological worldview.
The other side of this value is the demonization of anything that attempts or appears to infringe on agency. This makes life as a human and citizen very complicated, because Law* and Agency are an uncomfortable pairing.
Legislative theory is not my problem today. For once.
Several years ago I attended what turned out to be an extended and insidious sales pitch. For three days I sat and listened to a motivational speaker, trying desperately to glean some kind of solid or useful information while filtering out the unbearable weight of marketing nonsense.
Have you ever read Going Postal? The main character, Moist von Lipwig, is a grifter, forger, and all-around criminal, and the thing that makes him most upset as the plot (and he) progresses is that he tells people exactly what he's doing, and that frankness just makes them trust him more.
Let me recite the experience as I felt it, because I suspect that it's difficult to see why I feel so strongly, and why I find his strategy so wrong/immoral.
Firstly, we were made aware that our subconscious is powerful, and that it is important to be careful what goes into it. At this point, there's a lot of talk about "evil spirits" and "negative influences" which seems to be basic Evening News fear-mongering.
Secondly, the speaker makes a play to establish his credibility as a spiritual authority. This speaker likes to use family members as testimonials. If he can establish himself as an authority, then it's easier for an audience to become open to his influence, and the fastest way to do that is to use key phrases that identify him as a cultural insider and spiritual leader. In a largely Mormon community, for instance, he would talk about his Temple Recommend and use phrases from the temple ceremony. It's totally unprovable, and yet instinctively convincing. Ugh.
Thirdly, after he had the audience primed and open to his ideas, he would introduce and then imprint them with repetition, vocalizing, and gestures, one piece at a time. As far as I could tell, his theories weren't inherently evil (except his ideas on gender - those were very satanic). They were mostly run-of-the-mill positive thinking techniques, visualization, and some body language pseudo-science.
Fourth and lastly, but mostly, he also used the crowd's endorphins and complacency to sell other seminars and products (about 2/3 of the lecture). I was both disgusted and bored.
I have no real objection to his theories, except where they attempt to supplant the doctrines of my church. But I have serious problems allowing a total stranger with no recognizable credentials to mess around with my subconscious. And I have an indelible repulsion for anyone who uses my faith (my strength) or insecurity (a weakness) to make his living.
This experience created a dilemma: Lots of persuasion techniques appeal to my better selves. It's called Pathos. So when do they become evil? Because not persuading your best, or not putting on your best front, can be just as deceptive, and just as apt to reduce agency. Deciding for another person that they will/should buy your product is just as bad as deciding for them that they will/should NOT.
I have no answers. Just an unbearable craving for believable data.
*Where, for instance, does society draw the line between collective structure and individual liberties? Where do we set the compromise between social ill and personal pleasure? Laws very often look like one group of people attempting to bully another into conformity. And yet, it's not so simple that we can propone full anarchy. Laws must finally be set and upheld by the people they govern, so if bullying, or a particular personal liberty, are the popular motivating values, then that is what will happen even if wiser or stodgier heads object.
The other side of this value is the demonization of anything that attempts or appears to infringe on agency. This makes life as a human and citizen very complicated, because Law* and Agency are an uncomfortable pairing.
Legislative theory is not my problem today. For once.
Several years ago I attended what turned out to be an extended and insidious sales pitch. For three days I sat and listened to a motivational speaker, trying desperately to glean some kind of solid or useful information while filtering out the unbearable weight of marketing nonsense.
Have you ever read Going Postal? The main character, Moist von Lipwig, is a grifter, forger, and all-around criminal, and the thing that makes him most upset as the plot (and he) progresses is that he tells people exactly what he's doing, and that frankness just makes them trust him more.
Let me recite the experience as I felt it, because I suspect that it's difficult to see why I feel so strongly, and why I find his strategy so wrong/immoral.
Firstly, we were made aware that our subconscious is powerful, and that it is important to be careful what goes into it. At this point, there's a lot of talk about "evil spirits" and "negative influences" which seems to be basic Evening News fear-mongering.
Secondly, the speaker makes a play to establish his credibility as a spiritual authority. This speaker likes to use family members as testimonials. If he can establish himself as an authority, then it's easier for an audience to become open to his influence, and the fastest way to do that is to use key phrases that identify him as a cultural insider and spiritual leader. In a largely Mormon community, for instance, he would talk about his Temple Recommend and use phrases from the temple ceremony. It's totally unprovable, and yet instinctively convincing. Ugh.
Thirdly, after he had the audience primed and open to his ideas, he would introduce and then imprint them with repetition, vocalizing, and gestures, one piece at a time. As far as I could tell, his theories weren't inherently evil (except his ideas on gender - those were very satanic). They were mostly run-of-the-mill positive thinking techniques, visualization, and some body language pseudo-science.
Fourth and lastly, but mostly, he also used the crowd's endorphins and complacency to sell other seminars and products (about 2/3 of the lecture). I was both disgusted and bored.
I have no real objection to his theories, except where they attempt to supplant the doctrines of my church. But I have serious problems allowing a total stranger with no recognizable credentials to mess around with my subconscious. And I have an indelible repulsion for anyone who uses my faith (my strength) or insecurity (a weakness) to make his living.
This experience created a dilemma: Lots of persuasion techniques appeal to my better selves. It's called Pathos. So when do they become evil? Because not persuading your best, or not putting on your best front, can be just as deceptive, and just as apt to reduce agency. Deciding for another person that they will/should buy your product is just as bad as deciding for them that they will/should NOT.
I have no answers. Just an unbearable craving for believable data.
__________________________________________________________________
*Where, for instance, does society draw the line between collective structure and individual liberties? Where do we set the compromise between social ill and personal pleasure? Laws very often look like one group of people attempting to bully another into conformity. And yet, it's not so simple that we can propone full anarchy. Laws must finally be set and upheld by the people they govern, so if bullying, or a particular personal liberty, are the popular motivating values, then that is what will happen even if wiser or stodgier heads object.
Comments
Post a Comment