Author: philo
Date: 12-22-03 16:03
Abstract
We are, generally speaking, more emotional than rational. And we usually do not recognize the personal interests that motivate both our own actions, and those of others who affect us. Hence, social interaction involves a great deal of unconscious game playing, and in fact the continued existence of society in any particular form depends upon the "real" nature of the game remaining unrecognized. Hence, once the kings' right to rule was no longer accepted as divine and unquestionable, democracy soon took over. And once the inequality of races was no longer accepted as "fact", slavery began to decline.
A significant part of the unconscious game playing involves how we are persuaded by, and persuade others. There are six primary "buttons" that psychologists have identified that are regularly used by those most adept at persuasion to get that they want. They are: Reciprocation If I give you something, you are more likely to do what I want you to do; Consistency If I can be caused to commit to do something, I will likely do it; Social Validation I am more likely to do what is asked of me if I believe that many others are doing the same thing; Liking I will be more likely to do what you want if I like you, and if you connect me to things I like; Authority I am more likely to do what you want me to do if you appear authoritative; Scarcity I am more likely to do what you want if I think that the opportunity you offer is in short supply.
The Mormon Church, and virtually all other long-lived human organizations, makes extensive use of each of the persuasive techniques noted above. For example:
Reciprocation We are provided with activities at which emotional experiences and community involvement that we like or need are provided to us. We respond by being more willing to do what the Church asks of us.
Consistency Once we have borne our testimony in public even once, let alone many times, it is hard to behave in a manner that is inconsistent with the public position we have taken. The same thing is true of public prayer, and hence the missionaries focus on getting an investigator to pray in the presence of the missionaries.
Social Validation The emphasis is on doing things together since it is easier to extract commitments from people. And it is important to control the validating messages the group sends. Hence, only those who will support the leadership's point of view will be permitted air time. And anyone who goes against that grain must be quickly silenced and then gutted from a credibility point of view.
Liking The sharing of emotional experience creates strong bonds. These bonds make continued obedience to the norms that dominate the group that has shared this experience more likely. Hence, the trick from the Church's point of view is to control the dominant forces within the group.
Authority The activities in question are authority oriented. The leaders are prominent participants, they are usually dressed for "power", and the activities are carefully controlled. Ideas do not come up form the bottom, as is the case in organizations that are trying to maximize the creation of knowledge and growth. They come down from the top, as the case in organizations where control and execution are the goal. This is the military paradigm, for example. The content of "testimonies" is highly controlled. Leaders set the tone for each sharing exchange. In relatively small group settings (such as Home and Visiting teaching) great effort is made to control the message content.
Scarcity Mormons are taught that the powerful emotional experiences they find so attractive are only available through Mormonism. All other brands of spirituality are at least inferior, and in many cases completely counterfeit.
The Mormon Church's use of persuasive technique does not indicate that it is evil just human. However, there are more and less ethical uses of persuasive techniques. Ethical persuasion educates and informs. Unethical persuasion is based on information and emotional manipulation. The Mormon Church's use of persuasive technique falls at the unethical end of the spectrum. This is illustrated in particular by my recent correspondence with Jeffrey Holland.
Introduction
I recently read "Scientific American Mind", a Special Edition of the Scientific American, vol. 14, no. 1, 2004. It is full of lots of interesting stuff. One article, "The Science of Persuasion", by Robert B. Cialdini (Professor of Psychology at Arizona State) caught my eye in particular. The purpose of this essay is to summarize the six main techniques used to persuade people to do what we want them to do, as outlined by that article, and to consider how the Mormon Church uses those techniques. In conclusion, I will summarize the author's views respecting the ethics of persuasion, and how my recent experience with Mormon leaders stacks up against his thoughtful views respecting this topic.
I note that the article does not say anything about religion. Hence, the references to the intersection of this aspect of psychology, sociology and Mormon cultural practice are my uneducated speculation.
Reciprocation
Social Theory
If you give people something even something of insignificant value it is much more likely that they will do what you want them to do. This is why organizations like the Disabled Vets send out cheap address labels with their request for financial support. Their rate of donation doubles (from about 18% to about 35%) when they add those labels to their request. This is why so many products come with a "free gift". My wife was recently looking for a camera bag, found one she liked, but was told that the only she could get it was to buy the camera the bag came along as a "free" gift. She then found out that the camera without the bag was $x, and the camera with the "free" gift was $x + $35. But she could not persuade the salesman either to sell her the bag for $35 dollars, or even that the bag was not a "free gift". After several minutes of conversation, she left the store in frustration, feeling disgusted with the ethics of those who put this particularly advertising gimmick in place, and the intelligence of the salesman with whom she had dealt.
Many studies show how physicians' propensity to prescribe drugs is influenced by gifts from pharmaceutical companies. An odd way in which reciprocity can be used is to make a huge request (to act as a volunteer counselor for two years for two hours a week, for example), and when that is declined to ask for something small more realistic (like a financial donation). The disappointed but gracious acceptance of the first request's refusal is a form of "gift", and makes the second, smaller, request much more likely to be successful than if it had been made on its own.
Mormon Culture
Give away pamphlets. Give away Books of Mormon. Give away videos re Christmas, Easter, etc. Invite kids to come to fun activities. Ask members for immense commitments, and then accept whatever they are guilted into giving. Love bomb those on the fringes. Give them attention (something all humans want), and they will be more likely to reciprocate by doing what you want them to do. This later factor is hard to overestimate.
We all need acceptance and validation. Lots of studies show how the price for admission to different groups work. To gain entry to the druggie group is simple just take drugs. To be a smoker and gain inclusion to the group that has to go outside several times a day for a smoke, simply take up smoking. Lots of people acquire habits for precisely this sort of reason.
Mormonism is much more complex than smoking. But for many who find themselves on the fringes of the seemingly attractive LDS community, the process works in a fashion similar to that of the smokers and druggies just do what we do, and you are in. If you don't behave as we do, you will not quite belong. The provision of conditional acceptance to the group creates a form or reciprocal pressure to conform to the group's standards. Break the standards, and the acceptance is withdrawn.
This is particularly the case for the children of active Mormons. It is a terrible thing for a child to be faced with the choice of doing something that does not make sense (obeying Mormonism's many silly rules, for example) or losing a parent's approval and causing that loving parent great pain. And after flirting with disobedience, the relief that comes in terms of love and acceptance, and a removal of guilt, upon a return to obedience is hugely influential. In most cases, the child will obey when faced with this choice, perhaps after some experimentation with disobedience and the pain it causes.
Consistency
Social Theory
Contrary to popular belief, once a commitment has been made, the human tendency is to keep it. Restaurants find a much higher call back rate prior to no-shows on reservations when they change their request for notice of cancellation from "Please call if you have to change your plans", to "Will you call if you have to change your plans? (Then wait for the potential patron to say "yes").
Mormon Culture
Experienced Mormons are past masters of the "commitment pattern". It forms the backbone of the missionaries system. Worthiness interviews for temple recommends and other things are all about commitment. Testimony meetings, lesson teaching, talks, etc. are opportunities to make the commitment as public as possible. After a lifetime of this, huge barriers to change are erected in the lives of faithful Mormons.
My most recent experience with the Mormon use of the consistency factor comes in the form of the parade of speaking engagements my recently returned missionary son is on. Every week he speaks at least once at a ward or a fireside. He was asked a few days ago to speak at Stake Conference in a few weeks time. His mother thought it was because he is such a good speaker. Our Stake sends out a lot of missionaries. There are two Stake Conferences per year, and recent returned missionary speakers are a rarity. You do the math.
It seems clear that the more times my son stands up in public and confirms his beliefs to the community, and then gets lots of pats on the head, the further into the Mormon illusion he will be drawn. It is equally clear that the more often he goes through this process, the more resistant he will be to the well-known views of his apostate father. Am I to believe that it is a coincidence that he, among all of the potential speakers in the Stake, who is the current poster boy for resistance to apostasy, has been asked to speak at Stake Conference? This is all a part of the Church's "warfare" mentality, and whether it is part of a conscious or unconscious plan is not important to me.
Some LDS leaders have seriously, sincerely suggested to me that it inappropriately interferes with my son's "free agency" when I speak to him about my beliefs or suggest that he read things like "Guns, Germs and Steel" (1997 Pulitzer Prize winning book by the anthropologist Jared Diamond) and books that deal responsibly with Mormon history. And these same, seemingly sincere people believe that my son's agency is not interfered with by anything the Church causes him to do. It makes me feel sick wherever I think about this I can feel contentment-killing adrenaline starting to pump and so I had best stop writing about it.
Social Validation
Social Theory
The classic experiment involves one man standing on a crowded sidewalk looking up in the sky, at nothing. About 4% of those who pass him stop to look as well. If five men are planted to look at the sky, 18% stop. If 15 are planted, 40% stop and within a minute the streets are so clogged with people looking up in the air that traffic can't get through. So, if we want people to do what we ask of them, it helps to make them think that they are in good company.
Mormon Culture
The media campaigns show how happy and normal LDS families are. Testimony meetings and other public displays of faith illustrate what is normal fully committed belief and obedience to LDS authority. The public recognition bestowed on young men and women (but mostly young men) who serve missions puts a societal stamp of approval on this activity. The same applies to many other kinds of behavior. Mormons are seldom asked to do things that require individual initiative. The "choir" and the "beehive" are the paradigmatic Mormon metaphors.
While the article did not note this, it is only a short hop to the conclusion that the number of people stopping to look up in the air would likely be reduced if there were groups of other people standing nearby saying, "I've looked and there is nothing there. These folks are either playing a trick on us, or they are nuts." And it is human nature, once tricked, to quickly move along instead of calling attention to the fact that we have been tricked.
The Church's program of silencing those who would warn against the folly of looking at the sky makes sense if its main interest is in seeing how many people can be persuaded to look up, and continue to look up, regardless of what is (or is not) there. If the Church is about having its way with as many people as possible, we would predict that anything that works against people looking up would be resisted regardless of how well researched, reasoned or substantive it is. And so it is. This is why what a Mormon believes is largely irrelevant. But if he insists on communicating his heterodox beliefs to other people, that is a serious problem because it is likely to reduce the number of people who will stop and look at the sky.
Liking
Social Theory
We tend to say, "yes" to people we like. Tupperware and innumerable copycats have based hugely profitable businesses on this single fact friends buy from friends more willingly than from sales people. It is also well known that good-looking people are more successful in the sales professions than the less attractive. And people like us when we have something in common with them. Hence, the effort of sales people make to find a common denominator with their customers "You're from Minnesota?! My Mom was raised in
" "You lived on a farm!? When I was a kid,
" The addition of connecting factors of this kind (whether real or contrived) dramatically affects the probability of a sale being closed or the desired cooperation being offered.
Mormon Culture
Missionaries are well trained in this and many other sales techniques, including all of the simple indications that the salesman likes his customer, which engages the reciprocity response noted above.
The way in which the Mormon community lavishes attention on those who are new, or on the fringes is another use of this button. We all want attention, to be loved and accepted. We are inclined to do what those who provide us with those important goods ask. And for the faithful Mormon, the prospect of being recognized within the Mormon community as a non-believer is daunting. The more tight-knit and dominant the community is in his life, the more difficult a prospect this is. That is, the "not-liking" factor is as significant as the "liking" factor. The idea that community and family respect and acceptance, not to mention business and social opportunities, may be withdrawn if disbelief is expressed often motivates the maintenance of a comfortable faηade.
The goal of Mormonism (which it largely achieves) is to establish such a strong cultural connection among its members that "Mormonness" in and of itself is a strong connecting "liking" factor. This is what tribal and blood loyalty is all about. We are of the same group, and so we can trust each other more than other people because of all that we have in common. It amazes me how this works across cultures. In the past when I met people in Latin America or Asia while doing business, and found out that there was a Mormon in the group, we immediately bonded.
In modern Mormonism, the common denominators most often used to find converts are the human universals. "You love your kids?! Let me tell you how to REALLY love your kids!" "You love your family? Let me tell you how you can be with your family after death!" etc. Those targeted by Mormon missionary activities are those who have had a death in the family; those recently married; those who have recently had a baby; those who are new to the community; the young who are choosing their life's pattern; etc. In short, those who have destabilized by life's big events, and hence are more likely willing to consider a change in religious belief because they feel a need for one or more of the things Mormonism offers (clear answers to unanswerable questions, and hence temporary comfort from existential angst; a close knit, ready made community; etc.)
What is not to like about what we see in the MormonAds? Good looking people of all races who love their families and seem to always be deciding not to do things that take them in different directions, and instead go hang out and have fun together as a family. It is a great picture. And purely the creation of Madison Avenue. If there is one thing that the Church's general leaders understand, it is marketing.
Authority
Social Theory
It is well established that people respond positively to those who have an authoritative appearance. Just by changing the dress of a person making a request from casual to formal, the positive response rate increased by 350%. We tend to equate authoritative appearance with expertise. "Four out of five doctors recommend
". A highly successful ad in the 1970s featured the actor Robert Young (Dr. Marcus Welby, M.D.) proclaiming the health benefits of decaffeinated coffee. His apparent authority had significant impact. Such are the foibles of the human decision making process, and the nebulous nature of the boundary between reality and fantasy in our lives. This boundary fascinates me as I emerge from my Mormon illusion, and wonder how real my present perceptions will prove to be.
Mormon Culture
Why do 19-year-old pimply-faced boys wear those silly polyester suits while riding bicycles, etc.? Why do all priesthood holders (even in foreign cultures where this seems to make no sense) tend to wear white shirts and ties? Why are little boys trained to do things in this way? Why do the authority figures sit on a platform raised about the masses? Why are members encouraged to constantly refer to the wisdom of the leaders in their public expressions of faith? Why is it taboo to question the wisdom of the leaders? Why do Mormons emphasize the academic nature of those who write articles about the Book of Mormon and other religious matters, while claiming that it is a matter of faith in any event? I have heard it said the Hugh Nibley has sold more unread books than almost any other author, and believe that there is an element of truth to that. That fact that he wrote the books and is revered by other "smart" people is a kind of security blanket for many Mormons.
If there is one thing that the Mormon Church has down pat, it is the use of persuasive leverage that comes from the creation and exercise of authority.
Scarcity
Social Theory
Anything that is perceived to be scarce is more desirable. The rating of cafeteria food on campus goes up dramatically before the temporary closure of the cafeteria. This is why the "limited time offer" has become so common as to be meaningless. It is why (by my observation) the most successful money raisers for business projects are those who subtly and with credibility (but often falsely) indicate that they don't really need the money they are asking for, and that so many others want in that if the investor does not hurry she will not have the chance to participate. People like this fascinate me. They have the ability to believe 100% of the story they tell others, while to an objective observer like me who knows most of the story, it seems incredible. And these folks are not dumb. They are at the bright, articulate end of the spectrum. More "misrecognition" a la Bourdieu (See David Swartz, "Culture and Power: The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu").
Mormon Culture
This "scarcity" concept is near the backbone of religious cultures of all kinds. It is impossible to test drive a religion and decide on the basis of reliable experience that one after life is better than another. However, if the public can be convinced that one religion has a monopoly on divine contact and knowledge (the "prophet" concept), nothing else has to be proved.
During times when there was little cultural interaction, the idea that one religion was "right" and all others were "false" was unknown. This idea became part of human culture as peoples intermingled and the religious "professionals" had to differentiate themselves from each other in a competitive environment. The Hebrews or Zoroastrians seem to be the first to have used it. Thus, the idea that one god was more real than others, and hence one religion more real than others, or one religion was more connected to the real god than the others, came into being.
Within Mormonism we find many "scarcity" ideas. One of the most powerful is that if you want to live after death with your family in a place too wonderful to describe (something most people would want), there is only one way to get that by being a fully obedient Mormon. This is a very scarce good. Mormonism has a complete monopoly over it as a result of being god's "one true church", the only church that has a prophet who still communicates directly with god as a result of exclusive authority that has been handed down from prior, authorized representatives of god, starting with Joseph Smith. Countless religious leaders in many different communities have told variations this story innumerable times since the Hebrews or Zoroastrians first discovered how useful this idea was in the competitive marketplace for religious services.
Case Study: The Mormon Use of Emotive Experience
It is well established that the emotional range of human experience often dominates the rational. This is thought by some scientists to be due to the established fact that there are many more neural pathways leading from the brain's more primitive, emotional equipment (the hippocampus, amygdala, etc.) to its more recently developed, rational equipment (the cerebral cortex, etc.) than the other way around. Hence, when subjected to stimuli that ignite the brain's emotional structures, reason struggles to be heard. (See "Fear Not" by Rudiger Vaas, in "American Scientific Mind" vol. 14, no. 1, 2004, p. 69). This is particularly the case when dealing with phenomena that are not well understood. The feedback system from the rational the emotional structures in the brain can calm us down if we are confident that we "know" what is going on. Think, for example, of the terror an eclipse of the sun at one time caused. But when our emotions are excited, and we don't "know" why, we are engineered so that emotion usually trumps reason.
Mormon group activities provide many opportunities for sharing the emotional experience. Testimony meetings are particularly effective in this regard, and at the top of that spectrum are testimony meetings held at youth activities such as Stake and Regional Youth Conferences, and particularly those held at the Church sponsored Especially for Youth camps that run each summer. The EFY experience is orchestrated by people who adeptly create a highly charged emotional atmosphere. Other opportunities for emotional sharing and experience include the following: Teaching Sunday and other classes and bearing testimony (as is required as part of each lesson); Home and Visiting Teaching and the testimony bearing and sharing of personal experiences that are usually part of that process; leading youth and other activities (with its accompanying testimony bearing); daily attendance at Seminary for high school students with its exposure to emotive testimony bearing and other sharing activities; weekly (at least) attendance at Institute for university age young adults; and informal activities with friends that often involve the reinforcement of LDS values.
One of the common denominators of the above emotional experiences within Mormon culture is that the emotions that are created respecting one's family, friends, gratitude for life in general, reverence for the beauty of nature, etc. are all used by those responsible for the activities as further evidence that the LDS Church is god's one and only true Church. You love your family and have an emotional experience at a youth conference when you are helped to understand why they mean so much to you, and are told that you are feeling the "spirit", which means that "the Church is true". You meet a girl and have powerful feelings toward her while at a Church activity, and are told that this is because you may have been connected to her in some way in the pre-existence, which means that the "Church is true". The same thing is used respecting "special" investigators while in the mission field.
You read the Book of Mormon and something in it helps you to gain an insight into human behaviour. Despite the fact that the same thing happens regularly when you watch the Simpsons, you are told that this is evidence that the Book of Mormon is "true", each word is inspired by god, etc. and hence that "the Church is true". You feel anguish and excitement a powerful combination when your friends leave on their missions, and then feel relief when you decide to follow their example and go yourself. You are then told that this is the spirit communicating god's will to you and confirming that the Church is true. Three years later when you are finally reunited with your friends after your own mission, you feel great joy and are told that these feelings certify the divinely inspired nature of what you have done, and hence that the Church is true.
I spend some time with a loving man who happens to be the Patriarch in our Stake, and he says nice things about my potential and me. This makes me feel good, and I am assured that this is evidence that the Church is "true" and that its leaders must be obeyed. The good ladies of the Ward Relief Society brought my family a casserole while my wife was sick, so the Church is true. The Prophet told me to be a good father and husband, and told a cute story about his walnut tree to make the point memorable, so the Church is true. I was all stressed because it seemed that I was the only one of my family or friends who did not have a wonderful testimony, and so when I followed my church leaders' advice and in public bore my "testimony" that "I know the Church is true", even though I did not yet know or even believe that statement, I felt psychic relief, and that means the Church is true. This is how the Church does things.
The above list is potentially endless, so I may as well stop here. The point is that the Church creates many environments in which strong emotional experiences are likely to occur, and then uses classic magicians' misdirection cues to cause us to interpret these experiences to mean something the Church is true! that has nothing necessarily to do with the experiences in question. This process, in essence, provides experiences to us that we need and/or like, and then uses a combination of the psychological buttons noted above to persuade us to interpret those experiences to mean that we must obey LDS authority to continue to have access to them.
Here is a summary of the how the persuasion techniques apply in this context.
Reciprocation. We are provided with activities at which emotional experiences and community involvement that we like or need are provided to us. We respond by being more willing to do what the Church asks of us. We have been fed; it is our turn to feed. We have been served; it is our turn to serve. We have received spiritual benefits; we should pay tithing. Etc.
Consistency. Once we have borne our testimony in public even once, let alone many times, it is hard to behave in a manner that is inconsistent with the public position we have taken. The same thing is true of public prayer, and hence the missionaries focus on getting an investigator to pray in the presence of the missionaries.
Social Validation. The emphasis is on doing things together since it is easier to extract commitments from people. And it is important to control the validating messages the group sends. Hence, only those who will support the leadership's point of view will be permitted air time. And anyone who goes against that grain must be quickly silenced and then gutted from a credibility point of view.
Liking. The sharing of emotional experience creates strong bonds. These bonds make continued obedience to the norms that dominate the group that has shared this experience more likely. Hence, the trick from the Church's point of view is to control the dominant forces within the group.
Authority. The activities in question are authority oriented. The leaders are prominent participants, they are usually dressed for "power", and the activities are carefully controlled. Ideas do not come up form the bottom, as is the case in organizations that are trying to maximize the creation of knowledge and growth. They come down from the top, as the case in organizations where control and execution are the goal. This is the military paradigm, for example. The content of "testimonies" is highly controlled. Leaders set the tone for each sharing exchange. In relatively small group settings (such as Home and Visiting teaching) great effort is made to control the message content.
Scarcity. Mormons are taught that the powerful emotional experiences they find so attractive are only available through Mormonism. All other brands of spirituality are at least inferior, and in many cases completely counterfeit.
What Does the Mormon Use of Persuasive Tools Mean?
In my view, the Mormon "misdirection" of the run-of-the-mill emotional experiences we all should have performs a good part of the "misrecognition" function to which Pierre Bourdieu refers. As noted by David Swartz:
"Bourdieu takes his argument to a more general level by arguing that not only is all action interested [as in motivated by concerns related to advancing the personal or group interests of those who engage in the actions] but that much action can be carried out successfully only if its interested character goes "misrecognized". He argues that a great many practices [the behaviors required by social custom] could not be performed if they were recognized as emanating from the pursuit of self-interest. [Bourdieu wrote:] "The operation of the gift exchange [a social custom in a primitive group he studied that involved the regular giving of "gifts" that in the aggregate performed within this society the function of the market economy in ours], for example, presupposes individual and collective misrecognition of the
objective reality of the [gift] exchange. "
He went on to note that on the basis of the work of sociologists who calculate the statistical regularities of behaviour, it appears that the action of the gift exchange and other social practices occur on the basis that actors pursue their self-interest, although they will assure the sociologists and each other that self interest has nothing to do with their gift giving, for example, and will provide elaborate reasons for their behaviour that are unrelated to self interest. He then concludes:
"It is as if the actors conspire to conceal from their own eyes the self-interested character of their actions." (David Swartz, Culture and Power - The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu, p. 91)
Much the same could be said of many aspects of Mormon culture. Mormon behaviour only makes sense if the reality of the foundations of Mormonism and the reasons for many behaviors required by Mormonism are misrecognized.
Swartz also says:
"Bourdieu understands ideology, or symbolic violence, as the capacity to impose the means for comprehending and adapting to the social world by representing economic and political power in disguised, taken-for-granted forms. Symbolic systems exercise symbolic power "only through the complicity of those who do not want to know that they are subject to it, or even that they themselves exercise it". In using the term symbolic violence Bourdieu stresses how the dominated accept as legitimate their own condition of domination. But symbolic power is a legitimizing power that elicits the consent of both the dominant and the dominated." (David Swartz, Culture and Power: The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu, p. 89)
A full apprehension of Mormon foundations causes questioning in most cases of at least the connection of current Mormon leaders to the posited source of authority (god and his communication to Joseph Smith), and in many causes also causes questions respecting the nature or existence of god him/her/itself. And most importantly, it causes a questioning of the reasonableness of the exchange of present time, effort and other resources for a future good (life in the Celestial Kingdom, etc.) the existence of which depends wholly upon the word of one man who has a long history of deceptive, manipulative behavior when trying to elicit the cooperation of his followers, neighbors and peers.
So, the fact that Mormonism deftly touches all of the persuasion buttons does not indicate that Mormonism is evil. Rather, it is more evidence of the misrecognition pointed to by Bourdieu, and that Mormonism is human to its core.
The article reviewed by this essay notes that we are dealing with evolutionary phenomena when considering how persuasion tricks are used over time. Successful sales people tend to use these tricks well. If they did not, they would not survive in the long term unless their product were so superior that it sold itself. This is seldom the case in the long term with any organization.
Interestingly, Mormons claim that their success as a church is the result of a superior product, not the use of the persuasion tools described above. How often have we heard something like, "If the Church weren't true, the missionaries would have destroyed it long ago!" That statement misses the point respecting missionary work. Its primary purpose is to commit the missionaries, and their families and other acquaintances (to the extent possible), to "the cause". For such a commitment to exist, there must be a cause. The profile missionary work is given within Mormonism creates just such a cause. This is like the annual "mega trip" for a scout troop. It is the "big tournament" for the ball team. It is the "takeover", "strategic alliance" or "new corporate vision" in the business world. Without such unifying focal points, organizations die. The duty to convert the entire world through the use of 19-year-old kids, and the energy that is created through the mere attempt to do this (no matter how objectively futile it is), is much of what keeps the Mormon church humming along from one generation to another.
Organizations that have survived for a long time must have done what was necessary to persuade many of the legitimacy of their position. Mormonism has been around for a long time. There are two possible explanations for that, with a continuum between them. The first is that what the Mormon Church teaches is true. The second is that the Mormon Church has become adept at using the techniques of persuasion.
As should already be clear, it is my view that the Church adeptly used the psychology and sociology of persuasion. And it is also clear to me that the Church's main foundational claims are have a high probability of being false. See http://www3.telus.net/public/rcmccue/bob/spirituality.htm for a summary of my views in that regard.
Nonetheless, the Church has become a large enough social force in many places that it meets many human needs for community interaction, support, encouragement, meaning, etc. Mormon communities are supportive, loving places for those who conform to the Mormon way. In effect, obedience to the Mormon rules (including perhaps most importantly that the leadership not be questioned) is an entry price to be paid for inclusion in a warm, inward looking, and in many ways comfortable, community. And Mormonism provides clear, superficially understandable, answers to many of life's most vexing questions. The more uncertain the times and poorly informed the people, the more attractive this is likely to be. And I will admit that in some cases, Mormonism has no doubt lifted people from a worse place to something better. This may, however, be a Faustian bargain since the Mormon Church's apparent objective is not to help its members seek the best possible connection to reality and the individual improvement this will bring over time, but rather to become a stronger organization. This often places it at odds with its followers' interests respecting the distribution of information about itself and the reality of which it is part.
And hence, the question of the legitimacy of the Church's use of persuasion techniques is fairly called into question. In his recent book, "An Insider's View of Mormon Origins", Grant Palmer (a former director of an LDS Church Education System Institute of Religion), for example, indicated that it was well past time that Mormons stopped telling each other fairy tales about their religious foundations. Palmer also questioned the morality of inducing anyone to join the Church based on the misleading half-truths contained in the missionary discussions. And Dr. Cialdini, the author of the article this essays reviews, offers some concluding comments respecting the legitimacy, or ethical quality, of differing approaches to the use of the persuasive techniques he described.
Dr. Cialdini notes that in most cases it will be in our interest to deal with people who like us, to keep our word, to respect authority, to carefully consider the opinion of the majority, etc. He posits that evolution will hence have built the psychological buttons described above into us for good reason. And if those who use the media and other means to provide us with messages do so ethically (focusing on legitimate, scientific or other data to persuade us to use a drug, for example), all participants in the exchange will be better off. The ad agency will be paid for creating an effective ad. The drug company will sell a useful drug. Many people who can benefit from the drug will use it, etc. However, what about the many cases in which people around us touch our buttons in ways that will work in their interest, but not in ours? What about those who product is of dubious utility, but through the use of authoritative spokesmen, ingratiating and good looking salespeople, etc., manage to take large amounts of our time and money in exchange for something that does not work?
Dr. Cialdini tells us that "knowledge is power". He indicates that as we understand more about how our buttons work, and become more sensitive as to when and how they are pushed, we will become less susceptible to manipulation by others. Our duty is to look behind what we are told; to ask for proof of claims made; and to be suspicious of those who would push our buttons without providing credible proof. And we should punish those who we find to have untruthfully used the techniques of persuasion by at a minimum withdrawing our support from them. The better we become at playing this game, the less often we will be tricked into saying yes, and the more often we will be informed or educated to the point of making decisions with which we are likely to be happy in the long term.
The article concludes with this beautiful, tongue in cheek, illustration of emotional button pushing:
"Surely, someone with your splendid intellect can see the unique benefits of this article. And because you look like a helpful person who would want to share such useful information, let me make a request. Would you buy this issue of the magazine for 10 of your friends? Well, if you can't do that, would you show it to just one friend? Wait, don't answer yet. Because I genuinely like you, I am going to throw in at absolutely no extra cost a set of references that you can consult to learn more about this little-known topic."
Now will you voice your commitment to help?
Please recognize that I am pausing politely here. But while I am waiting, I want you to feel totally assured that many others just like you will certainly consent. And I love that shirt you're wearing.
As I typed that last paragraph I was reminded of a letter I received not long ago from Jeffrey Holland in reply to a letter I sent to him. (See http://www3.telus.net/public/rcmccue/bob/documents/holland%20-%20first%20letter.pdf and http://www3.telus.net/public/rcmccue/bob/documents/holland%20-%20second%20letter.pdf for my letters to him). His letter was warm, complimentary, full of emotion, and completely non-substantive. It adroitly touched most of the buttons referenced above, and as a result drew the second, much longer, letter from me. No response to that letter has been received to date.
I do not doubt Elder Holland's sincerity or his good nature. But he is a product of an institution that is virtually sure to overcome the puny efforts of any one man, no matter how good or well intentioned. And his words can only be understood in their institutional context, which I have attempted to describe in part above. Unfortunately, I must conclude that the copious use in his letter to me of techniques of persuasion was illegitimate even immoral. He unwittingly (I will grant him that) sought to cause me to suspend my request for legitimate reasons for the Church's poor behaviour across a wide range of issues by pushing my emotional buttons. He did not address any of the substance of my concerns.
In my dealings with others respecting the Mormon Church and in all other ways, it is my goal to follow Dr. Cialdini's advice with respect to the ethical use of persuasive technique. He concluded his article with these words:
"
as long as we [distinguish between manipulation and principled persuasion in] our own attempts to influence others, we can legitimately commission the six principles. In seeking to persuade by pointing to the presence of genuine expertise, growing social validation, pertinent commitments or real opportunities for cooperation, and so on, we serve the interests of both parties and enhance the quality of the social fabric in the bargain."
There is an objective worth pursuing. Regrettably, most Mormons do not know enough about their faith to discharge this burden. This is one of many fundamental flaws (or virtues, depending on your point of view) of the Mormon missionary and "perfecting the Saints" system. The members, as well as the missionaries, are ignorant of the real story, and so are capable of giving emotional testimony to misleading half-truths, and incapable of making appropriate use of authority, validation, etc. when they communicate they message to others. In short, they are utterly unreliable sources of information about Mormonism. Grant Palmer is, in effect, calling the Church to repentance in this regard.
The Church's leaders' examples are discouraging on this front. Elders Packer and Oaks have been on the record for many years advocating the telling of misleading half-truths. See http://www3.telus.net/public/rcmccue/bob/documents/come%20clean.pdf for a summary. And while Elder Holland is about as good as it gets in my expectation and experience, his response to me falls far short of ethical behaviour in my view.
Conclusion
The better our connection to reality, the better off we are likely to be both in terms of avoiding deception ourselves, and ethically using our persuasive powers with others. If the Church will not help its members to connect to reality, they will have to look elsewhere for that assistance. This is what I have done. And now that the Church is subjected to the same scrutiny in my life that any potential provider of goods or services would be, and I have found it to be at the far end of unethical part of the spectrum in its use of persuasive techniques. This is not because Mormons are bad, or its leadership evil. It is because it has been allowed for far too long to operate without being called to account for its deceptive practises, and so many have lost their way. They "misrecognize" the nature of their experience.
As more Mormons become more connected to reality, some have begin to call for an accounting from their religious leaders with respect to what are in fact deceptive practises. I am one of that growing chorus.
veritas
Post Edited (12-23-03 13:41)
|
|
