Chapter Twelve: Navigating Abuse Of Power/ Manipulative Games
Part Two: Manipulative Games People Play
Reading:
Beltran, S. (2005). “The international protection of human rights versus groups employing psychological manipulation”. International Journal of Human Rights, 9(3), 285-305.
Key Dilemma of Part Two:
Given that all of us may have used manipulative games for personal gain or to protect ourselves, how can we avoid this practice when it is so deeply engrained in our mainstream culture?
Review of List of Navigation Strategies for Seemingly Intractable Conflicts, Differences, and Dilemmas:
Example to help us work through this dilemma:
The phenomena of “fake news” directly engages the level of perceived media manipulation in many modern cultures. When we distrust news sources, whose articles and editorials do not line up with our beliefs and perceptions, then we can easily accuse them of being fake news. There are websites, such as Snopes.com that analyze news against the available evidence. However, people are often too busy, distracted, or unmotivated to dig deeply into news stories and editorials. The dilemma is that without a common sense of factual news and opinion, we become more divided and fragmented as a society, breaking our social contracts with each other, and drifting into a war of “all against all,” as Hobbes suggested was the condition of a state of nature.
Questions:
1. How is dishonesty as central to game-playing?
Manipulative games are based on the notion that, by being dishonest, one can trick others into losing power, status, or money. When a confidence artist (con-man) gains a victim’s trust by playing a game, the deception can lead the victim into giving the con-man what the con-man wants. The gain for the con-man is a loss for the victim. Whether the con-man is a street hustler, a loan shark, or a huckster sending out robo-calls, the key tactic is dishonesty, along with ill-intent.
However, manipulative games can be more subtle than con-jobs. Friend, spouses, family members, neighbors, coworkers, bosses, and even church members can play manipulative games to get what they want. Perhaps they do not know how to honestly seek what they want, or they doubt that they will succeed by directly asking for it. Or, as in romantic situations, they are embarrassed to ask directly for something they desire.
2. What other manipulative games do disputants play?
–Bullying as a War Game: Bullying is a heavy-handed tactic to win a dispute:
(Liu, Min (2016) People Games at Work) (Liu, Min (2017) People Games
—Gossip/Disinformation: If disputants are intent on winning disputes, they can spread rumors about other disputants in an effort to undermine the other disputants’ character, credibility, or viewpoint on the conflict at hand. For example, “Those disputants are just doing what the union wants them to do.”
—Character Assassination/Social Exclusion: When disputants have their character assassinated, they can be socially excluded, which will provide more pressure on them to capitulate to the interests of the character assassin. For example, “I know that they have lied and that they are not to be trusted, and now they are going to argue that I’m at fault.”
—Marketing as Bullying: Selling one’s viewpoint as a way of undermining other disputants’ viewpoints. Some people are excellent at marketing their viewpoint to the disadvantage of other disputants’ viewpoints. For example, “Here are all of the reasons why my position is stronger than theirs.”
—Propaganda: A key justification for lying is at the core of all propaganda is that “everybody lies, so why not do it.” Of course the casualty of this view is that the truth dies. For example, “Our lies need to be more believable than theirs.”
—Blame/Insults/Putdowns/Intimidation/Threats: These overt bullying tactics can be successful when bystanders do nothing to support the targeted people. For example, “See, you have no allies, as everyone is quiet.”
—Hard-Edged Dominance/Submission: When disputants aggressively remind other disputants that they have power over them, the power difference will emerge within the dispute process, as well as the “agreement” reached. For example, “Regardless of how this dispute process turns out, I’m still your boss and can control your future.”
—You Can’t Win: When disputants are made to feel that, regardless of the outcome of the collaborative process, there will be unpleasant consequences back at the family, circle of friends, community, or workplace. For example, “Think about how this will play out amongst your peers?”
—You Owe Me: Disputants can leverage other disputants by reminding them that they are owed a favor. For example, “I helped you out last year, now it is your turn to help me out.”
—Gotcha: Disputants can change the focus of the dispute to some mistake that the other side has made, reducing their credibility. For example, “You are just trying to get even for all the times that you have been late.”
Soft Ways to Win a Dispute: Subtle undermining pressure that is not overt bullying:
(Liu, Min (2016) People Games at Work) (Liu, Min (2017) People Games)
— White Lies: A lie that are said to “protect someone’s feelings” can be a subtle condescension that undermines a disputant’s character. For example, “You have made a great case for your side, but I can’t help but think that you have been misled.”
— Passive Lies: When bystanders allow disputants to be misled, the disputants are being subtly undermined. When bystanders continue to allow these distortions to go uncorrected, they become part of the undermining process. For example, “Maybe he is right about her memory slipping.”
—Uncorrected Mistakes: Sometimes, disputants circulate mistaken information about other disputants. If bystanders do not correct these mistakes, they undermine the targeted disputants’ positions and interests. For example, “Is it really worth the risk to correct that mistake?”
—Hidden or Delayed Information: When important information needed to resolve a dispute is hidden, delayed, or “lost,” the disputants who need this information are disadvantaged. Full transparency is needed to fairly resolve a dispute or conflict. For example, “We have been trying to locate those documents, but they seem to have been misfiled.”
—Rhetorical Devices: Some disputants will create a compelling narrative to support their positions and interests. Less creative disputants are disadvantaged by this tactic. For example, “This conflict has a long history, let me tell you the story…”
—Status-Driven Dominance/Submission: When disputants subtly remind other disputants that they have power over them, the power difference will emerge within the dispute process, as well as the “agreement” reached. For example, “Yes, I’m your boss, but I want you to feel free to say anything that you feel you need to say.”
—Appealing to Emotions: Disputants may try to get leverage over other disputants by appealing to their loyalty to family, friendship, community, or workplace. For example, “Good neighbors are sensitive to the noise they make at night.”
—Question Competence: Disputants can subtly undermine other disputants by questioning their depth of knowledge on the subject in dispute. For example, “Do you really understand the complexity of this dispute?”
—Playing Dumb: Disputants can deflect blame by claiming ignorance of the issues that are core to the dispute. For example, “I didn’t know that any of that was going on.”
—Playing the Victim: Disputants can make a case that they are the more aggrieved party in the dispute at hand. For example, “I’m the real victim here, not you.”
—Change the Subject: Disputants can change the subject to through off the conflict process. For example, “This conflict is really about something that happened long ago.”
—Appealing to Logic: Disputants can try to use logic to overpower emotions. For example, “Your feelings are getting in the way of your ability to calmly think this through.”
—Manipulate the Situation, the Person –in-charge, or the Mediator: Playing charmingly innocent is a great way to convince a boss or mediator that you had no idea that you were being unfair to others. Disputants can immediately pledge to do better, in an effort to “put this all behind us.” As I write this, Joe Biden is using this defense against those who have accused him of unwanted touching. To get his campaign for the presidency back on track, he needs to claim his innocence. He was just being affectionate and connecting with women.
3. How do we overcome the various ways that power can tilt the balance of a conflict process towards the interests of the powerful?
The process facilitator needs to be sensitive to the way power can undermine a fair conflict process. To do this, the facilitator needs to watch body language, tone of voice, who talks the most, and who is quiet. Also, if the facilitator senses that power is distorting the process, a private meeting with the suspected victims of power needs to be held in order to strategize how to get the process back on an even keel.
Disputants need to seek support from others in order to gain power, so that a conflict process can become evenly balances. This support can come from coworkers, friends, relatives, neighbors, advocacy groups, religious leaders, and psychotherapists. Union representatives or grievance committee members can also supply support
Individual or group counseling can help disputants learn skills so that they can better advocate for themselves or for issues of fairness and justice.
