The Mechanics and Consequences of Boundary Expression
Expressing our limits impacts our relationships
When we think of announcing a decision, rejecting an unwanted solicitation often comes to mind. Everybody can relate to saying “no” to a salesman. We do, however, also express our limits when we ask someone to do something for us, or with us. In this case, the request we make expresses our limits. Ex: “Will you give me a hand with that couch?” So all our requests, all influence we hope to have with others implies a statement of our personal boundaries. In fact, we have come to value ourselves and to regard others by how we say yes or no, and how we react to hearing yes or no. So, the way we have learned to express our limits is a fundamental constant in all our relationships.
Interaction between people who have known each other over time is, of course, not simple communication. Two people who have developed a workable understanding with one another communicate using a rich, varied and subtle orchestra of intentions, looping emotional interplay and unstated agreements. The methods they use and the influences that result will not be readily apparent to an outside observer. So when we study real life situations, the way individuals express their limits is rich, varied, and rarely direct.
Willful Boundary Expression- the play for influence
When we draw a line, and stand firm, it has real meaning for us. Adolescents reach for adulthood by struggling with their choices. And how those around us respond to our decisions will continue to define us throughout our lives. Our boundary expression is central to growing up. As children, we try all the avenues, from pleading with someone we see as stronger, to threatening the weak. The playground is a jungle of experimental control, a test bed for learning how we fit in the mix of relational aggression that we experience in the early days of school. On the threshold of adulthood, becoming settled within ourselves will, in large part, depend on how socially adept we have become. Growing up means learning about ourselves, as well as others. We begin to sort out the difference between the challenges of life, and the internal awareness that, if looked after, will bring joy and fulfillment to the engaging of those challenges. This inner awareness is what we call personal power, and it comes from looking inside, and by doing so, learning to moderate our responses. Ultimately, it is our personal power that will internally align us with unfolding conditions in the present moment.
When one has developed a set of habits, a practice that grows their personal power and centers their presence they become able to express themselves from the center. From the center, then, one simply states their intentions, desires and limits, not expecting cooperation, but rather with an authentic inquiry into whether the other’s intentions, desires and limits are a good match for mutual cooperation. Of course, everyone has a good day, when events lead to insight, and the words come out right. Such moments give us hope, and point to the true potential of our strength together. In order to remain in the center of the expression range, however, one must develop a centered presence, a presence that recognizes imbalances when they occur, and makes allowances. Such methods are not available to most of us, however. When we are stirred up, we simply react. The moment feels urgent, and the sought-after result feels deeply needed, while the unwanted result seems dire. When in reaction, we go into automatic, and we express ourselves in ways that are most familiar to us. We go back to what we know best. We go back to the playground.
In later moments of reflection, we often regret such exchanges. Sometimes we try to clean them up with apologies, and promises. But, as compelling as events may seem, this unpleasantness does not come from outside circumstances. Our source of worry is really not the life around us, it is how we take that life, how it impinges on us internally. That habitual cringing, and related blame, can only be uncovered by what we call meta-cognition. When we become the observer of our own internal condition, as that condition changes in moments of duress, we begin to grow our personal power. Such an effort cannot be undertaken lightly, and the effort must be sustained. Self-reflection requires regular practice.
Needless to say, such work is not a popular course. Most of us are not centered, that is, we are awash in anxiety, which often triggers us into awkward knee jerk reactions to the conflicts we face. Without a steady center, we feel pressed. We perceive the present challenge with an urgency that drives us to ‘play for influence’ with our spouse, our family, our friends, in all aspects of our lives. Too pressed to merely inquire into finding cooperation, and insensitive to the strains we have visited upon our relationships, we go for control. The kind of control we are talking about here is pervasive in the modern world. Everybody does it… until they grow out of it. Our attempts to influence sometimes take on the meek face of the underplayed, looking cute or pitiful. Sometimes it is in your face, and backed up by a history of violence. Rather than simply say what we want, we use the tools of emotional manipulation to exert control over another.
Before proceeding, I want you to know that describing this behavior is not meant to pass judgment, in some broader sense, on any person. We own our behavior, but one facet of our being does not, of course, describe who we are, or what are potential truly is. This is important to say, because when we begin to recognize how prevalent manipulation is around us, we must not let this knowledge cause us to dismiss someone. Seeing just how much control people use in their relationships could become discouraging, but with this understanding, we can sort out the influences in our lives, find authentic cooperation, and develop relationships that become sustainable.
The Spectrum of Emotional Manipulation
‘Plays for influence’ are attempts to manipulate another’s emotions. So manipulation is a chorus of gesture and word, presented by one person and activated within another. The activation is one of many responses the target person might have, largely shaped by their own proclivities and present mood. Sometimes control is front and center, coming from a person who may be identified as a leader, and in the habit of giving orders. For most of us, however, we do not choose to control others. Feeling overwhelmed and unsupported, we often fall into a kind of powerless desperation, because they are unable to stand and be seen. In our weakness, we campaign to get our way, and in the face of resistance, we press on. This is no small issue. Manipulation thwarts authentic connection and breeds social confusion. When we are not centered, because we have no reflective practice, the uninvited influences that parade through us remain unexamined, and therefore effective. Locked in this tug of war, filled with an anxiety that garbles perception, one experiences relationship with others as a jumble of ploys, intrigues and drama.
The unsettling nature of willful influence has not, however, slowed its common use. Remaining popular in practice, manipulation has developed a social cachet. Irresistible influence has become romanticized as mysterious and intriguing. Movies and public life often associate bold plays with strength and cleverness. Such misdirected idealism is perpetuated by a large population segment of emotionally arrested ‘leaders’ who are focused on developing effective influence, coupled with a stunning disregard for the long-term effects. Many members of this segment, though inauthentic and inwardly insecure, nonetheless have learned the customs and superficial graces of society. Socially adroit and driven, their rise to prominence by these methods continues to fuel the foolish notion that insensitivity is a requirement of modern life. Their apparent success comes from the simple fact that to effectively manipulate others, one has to have achieved a certain degree of social awareness. One needs to know their subject, that is, to have a working knowledge of the other’s own motivation and self-image.
Manipulation between peers is a prevalent method for advancing one’s social status. Envied leaders everywhere employ social control through relational aggression. Cunningly drawn alliances, purposeful gossip and schemes that sell slick appearances are endemic in corporate life. In this arena, plays for influence are simply considered to be the common ground. Even when power plays are openly pursued, the way emotional control works is necessarily shrouded, to insure its effectiveness. If, on the other hand, we pull the lid off of this mechanism of manipulation, we will see how it works, and how unwise it’s use really is. Let’s start with some common methods that stir up the adversary so effectively that they give in.
The tools of context that make influence effective
First of all, manipulation requires feedback to really work. With feedback, the presentation goes from being a single-stroke effort into a campaign of influence. Not simply the correct delivery of words and tone, the ongoing presentation is continually redirected while the signs of affect are being looked for in the other. If the desired effect is not forthcoming, initial statements can be reiterated with an adjusted tone of emphasis, or the approach entirely switched to one of three other directions, that is, different combinations of word and tone. Effective manipulation requires reading the target’s feedback accurately enough to decide when to press and when to fade, sometimes planting the seeds of influence for later, sometimes urging a conclusion.
Urging the other to rush their decision is one common component of the presentation. For undue influence to work, often the target needs to accept the presenter’s time frame. In this case, the subject must believe that they have a small window of time to act, before things get worse. Of course, the reason for such insistence is to force the target into acting before they can regain their composure. If the emotional effect of the presentation has time to wear off, they might come to a more settled, a more fully considered decision. So a tone of urgency often accompanies a play for influence.
Manipulation works best with a known target. Certainly a stranger can be threatened or begged for money somewhat effectively. The vast majority of plays for influence, however, occur between friends and associates. It is within these ongoing relationships that the real depths of undue influence are mined. In fact, forcefully overcoming the objections of casual acquaintances is a little spotty compared to aiming your will at your family and close friends, who you know best. This, of course, includes knowing full well who not to try it on.
Finally, exerting influence depends on the target accepting a value judgment from the presenter. The statement of value is implied, not stated, but nonetheless present. Sometimes, though, the value statement is delivered clearly, when coming from the direction of patronizing, in the form of flattery. The value statement is necessarily obscure, however, if the direction of detached is taken. Here, snubbing, or simply avoiding tells the other that they are not worth bothering with, or one of many oblique variations on that theme. The motivating emotions that well up, regardless of the tactic used, come from accepting the presenter’s value judgment of themselves. This judgment does not address behavior, but rather seeks to reduce the target’s own assessment of their worth as a person.
The most skillful tacticians set up the presentation with anecdotes that evoke an unspoken feeling of inadequacy in the subject. This is equally true whether the target accepts the presentation with a positive or negative regard. That is, they either judge the presenter to have interests that match their own, or not. In well-defined relationships, these reminders of shortcomings are conjured up and fixed to simple associations, so that later, clearing the throat, or an off-kilter nod can prepare the target for the coming play. This repeated reminder of judgments given and accepted is in large part why manipulation is effective. At the same time, it is one of many destructive components of the practice.
Understanding how manipulation works will be a study in unintended consequences, for the most part. Most of us look back on the playground as long ago and far away. We think we have left that unadorned selfishness in the past, and have now become ‘civilized’. We don’t see how we react, because we didn’t openly learn our habits of expression in the first place. Most people have little direct experience with their own mechanism of emotional response, because those connections lie within ourselves, a place where looking has, for them, little apparent value. We learned to manipulate by having the tricks pulled on us, and remembering how it feels. We remember how effective it was, and so, when threatened, we intuitively work to evoke that feeling in the other. All of it remains unstated, operating in the background, behind good intentions and idealized outcomes.
But of course, there are ‘the professionals’, who know exactly what they are doing. They deliberately train themselves to learn the ways. Often they read Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, and Robert Greene, combing the pages for new ways to get a leg up. In the extreme, some have deliberately sacrificed their humanity for control, and, if asked, their reasons are certainly thought out. These authoritarians think they provide the world with leadership, when really they are walking public service announcements for the deleterious effects of unmitigated control: an embedded harsh facial expression, a bleak outlook, and no rest. Once we make the connection between how we get our way and the way we feel, we can look at those who press on, and let the outcomes they live help us with our own choices.
The unexamined deleterious effects of manipulation
All manipulation causes anxiety in both parties. It actually requires anxiety in order to work. Ex: anxiety of desperation to control; anxiety of being pressured to act. Consequently, its use is always corrosive to the relationship. Manipulation thwarts any authentic expression of limits. That’s the point of its use, and another aspect of its destructiveness. Habitual control and its resulting dependency, if continued, will eventually lock the two parties into a clenched and static disregard for each other’s unstated needs. All plays for influence, even weak, meager ones, create resentment in the target of influence. At the same time, the success of many such plays begins to accumulate in the presenter as unbridled willfulness, even when their play of choice is for sympathy. The result is mistrust and alienation all around. Even if the other responds with high positive regard, the effect is still an obstacle to genuine connection. The compliment and the insult, though they feel different and occur under different social circumstances, have the same roots in manipulation. They both set the presenter up to assume an elevated, inauthentic judgmental role, while the target assumes a reduced, inauthentic subjugated role.
The understandable resistance to letting go of controlling others
People cling to the control they have developed in their family and social life. Willful influence becomes more than a habit of expression, it turns into a dependency. Yet, ingrained as such detrimental habits may be, a natural shift can occur when the real consequences become clear. Willful influence is, after all, an exhausting personal burden, and a barrier to authentic connection with others, authentic support from others. When we drop the tactics and let our needs come to light, expressed directly from the center of our being, we create an atmosphere of emotional safety. We make room for our relationships to flourish. Yet, even though the benefits to abandoning control are great, there is an understandable resistance to making the shift.
The greatest resistance to believing that such a change is practical, or even possible, comes from a personal vision that cannot see life beyond control. This holds equally for dedicated victims as well as dedicated aggressors, (remembering that some element of both traits surface in all who are not centered). From the perspective of an individual with some accomplished influence, dropping the willful edge to their expression sounds bleak and hopeless. They may very well question whether there would be any point or passion left in a life that didn‘t prompt action in both themselves and others. This lack of perspective comes from being driven, by adapting to a life of being driven, a frantic life that makes no room for deep and considered action, or moments or simply being.
So this is not, after all, a tutorial on manipulation. The descriptive text and brief examples that follow are meant to summon up a cautionary vision. Taken at face value, the isolating consequences uncovered in these pages could make a person reject the concept of emotional exploitation. Such an intellectual conclusion would hold promise, but it would be, however, a far cry from taking a probing look at one’s own personal habits. Making an honest appraisal of how we go about getting our way will only come as the fruit of a self-reflective practice. If such an internal study causes us to draw back from our familiar methods, then a serious rejection of undue influence may take place. This brief offering is dedicated to those who are willing to work for this more enduring alternative.
Guidelines to the Chart of Boundary Expression
click on image to see full chart
In a setting of fun and play, people take on a form of light expression. Having no agenda, that is, without willful intentions, their words are formed spontaneously, effortlessly, and more or less unselfconsciously. In this setting, even words of request remain simple and obvious. Ex: “Hand me the towel, would you?
The following guidelines will focus on the other theater of communication, the expression of boundaries, or limits. This is where our outreach really counts, where outcomes are to be taken seriously. In these settings, we use a great deal more than sentence construction to let our stance be known, we play for influence. The willful attempt to influence another should not be construed as necessarily mean-spirited, or even performed with conscious intent. Without a practice of self-reflection, the presenter will simply engage in the habitual, reflexive methods that have yielded results in the past, with only superficial awareness of their effect on others, and certainly without an awareness of the long-term consequences. So how does this actually work? What are the directions these presentations can take? And where do they lead?
The four directions a play for influence may take
The chart above covers the range of options available to the presenter when he plays for influence with another. To simplify this description, the person voicing their limits will be referred to as Able, someone compelled to state their position: the presenter. The person who this statement is directed to will be called Tom, someone who, for reasons of his own, is entertaining Able’s suggestion: the target of influence. Click on the chart to look over the complete set of relationships at play. Please note that this is not a Cartesian graph, where up and to the right are positive, down and to the left are negative. Here, any emotional effect registered away from the center (whether taken with either positive or negative regard) is a manipulation that creates distress.
The word and tone axes divide the chart into quadrants, each one representing one specific combination of word clarity and tone intensity. Together, the four quadrants reveal the choices Able has available when attempting to influence Tom. Each of these combinations of word and tone has the potential to produce an emotional reaction in Tom. So Able, pursuing self-interest, looks for the effect of this reaction in Tom, and hopes to unduly influence Tom to cast aside his limits, without a full consideration of his own interests, therefore deciding in favor of Able. So Able will first consider Tom’s likely acceptance, then choose one particular direction and intensity for his presentation. The chart, therefore, represents the full breadth of tactics available for any play for influence.
The message and emphasis together form Able’s presentation
The manner in which Able actually attempts to influence Tom is by delivering a two-part presentation. Half of every presentation consists of the words used. Words are chosen, not merely to convey a message, but are meant to trigger, to anticipate a specific emotional impact. The range of their intensity comes from how sharp or hazy the message is meant to be, how it states a conflict while implying an emotional climate the presenter wishes to frame the conflict within.
The other half of every presentation is the emphasis. The emphatic aspect reinforces the framed emotional climate created by the word choice. The emphasis half is described as voice tone. More than tone, however, is involved. Emphasis is conjured up from body language, gestures, facial expression- actually the whole person summons a coordinated emphasis. Together, message and emphasis weave a focused presentation that is meant to have a specific emotional impact on its target, and thus a predictable effect on their subsequent action.
The descriptive limitations of the chart
When looking over the chart, the labels used will need to be accepted as inherently imprecise. If taken literally, the words chosen to represent the extremes of Able’s presentation and Tom’s response can be confusing. On close examination, they become ambiguous, the selected word having several connotations, and no supporting text. The English language, or any language, does not have the precision required to so narrowly describe such subtleties. Describing intention and emotional impact is the province of poets, and they use a constellation of phrases to home in on one particular play for influence, hinted at here by a single word. The chart is, therefore only an approximation. We should not put too much stock in the labels that cursorily identify the directions a presentation may take. This visual summation remains undiminished, however, in providing an accurate depiction of the underlying principles of manipulation, and in describing an overview of the full field of tactics upon which these influences are brought to bear.
Tom’s regard for Able and the play for influence
click on image to see full chart
The chart to the left describes the range of possible responses Tom could have to Able’s play for influence. Tom’s response will, of course, be entirely subjective. Tom’s response depends on his own habits, resources and experience, his self-image, his relationship to Able, his present mood and, of course, the timing and setting of the presentation itself. All of these together form Tom’s regard for the presentation. Because of the many factors that can influence the intensity and direction of Tom’s response, the subject’s regard becomes complex. Several unknowable variables may make a casual acquaintance wholly unpredictable during a presentation. Those same factors, however, when understood by a socially adept person who has had more than a glimpse at Tom, could very well make their presentation predictably effective.
Regard determines the way Tom actually experiences the presentation, long before there is a response from him. Regard is the guiding emotional climate within Tom that will be a co-factor in his eventual response. As the presentation gets underway, Tom will either ‘move with’ the anxiety produced, and therefore ignore it, or Tom will clinch up with the anxiety produced, and therefore acknowledge it. This physical component of Tom’s response will be referred to as regard. Positive or negative regard manifests from the social context Tom places on the presentation. The regard, though a physical manifestation, originates in associative memory, because Tom’s experience determines how he judges the context of Able’s play.
It is important to note that positive regard in no way diminishes the harmful effects of the presentation. The regard is only Tom’s intuitive orientation for Able’s motives. So the very same presentation of avoiding, for instance, can evoke opposite charges. Positive ex: He is absent, but he is a very busy man.” Negative ex: “He is shunning me. He thinks he is so important.” Though interpreted with opposite regard, both responses create anxiety. Tom’s regard determines whether he will have an open or a suppressed resentment for the presentation, but the anxiety and resentment are still present for either one. Whether Tom actually succumbs to the influence is, of course, completely separate from whether he regards the presentation as positive or negative. Ex: Threats may be abhorred, but the demands nevertheless acceded to. On the other hand, an appeal may be embraced, its merit acknowledged, but then turned down. Also, the degree of Tom’s response is not equivalent to the severity of Able’s expression. Even calm statements can trigger explosive reactions, while Able’s most vehement presentation might leave Tom unmoved.
Presentations that Change Direction
The six short scenes included here show how some presentations can be more narrowly targeted, and thus made more effective, by including another direction. Each pair of adjoining quadrants can be used together, if the attributes they share match the intent of the presentation better than pushing in a single direction might. Each direction of the willful push shares a few attributes with the other three, as each also contains attributes that are different. So each scene focuses on the shared attributes of two specific quadrants, and how those tactics can be combined effectively. Also, tactics can be combined together in a variety of ways, such as jumping from one to the other, to overcome objections mixing the value judgments of two at once, or showing one tactic to one person and a different one to another, in a group setting.
In Betty’s scene, she presents one specific direction to her mother, until it stops working, and then she flips over to her ‘fall back position’ of another direction. In Jake’s scene, two tactics are mixed together to present a purposely unpredictable nature to the other. In Sammy’s scene, the context is a public setting, where his presentation to a selected group is completely different from what he shows to others in the same room.
As these scenes are read through, it would be reasonable to wonder how anyone could really get away with such demands. Do they describe insubstantial extremes that don’t apply to most of us? For one thing, to keep the examples clear, the sketches are necessarily perfunctory compared to the rich milieu of actual behavior, so the reader being able to relate to the characters will be limited. For another, they don’t address the subject’s response, which would be vital to any real account of manipulation at work. Also, the target is specifically selected. In anticipation of the response he is looking for, the primary decision Able needs to make is who to push, when and how hard.
Demanding / Avoiding
Diagonal presentation shared between upper-right and lower-left quadrants
The Scene»
Bart comes home after work and has a fit of anger when his wife doesn’t have dinner ready. He screams that he needs to eat after a hard day and that this just better not happen again. When she retreats in sobs, he stomps out of the house. Bart drives into town and doesn’t come back until late at night.
The Play»
Bart lets his wife know that (he thinks) she lacks both FORCE and WORTH by DEMANDING (past her objections), then AVOIDING (leaving with no conclusion). His presentation implies that SURRENDER IS NOW REOUIRED. He makes this clear with a DELIBERATE CONFRONTATION using DECLARED ELEMENTS. Bart brooks no discussion. His statements exude finality, as does his heated exit.
The Context»
Bart wants to be accepted on his own terms. He sees any attempt by his wife for her to interject her own feelings as a disloyal confrontation. He cuts short all objections with declarations and ultimatums. Bart storms away, in order to avoid having to calm down and soften his demeanor, now that he has ‘set things straight‘. When he comes back late that night, he expects there to be no mention of the episode. Bart thinks of his staying away as giving things ‘a little time to get back to normal.’
Patronizing / Pleading
Diagonal presentation shared between upper-left and lower-right quadrants
The Scene»
Wally works for a large insurance company. He has advanced his career through a shameless campaign for his boss’s favor. He aggrandizes his manager’s decisions and regularly works compliments into their meetings. He states his amazement at how the boss is able to discharge such far-flung responsibilities. When Wally wants a favor, he frames his request as not wishing to take up time with such minor matters, segueing into a pitifully subservient description of how his needs are most acute. He whines on that his meager success has solely rested on the patience his superiors have had for him. `
The Play»
Wally lets his boss know that (Wally thinks the boss) lacks both INSIGHT and CONCERN by PRAISING (boss’s superior position), then REOUESTING (from inferior position). His presentation implies that ACTION IS NOW REQUIRED. He makes this clear with an ENTHRALLING CONFRONTATION using ACQUIRED ELEMENTS. Wally feeds the boss’s superior attitude by searching out personal (acquired) facts about the manager that Wally can then use to both inflate the boss and prostrate himself.
The Context»
Wally constantly checks for confirmation that he is in favor. He seeks an open participation that will show Wally that he is appreciated, or at least tolerated to a settled degree. He constantly searches for little personal tidbits about the boss that he can frame as praise. Wally requires a response, a requirement that is shrouded in obeisance and feigned humility.
Patronizing / Demanding
Horizontal presentation shared between the upper quadrants
The Scene»
Mrs. Cline is a veteran high school teacher who constantly makes her seniority known to the faculty. She makes certain that her senior students acknowledge her superior position. She lectures with bravado, in a ‘matter of fact’ style. She is considered to be a tough teacher. She likes it that way, giving quizzes to emphasize the need to be prepared for her class. Her lessons are purposely oblique and condescending, dispatched using a vocabulary aimed to be slightly beyond the grasp of most students.
The Play»
Mrs. Cline lets her students know that (she thinks) they lack INSIGHT and FORCE by LECTURING (her students condescendingly) then WARNING (them to perform). Her presentation implies that FOLLOWING IS NOW REQUIRED. She makes this clear with an OBJECTIVE CONFRONTATION using CONCRETE ELEMENTS. Mrs. Cline lectures in a condescending manner, using the indisputable facts of English grammar, coupled with her institutional role as a teacher to rule over her students.
The Context»
Mrs. Cline must have constant recognition. She expects to be deferred to as ‘the one who knows.’ Her confrontation uses facts, and she is always ‘on point‘. Any student’s attempt to relieve the oppressive atmosphere is swiftly quashed, and treated as insolence. Her presentation serves to cast the students’ role as narrow, with a self-righteous disregard for their own participation in class.
Avoiding / Pleading
Horizontal presentation is shared between the lower quadrants
The Scene»
Betty is a middle-aged spinster who lives with her aging mother. She has become impatient with what she feels are the ever growing needs of her physically impaired parent, who remains in the back bedroom for most of every day. During the daily household routine, she often ignores her mother’s calls for help. Many times Betty doesn’t respond until the pleas have been prolonged and grown frantic. After Betty does check on her, she leaves her mother with no idea of when she will return. Every month or so, the mother complains that her needs are not being met. Betty then breaks
down. In tears, she frantically exclaims that she is doing the best she can. She acts helpless and hurt, and cries that she needs appreciation, not criticism. When her mother succumbs, and comforts her daughter, Beatty now takes this as permission to continue as before.
The Play»
Betty lets her mother know (she thinks) her mother lacks WORTH and CONCERN by IGNORING (her mother’s call for help), then PLEADING (with her mother to stop). Her presentation implies that LEADING IS NOW REQUIRED. She makes this clear with a SUBJECTIVE CONFRONTATION using ABSTRACT ELEMENTS. Betty puts nothing tangible into her exchange with her mother. She either refuses to dialog, or she becomes overwhelmingly needy, shortcutting objections.
The Context»
Betty wants her mother to search for her, either physically, when absent, or emotionally, when she breaks down. In both cases, her mother must take the lead and give Betty the consideration (or just the space) that she insists on. The crisis remains shrouded and hazy, so that her mother’s protests can) be blunted and then dismissed.
Patronizing / Avoiding
Vertical presentation is shared between the two left quadrants
The Scene»
Sammy is the sportscaster for a local television station. He has developed an exaggerated opinion of his contribution to the show, to the station, and to ‘his public.’ When he arrives at the station, he is affable to the newscasters and the producers, while avoiding eye contact with the studio crew. Occasionally, he gives outside interviews at the other stations. When going to such events, he always jokes with, and compliments his interviewer, and pursues contact with any management on the set. He seems open and friendly, but the moment the studio lights are off, he is gone.
The Play»
Sammy lets his coworkers know that (he thinks) some lack INSIGHT, while others lack WORTH by FLATTERING (his status group) while SNUBBING the workers to put them down. His presentation implies that SEARCHING IS NOW REOUIRED. He makes this clear with a SHROUDED CONFRONTATION using INDISTINCT ELEMENTS. Sammy puts a happy-go-lucky face on confrontation. His ‘hail fellow well met’ display both reinforces the in-group that he looks to aggrandize himself with, while further reinforcing the group’s status by refusing to include others. This form of relational aggression is in common practice, used to reinforce social status and define peer groups.
The Context»
Sammy is shrouded, unwilling to be seen, even as he covets his public persona. His appearances are carefully orchestrated, the setting controlled by a jocular, overly familiar manner, and focused on a narrow segment of his acquaintances. His confrontation is as palatable as he can muster. Always on the lookout for signs that his overbearing countenance is wearing thin, or that he may be upstaged by another, he disappears without goodbyes.
Demanding / Pleading
Vertical presentation is shared between the two right quadrants
The Scene»
Jake is an itinerant alcoholic who lives on city streets. He is a tough character by most standards. His clothes are torn and stained, which he thinks helps him with his ‘work.’ When people come down the street, Jake converges on his choice, exuding a desperate, nearly menacing demeanor. Planting his feet in front of a pedestrian, Jake puts both palms up, facing the other, as if to say, “Halt!” His presentation is as subdued as it needs to be, so as not to seem like a mugging.
The Play»
Jake lets selected strangers know that (he thinks) they lack FORCE and CONCERN by his DEMAND, subdued by APPEAL to their sense of charity. His presentation implies that DECLARING IS REQUIRED. He makes this clear with a REVEALED CONFRONTATION using WELL DEFINED ELEMENTS. No one comes across clearer than Jake. He wants money, as much as he can get.
The Context»
Jake is not to be toyed with. He wants what he wants. His confrontation is in full view, muted only by the false surrender of his ‘obvious need,’ and a hint of a request. His use of requesting merely gives some credence to his demand. His presentation, though unrefined, is expertly targeted to specific individuals. His selection process has become honed through much experience. Often he will break off a presentation in the middle, in order to switch to a more promising prospect.
click on image to see full chart
In summary, the way a tactic really works can only be seen by studying the common ground the two directions share. The chart on the left outlines the way control characteristics reinforce each other, when applied in the same presentation. When considering how influence works, we need to keep in mind that emotional appeal takes hold because it rings true, in some manner, for the subject. With this understanding, looking from the outside, many presentations seem to be outrageous and unworkable, simply because they wouldn’t work on us. It is like watching a magic show when you know the tricks, marveling at the audience’s gullibility.
Without any background that describes the habits and experiences of both Able and Tom, we are left with brief silhouettes that merely attempt to illustrate isolated tactics. So the contextual nature of manipulation not only becomes challenging to describe in any real way, conversely, since tactics can be combined and blended to fit the situation, it makes the actual factors at play difficult to sort out. When we study the influence of the four quadrants, however, and then learn how the basic directions can be combined, we begin to see that behind this purposely-convoluted tableau, the fundamental tactics of manipulation are uncomplicated and can become easily recognized.
The choice between willfulness and emotional safety
The personal and social ramifications of pursuing undue influence amounts to more than just communication choices. The manner in which we express our boundaries plays a central role in the quality of cooperation we enjoy. More than just defining our limits, the manner in which we seek to overcome those limits, with the help of others, defines us as individuals, and together as a people. The communication choices that we adopt, that is, the habits of expression that we bring to our family, our friends, and our work, ultimately create, and then reinforce our conclusions about the world. Some see life as a bitter struggle, others as a wondrous adventure, fueled in both cases by the way each expresses their limits.
When one is motivated to maintain their relationships, and possesses the insight and emotional resources to do so, expression from the center is used. When expressing from the center, there is no intention to evoke an emotional reaction in the other. Manipulation has been cast aside in favor of emotional safety. In fact, the intention now becomes to inquire into the genuine feelings of the other, and to be alert for signs of discomfort arising in them. Not passive in this process, the centered individual actively attempts to keep circumstances surrounding the exchange comfortable for the other, and thus for them to remain emotionally safe. Expression from the center intends no hidden influence. A calm, level statement that clearly and simply describes one’s present boundaries is balanced in the center of the ranges of both emphasis and message. The gentle and sincere nature of such a statement carries an engaging and eliciting quality that remains sensitive to the listener’s needs, while delivering a clear statement of the speaker’s own limits.
From their mutual safety, control issues have now been dispensed with. From the center, this becomes an opportunity to inquire into the other’s concerns and goals. A dialog can now be opened to explore the possibility of a focused, joint effort. This is a dialog where the mutual goal is not agreement by the other, but rather putting to rest all the related issues, so that each can settle on their own decision that will be accepted without contest by the other. The centered person’s search for cooperation is therefore most discriminating. As uncertain and fluid as human relations may be, the intention of the search lays the groundwork for finding and developing real cooperation, one that comes out of a natural enthusiasm for the agreed upon project.
This is the theater of mutual effort that can overcome the vicissitudes of forced compliance. It can, instead, inspire all parties into enlivened responses to the project’s challenges. The best is brought to bear, because the energy of accomplishment is not drained away by the tension of emotions that underlie an unexpressed resistance to participate. From family to workplace and beyond, the use of emotional manipulation creates resentment in the listener, while eroding the trust between both parties. The habitual use of ‘centered statements, is therefore, most conducive to sustaining relationships.
The world of relationship is the world of emotional connection.
The tragedy of manipulation is that controlling squanders emotion in the sharp and harsh range. The social climate of control becomes one of resentment, and desperation, leading to isolation. When social ritual would normally allow strong positive emotions to flow, such as funerals, weddings or holidays, the hollowing result of control does not allow such depth. In its stead one just goes through the motions, numb and unsteady, feeling an alienation from the genuineness that is so obviously missing. Sentimentality and regret crowd out the natural cleansing that has always been there when we let go, and join in, when we reveal ourselves, give access through our vulnerability, and offer the genuine comfort that has always been ours to give.
Each time we interact purposely with another, we are either expressing our boundaries in an extreme manner that creates short-term anxiety and long-term resentment, or we express our boundaries from the center, in a level, accessible and inviting manner. We either try to get what we want, or we try to keep the other emotionally safe. The shift from one to the other is a case where intention needs to be enduring and equally applied. Singly selected attempts to reach out are not enough. What is being addressed here is the habit of expression. That habit, when clearly seen, becomes a crossroads, a life-choice between willfulness and emotional safety. The degree to which we use our will to override the objections of others will determine the depth and consistency of our closest relationships. Since the habits of expression cannot be compartmentalized, the more influence we insist upon with some of our acquaintances, the more resentment and resistance all of our relationships will possess. The more we keep others emotionally safe, by remaining inquiring and open, the more affectionate and genuinely supportive our deepest relationships will become.
