A friend sent me a link this morning to an article about "managing your social media personality". She didn't really send it to me so much as she sent it to everyone who is linked to her through LinkedIn.
The gist of the article was that you shouldn't use social media solely to promote your business interests. That you should also let your personal interests show through so that people get a sense of the whole you.
And you should do this because ... wait for it ... then your efforts to promote your business interests will be more effective!
I don't mention this because I think it's especially or obscenely manipulative, although that is clearly what it is. No, it's that it is so casually manipulative. It seems to have never occurred to the woman who wrote the article that this is manipulation. She seems utterly unaware of any moral dimension beyond the effectiveness of what she promotes.
There is nothing wrong with being manipulative. The other day I went to the bank and the woman I dealt with made friendly chatter and based on what I told her while we chatted she casually mentioned a service the bank offered that might be of use to me. That is manipulation and it is, as far as I'm concerned, perfectly fine.
Kissing and hugging someone so they will get aroused is manipulation too and a darn good thing. If married couples only had sex when they were both spontaneously in the mood at the same time all marriages would be doomed. Wives and husbands have a duty to manipulate one another into having sex.
Maybe you'd prefer some other word that didn't seem so harsh as "manipulate"? But harshness is our friend here because it forces us to be honest with ourselves about what we are doing. Getting someone enthused about something is serious business and you can hurt them. Having to recognize that you are being manipulative when you do these things—when you dress, and talk and act in certain ways—is to recognize that you are doing this to them.
The danger is when we are casually manipulative. When we don't think of any higher needs.
One of the most important books in my life is, as I have mentioned before, After Virtue. One of the points that MacIntyre makes is that if moral argument is entirely about personal preferences then all moral argument is simply moral manipulation. That is the problem with broadening your social media personality to include more than business. We need truth. Not "the truth" because no one can be sure of having that.
We are always trying to change outcomes. We are always trying to manipulate others to do some things and not do others. Even when we decide to consciously step aside so someone else make up their own mind, we do so because we think they should be making up their own mind; we are manipulating them into thinking for themselves. This can be done for the most selfish of reasons. I can encourage Trish to learn how to use the database because I think it will help her in her career but I can also do it so she will be grateful to me and have sex with me. I can even do it because I just don't like Trish and I'm fed up with having to talk to her every time she needs help. Both these reasons can be good reasons. Seduction has its purposes and being seduced can be very good for someone. It's also perfectly justifiable to make efforts to reduce occasions that cause you pain. But these are only good reasons if I honestly consider that I am doing something to Trish in both circumstances so that I confront the moral dimension of what I am doing.
The gist of the article was that you shouldn't use social media solely to promote your business interests. That you should also let your personal interests show through so that people get a sense of the whole you.
And you should do this because ... wait for it ... then your efforts to promote your business interests will be more effective!
I don't mention this because I think it's especially or obscenely manipulative, although that is clearly what it is. No, it's that it is so casually manipulative. It seems to have never occurred to the woman who wrote the article that this is manipulation. She seems utterly unaware of any moral dimension beyond the effectiveness of what she promotes.
There is nothing wrong with being manipulative. The other day I went to the bank and the woman I dealt with made friendly chatter and based on what I told her while we chatted she casually mentioned a service the bank offered that might be of use to me. That is manipulation and it is, as far as I'm concerned, perfectly fine.
Kissing and hugging someone so they will get aroused is manipulation too and a darn good thing. If married couples only had sex when they were both spontaneously in the mood at the same time all marriages would be doomed. Wives and husbands have a duty to manipulate one another into having sex.
Maybe you'd prefer some other word that didn't seem so harsh as "manipulate"? But harshness is our friend here because it forces us to be honest with ourselves about what we are doing. Getting someone enthused about something is serious business and you can hurt them. Having to recognize that you are being manipulative when you do these things—when you dress, and talk and act in certain ways—is to recognize that you are doing this to them.
The danger is when we are casually manipulative. When we don't think of any higher needs.
One of the most important books in my life is, as I have mentioned before, After Virtue. One of the points that MacIntyre makes is that if moral argument is entirely about personal preferences then all moral argument is simply moral manipulation. That is the problem with broadening your social media personality to include more than business. We need truth. Not "the truth" because no one can be sure of having that.
We are always trying to change outcomes. We are always trying to manipulate others to do some things and not do others. Even when we decide to consciously step aside so someone else make up their own mind, we do so because we think they should be making up their own mind; we are manipulating them into thinking for themselves. This can be done for the most selfish of reasons. I can encourage Trish to learn how to use the database because I think it will help her in her career but I can also do it so she will be grateful to me and have sex with me. I can even do it because I just don't like Trish and I'm fed up with having to talk to her every time she needs help. Both these reasons can be good reasons. Seduction has its purposes and being seduced can be very good for someone. It's also perfectly justifiable to make efforts to reduce occasions that cause you pain. But these are only good reasons if I honestly consider that I am doing something to Trish in both circumstances so that I confront the moral dimension of what I am doing.
I agree with this. You are right that manipulation in some situations is necessary, but we need to be honest a) that we're doing it and b) why we're doing it. You might even like Trish and want her to learn the database because it will make your job easier if she did and even give her more skills to put on her resume, which are not bad reasons. You mention that we try to change outcomes, that is true, but isn't teaching anyone anything a form of manipulation even if they agree to be manipulated? Every professor believes that his students can benefit from the knowledge that he has.
ReplyDelete