Who speaks, manipulates
Speech is one of the most important human abilities. Words can heal—or hurt more than a sword. And they have the power to guide our thoughts and actions. How language manipulates us—and how we use language to manipulate others.
Language is omnipresent in our everyday lives. "Most professions have long since developed into language professions; in almost all sectors, 50 percent of everyday life revolves around language," says Petra Korte, a professor of education, rhetoric trainer and leader of seminars on the topic of "Language and Manipulation." "Service providers and project managers, sales people and salespeople are constantly in contact with customers; they communicate incessantly." In contrast to classic language professions such as journalist, advertiser or politician, however, these speakers are rarely aware of the importance of language. They use it primarily as a functional means of communication. At the same time, language can inspire trust and sympathy, it can wrap people up and make them compliant. Its power reaches so far that it can make us believe that we absolutely need a product, an experience or an experience, although this is not the case at all. In short: language is a first-class manipulation tool. This makes it an important tool in the advertising and communications industry.
Manipulation is not abuse
Despite its effectiveness, however, language is rarely used consciously and purposefully. Petra Korte observes in her rhetoric training courses that many people even have trouble admitting that language has more functions than the mere exchange of information: "Many people are not even aware that they are not only trying to reach others intellectually with language, but also to move them emotionally. Engineers, for example, have a hard time with this realization. But at the latest when they want to promote their project to the management, it's no longer about informing, but about convincing. And for that, they need old artifices from rhetoric." If the engineers are clever, they provide the management with convincing arguments for their design - the Greek "argumentos" means "reason to move"; so the engineers give the decision-makers reasons to move themselves. Blick would headline this process: "Engineers manipulate management". And would be absolutely right. Because rhetorically used language manipulates the recipients of statements and arguments.
When we speak of manipulation, we usually mean the deliberate and targeted influencing of people without their knowledge and against their will, including the use of distorted representations and lies. But Petra Korte doesn't want the term to be understood in such a one-sidedly negative way: "Of course, anyone who is skilled at it can lie perfectly well with language," she says, "but by manipulation I simply mean 'influencing listeners and readers through language'. And that always happens when we express ourselves. We can't help but speak rhetorically and thus manipulatively, because our language contains many forms that are rhetorical by origin, for example, repetitions or three-steps like 'sun, moon and stars' or 'father, mother, child.'" Speaking is rhetorical, and rhetoric manipulates. Consequently, everyone who speaks manipulates, and everyone who hears is manipulated. But that alone is no cause for concern. For there are two kinds of linguistic manipulation: On the one hand, words can be used to persuade people to think and act. Such linguistic influences are not automatically negative; after all, one can also skillfully tell the truth and thus win people over to noble goals such as the protection of children or tolerance. On the other hand, it is possible to deliberately deceive people by using terms with one-sided connotations, false pretenses and lies, and to manipulate them into doing things they would not normally do. This is the dangerous kind of linguistic manipulation.
Rhetoric is advertising
Marketing and advertising use rhetorical means to create incentives to buy. Ads and commercials, for example, often follow a pattern that the great orators of antiquity already used: They raise a question at the beginning, create suspense, arouse expectations, and deliver the resolution as late as possible - so that the recipient sticks with it until the end and stores the brand message in addition to the product information. But it's not just the structure of the spots, the advertisers' language is also rhetorical. "Of course it's influencing consumers if I repeatedly talk about customer benefits, profit and gain in a commercial," says Korte. "But I wouldn't judge that as manipulation in the pejorative sense. It's rhetorically legitimate and very effective when it comes to awakening needs. And that, after all, is what advertising is all about."
The use of rhetorical means is always advisable when it is a matter of convincing people who would otherwise not be so sympathetic. One strategic linguistic trick is the yes-but strategy: If you want to refute the theses of your interlocutor, you first agree with him and confirm his considerations, and then strike back with a well-founded "but. This is also how the currently much-discussed IV poster campaign works: "Disabled people never work 100 percent - because they only know 120% commitment." Advertising may and must intervene in our thinking in such a way and control it.
Who speaks, acts
The fact that we can manipulate and be manipulated linguistically is testimony to the power of language. "He who speaks, acts," said linguist Ferdinand de Saussure. Whoever hears, also acts in the best case. Word workers, marketers and politicians take advantage of this. Very creatively and quite legitimately. It becomes critical when linguistic manipulation has a negative effect. For example, terms can creep into our use of language that do not simply label people or facts, but subtly assign negative evaluations to them, which in turn affect our attitude toward these people or facts. Korte brings up the example of "asylum seeker - asylum seeker." The politically correct term is asylum seeker; those who say "asylant" are using a right-wing populist fighting term from the 1980s and 1990s. "Interestingly, people from all educational backgrounds use this discriminatory word," Korte has observed, "even those who have no trouble at all politically with asylum seekers."
Language labels not only the thing or person being talked about, but also the speaker. Language betrays thoughts, attitudes and stances: Whoever speaks of "asylum seeker" places himself in a politically right-wing corner. And language shapes thoughts, attitudes and attitudes: Language use affects our structures of consciousness. This is precisely where linguistic manipulation becomes dangerous: What is repeated often enough, we eventually believe to be true. The word "asylum seeker" has been repeated so often that the politically colored term has been able to take root in everyday language, wrapped in the cloak of correctness. This explains why even well-educated, politically neutral people use the term "asylum seeker." Neither do they realize that they have been linguistically manipulated, nor that by using the word themselves they are manipulating their interlocutors. "That's exactly the problem," Korte says. "It's hard to pinpoint the point in the manipulation of language where a speaker is trying to manipulate the consciousness of his listeners to the point where they no longer notice what he's saying to them. Actually, adult, mature listeners might be expected to check the terms that reach their ears. But they don't."
Words have charisma
Crisis" is another example of linguistic manipulation. "Major processes of change have existed since time immemorial; every now and then, the systems of order in our society break down. We know that," says Korte. "Nevertheless, we talk about the crisis of the century and the millennium and thus conjure up the problem in the first place. At the beginning of the recession, daily newspapers used the term up to 50 times, on the front page alone." That's scary. Because the mere mention of the word "crisis" sets off an alarm in our heads, which in turn creates a crisis inside us. The crisis makes a crisis makes a crisis. Our negative state of mind then paralyzes us to such an extent that we can no longer mobilize any forces to work our way out of the economic doldrums. Until we realize that everything is not so bad. When the newspapers write that things are looking up again, we already feel better. And then, in our relief, we forget that the consequences of the development are yet to come. "This recklessness can also end badly again," Korte emphasizes. Impressive proof of the interaction between the mental state of a culture and its language.
Enjoy language
A prudent use of words is of great importance, beyond linguistic ambitions. This applies to private individuals, but to an even greater extent to multipliers and people with a role model function, for example press people and politicians. Marketers and advertisers can also be expected to use language sensitively. However, fewer and fewer people today are prudent in their everyday use of language. Beautiful speech and rhetoric have lost their importance, foreign languages are not learned for the joy of sound and word pictures, but for simple communication, mostly with business partners. Even the discussion about migrants learning the language of their new homeland is not about teaching the cultural constituent, but about simply making oneself understood in everyday life. "The playful, creative, sensitive use of language can already be formed in school in dealing with literature, in dealing with metaphors, ambiguities, meters," says Korte. "Unfortunately, arts subjects are becoming more and more devalued. So, of course, no sensitivity for the subtleties of language develops." The increasing importance of technical means of communication is forcing this development: In e-mails, the absence of salutations and greetings is almost part of good manners, and in text messages it is curtly said "there" instead of "I'm here now," "lol" instead of "that makes me laugh," or "HDL" instead of "I love you." Even precise expressions are no longer necessary: Anyone who fears being misunderstood simply places a smiley. That way, nothing can go wrong.
"Because awareness of language has receded so much today, it is also much easier to manipulate with language," Korte warns. "Because if the majority of people use language unconsciously, those who use it consciously can easily exert influence. We should listen carefully and learn to communicate in everyday life about the way we talk to each other. We are perfectly allowed to tell our counterpart that his choice of words irritates us or that we don't want people to talk to us that way. If you want a critical, democratic public, you also have to examine your language."
Anne-Friederike Wilhelm
Manipulation is not abuse
Despite its effectiveness, however, language is rarely used consciously and purposefully. Petra Korte observes in her rhetoric training courses that many people even have trouble admitting that language has more functions than the mere exchange of information: "Many people are not even aware that they are not only trying to reach others intellectually with language, but also to move them emotionally. Engineers, for example, have a hard time with this realization. But at the latest when they want to promote their project to the management, it's no longer about informing, but about convincing. And for that, they need old artifices from rhetoric." If the engineers are clever, they provide the management with convincing arguments for their design - the Greek "argumentos" means "reason to move"; so the engineers give the decision-makers reasons to move themselves. Blick would headline this process: "Engineers manipulate management". And would be absolutely right. Because rhetorically used language manipulates the recipients of statements and arguments.
When we speak of manipulation, we usually mean the deliberate and targeted influencing of people without their knowledge and against their will, including the use of distorted representations and lies. But Petra Korte doesn't want the term to be understood in such a one-sidedly negative way: "Of course, anyone who is skilled at it can lie perfectly well with language," she says, "but by manipulation I simply mean 'influencing listeners and readers through language'. And that always happens when we express ourselves. We can't help but speak rhetorically and thus manipulatively, because our language contains many forms that are rhetorical by origin, for example, repetitions or three-steps like 'sun, moon and stars' or 'father, mother, child.'" Speaking is rhetorical, and rhetoric manipulates. Consequently, everyone who speaks manipulates, and everyone who hears is manipulated. But that alone is no cause for concern. For there are two kinds of linguistic manipulation: On the one hand, words can be used to persuade people to think and act. Such linguistic influences are not automatically negative; after all, one can also skillfully tell the truth and thus win people over to noble goals such as the protection of children or tolerance. On the other hand, it is possible to deliberately deceive people by using terms with one-sided connotations, false pretenses and lies, and to manipulate them into doing things they would not normally do. This is the dangerous kind of linguistic manipulation.
Rhetoric is advertising
Marketing and advertising use rhetorical means to create incentives to buy. Ads and commercials, for example, often follow a pattern that the great orators of antiquity already used: They raise a question at the beginning, create suspense, arouse expectations, and deliver the resolution as late as possible - so that the recipient sticks with it until the end and stores the brand message in addition to the product information. But it's not just the structure of the spots, the advertisers' language is also rhetorical. "Of course it's influencing consumers if I repeatedly talk about customer benefits, profit and gain in a commercial," says Korte. "But I wouldn't judge that as manipulation in the pejorative sense. It's rhetorically legitimate and very effective when it comes to awakening needs. And that, after all, is what advertising is all about."
The use of rhetorical means is always advisable when it is a matter of convincing people who would otherwise not be so sympathetic. One strategic linguistic trick is the yes-but strategy: If you want to refute the theses of your interlocutor, you first agree with him and confirm his considerations, and then strike back with a well-founded "but. This is also how the currently much-discussed IV poster campaign works: "Disabled people never work 100 percent - because they only know 120% commitment." Advertising may and must intervene in our thinking in such a way and control it.
Who speaks, acts
The fact that we can manipulate and be manipulated linguistically is testimony to the power of language. "He who speaks, acts," said linguist Ferdinand de Saussure. Whoever hears, also acts in the best case. Word workers, marketers and politicians take advantage of this. Very creatively and quite legitimately. It becomes critical when linguistic manipulation has a negative effect. For example, terms can creep into our use of language that do not simply label people or facts, but subtly assign negative evaluations to them, which in turn affect our attitude toward these people or facts. Korte brings up the example of "asylum seeker - asylum seeker." The politically correct term is asylum seeker; those who say "asylant" are using a right-wing populist fighting term from the 1980s and 1990s. "Interestingly, people from all educational backgrounds use this discriminatory word," Korte has observed, "even those who have no trouble at all politically with asylum seekers."
Language labels not only the thing or person being talked about, but also the speaker. Language betrays thoughts, attitudes and stances: Whoever speaks of "asylum seeker" places himself in a politically right-wing corner. And language shapes thoughts, attitudes and attitudes: Language use affects our structures of consciousness. This is precisely where linguistic manipulation becomes dangerous: What is repeated often enough, we eventually believe to be true. The word "asylum seeker" has been repeated so often that the politically colored term has been able to take root in everyday language, wrapped in the cloak of correctness. This explains why even well-educated, politically neutral people use the term "asylum seeker." Neither do they realize that they have been linguistically manipulated, nor that by using the word themselves they are manipulating their interlocutors. "That's exactly the problem," Korte says. "It's hard to pinpoint the point in the manipulation of language where a speaker is trying to manipulate the consciousness of his listeners to the point where they no longer notice what he's saying to them. Actually, adult, mature listeners might be expected to check the terms that reach their ears. But they don't."
Words have charisma
Crisis" is another example of linguistic manipulation. "Major processes of change have existed since time immemorial; every now and then, the systems of order in our society break down. We know that," says Korte. "Nevertheless, we talk about the crisis of the century and the millennium and thus conjure up the problem in the first place. At the beginning of the recession, daily newspapers used the term up to 50 times, on the front page alone." That's scary. Because the mere mention of the word "crisis" sets off an alarm in our heads, which in turn creates a crisis inside us. The crisis makes a crisis makes a crisis. Our negative state of mind then paralyzes us to such an extent that we can no longer mobilize any forces to work our way out of the economic doldrums. Until we realize that everything is not so bad. When the newspapers write that things are looking up again, we already feel better. And then, in our relief, we forget that the consequences of the development are yet to come. "This recklessness can also end badly again," Korte emphasizes. Impressive proof of the interaction between the mental state of a culture and its language.
Enjoy language
A prudent use of words is of great importance, beyond linguistic ambitions. This applies to private individuals, but to an even greater extent to multipliers and people with a role model function, for example press people and politicians. Marketers and advertisers can also be expected to use language sensitively. However, fewer and fewer people today are prudent in their everyday use of language. Beautiful speech and rhetoric have lost their importance, foreign languages are not learned for the joy of sound and word pictures, but for simple communication, mostly with business partners. Even the discussion about migrants learning the language of their new homeland is not about teaching the cultural constituent, but about simply making oneself understood in everyday life. "The playful, creative, sensitive use of language can already be formed in school in dealing with literature, in dealing with metaphors, ambiguities, meters," says Korte. "Unfortunately, arts subjects are becoming more and more devalued. So, of course, no sensitivity for the subtleties of language develops." The increasing importance of technical means of communication is forcing this development: In e-mails, the absence of salutations and greetings is almost part of good manners, and in text messages it is curtly said "there" instead of "I'm here now," "lol" instead of "that makes me laugh," or "HDL" instead of "I love you." Even precise expressions are no longer necessary: Anyone who fears being misunderstood simply places a smiley. That way, nothing can go wrong.
"Because awareness of language has receded so much today, it is also much easier to manipulate with language," Korte warns. "Because if the majority of people use language unconsciously, those who use it consciously can easily exert influence. We should listen carefully and learn to communicate in everyday life about the way we talk to each other. We are perfectly allowed to tell our counterpart that his choice of words irritates us or that we don't want people to talk to us that way. If you want a critical, democratic public, you also have to examine your language."
Anne-Friederike Wilhelm
