Threatening the Status Quo
Persuasion is a skill relevant in the context of groups; it is used when there is reliance on someone else for something. I, being an introvert that borders on being an asocial misanthrope (I jest (mostly)), try to avoid situations in which I have to rely on others. Alas, unless I become a hermit, living in society fundamentally requires some type of reliance on others. And thus, my mind draws me toward how persuasion works on me and others.
I was scrolling the good ol’ Twitter (now X) looking for latest news and trends, and in the mix of commentary on upcoming movie releases, video game content, and popular anime I saw various political posts. Of course, one of the most obvious examples of persuasion occurs constantly with regards to political contention—people want governance fitted in a way that best suits them, which relies on others to see it through. Anyway, I was scrolling and saw a post by a self-proclaimed left-wing user that appeared to be trying to galvanize the Left with a call to “nastier, tougher” tactics. There wasn’t anything specific referenced, neither the kind, polite type of tactics the user regarded in their own mind to have been already used nor the nastier, tougher tactics the user regarded in their own mind to be necessary to be used. I normally scroll past such activist-type posts since they’re a dime a dozen and aren’t particularly stimulating, but this one made me wonder: what is this user threatening?
It’s of course necessary to separate one person from a group as people are individuals and it is unfair to place responsibility of one individual’s behaviors on others; it is also necessary to consider to what degree an individual is representative of a group as it is often in our best interest to understand and predict behavioral patterns. I don’t think this Twitter user is greatly representative of the Left, as such a group is expansive and varied (absolute statements and generalizations are par for the course in persuasion, and, though this user invoked the idea of speaking to/for the Left in totality, it’s prudent to take such grandiose references with a grain of salt). I do, however, think his/her idea of nebulous escalation is representative of some within the Left, and this disgruntled sentiment is also echoed by some within the Right. It’s fairly normal when feeling stuck and frustrated to force change through, either through the threat of force or use of actual force. Activists feel stuck as if it’s a hobby and are thus prone to making threats. While the question of what exact change this user was making threats over is a worthwhile question to ask and explore, I think it’s safe to reductively assume he/she wants governance to change in a way that he/she wants (this is circular, yes, but it’s useless speculating what any individual wants until they make it known) and thus is making a threat. But, again I wonder, what is the threat?
Threats usually promise a change in circumstances that are more strict or punishing. “Tougher, nastier” gets across such a notion. Yet, when I think of tough and nasty tactics activists use to persuade, I find it difficult to pinpoint tactics greater in scale than what has already happened in the same realm of tactics: lying happens all the time in many forms like exaggeration, fabrication, and misrepresentation; invective happens all the time in many forms like insults, profanity, and ridicule; and even violence happens all the time in many forms like shoving, throwing objects, and vandalism. While extremes of each also happen like defamation, harassment, and murder, I’m inclined to give the user the benefit of the doubt and say he/she wasn’t advocating for an escalation to such levels. I’ll also give the user the benefit of the doubt that he/she wasn’t a proponent of the more common forms of tough and nasty persuasion tactics—I’d say they were talking big and the threat was merely a bluff. But…
Consider the threat with reference to present and past circumstances. If tough and nasty tactics already occur, what’s being threatened is more of the same. And that… is not very persuasive. Perhaps the persistence of such tactics may be grating and with enough time become intolerable and elicit change, but most of the time doing the same thing with the expectation of different results fits with Einstein’s definition of insanity. And this made me think, beyond the specificity of left-wing activist persuasion, how persuasion in the form of threats can commonly fail to persuade.
A little while ago I made a blog post about chivalry that explored past and modern relationship dynamics between men and women. Something I also typically run across on social media are posts lamenting the state of modern dating, and some involve—you guessed it—threats. Users make posts saying, “Women, refuse to have sex!” and “Men, refuse to pay for dinner!” and so on. The underlying theory is that what’s being threatened will make others desperate enough to do something the one making the threat wants—namely forming a relationship with them. Yet, in an environment where resentment flourishes and much of what’s threatened happens already, there is no real threat of a more punishing circumstance. If men and women are being threatened with the prospect of not having a relationship—which they already don’t have—who is being persuaded?
I think where a lot of threats fall flat, beyond not promising anything beyond the norm, is that they fail to account for a positive incentive. That is, threats focus on the punishment and disregard the reward—they use a stick with no carrot. While it’s nice to reduce the times you get the stick, all you’re getting is less or no punishment. Meanwhile, the frequency of whatever punishment you’re getting corresponds to what someone else loses or gains. That is, someone else benefits more than you. If you do something for them, you don’t get punished while they get what you give them. The threatener gets a positive reward, whereas you get none. That doesn’t seem fair, does it? At least, it is likely to be fertile ground for resentment.
Now put yourself in the threatener’s shoes (you’ve been one in your life, admit it!): I want something, and I rely on someone else for it. But that person is refusing to give it to me. Of all the nerve! Well, they won’t like it if I do this so I’ll threaten them with it!
While some may have already filled in the missing piece of a positive incentive, I’ll call attention to the more typical mindset that did not pause to take into account such a thing: what do they want? You may be thinking, “I already know they wouldn’t like it if this happened, so I am taking them into account!” Yeah, no. That mindset only takes into account what they don’t want. That mindset focuses on what you can do to them rather than what you can do for them. That mindset is selfish. What do they want?
Factoring in what someone else wants is a crucial piece of negotiation. A great way to butter it up and make it all the more appealing (i.e., likely to succeed) is to genuinely care about this piece. You see, if you care about what someone else wants, it opens the door to reciprocation—they’ll care about what you want. Surprising, I know. Anyway, back to the idea of threats: threats aren’t necessarily discounting this piece of negotiation, they merely raise the stakes in an effort to incite imminent change. Typically the more dominant a person is in a relationship the less utilized this piece—the carrot—is. And now we’re back to just the stick and the subsequent resentment it brings. Only, such a dominant person likely acts dominantly out of habit, and so we’re more or less back to the threat of the status quo.
“It is excellent to have a giant’s strength, but it is tyrannous to use it like a giant.”
-Shakespeare, Measure for Measure
What about threats that are unusual and credible? That is, what about cases where the threat isn’t made out of habit and is different from the status quo and the threatener is capable and willing? Regardless of the buttery piece of carrot, such cases are fairly persuasive. Such a person would likely not be habitually dominant; maybe they’re just normal, calm, or meek. That they of all people are making a threat begs the question of what got so bad to get them to respond this way. Well, for such a person, the only obstacle to a convincing threat would be if what they’re threatening would bring about beneficial change… or in effect bring about no change whatsoever. Going back to the example of dating discourse, threatening to withdraw affection doesn’t matter when there was no affection being given in the first place. Going back to the example of political discourse, threatening nastiness changes nothing when nastiness was there to begin with. I’m not exactly trying to provide tips on how to make threats better, since threats are unsavory, last-ditch methods—but I’m not exactly not trying to provide tips on how to make threats persuasive.
Addendum
In light of recent events, and given the subject matter of this blog post being unfortunately and ironically relevant to them, I find it necessary to speak on the manner of persuasion I agree and disagree with. Society is founded on rules and regulations—when its populace breaks these parameters, it no longer functions as a society and rather as a glorified wilderness. Violence—namely murder—is such a breach, and goes understandably beyond society’s good-faith efforts to coexist while nevertheless in disagreement and in conflict. Charlie Kirk was a political activist who embodied ideas many agreed and disagreed with; he encouraged anyone to test these ideas, however controversial—or, rather, especially controversial—in good faith. He was murdered in his efforts. That is not persuasive. Eliminating your opposition isn’t persuading them. It is illegal, and it is immoral.
“When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.”
I stand by my thoughts in the above post: political sides are diverse and it’s naive if not prejudiced to pin the actions of one or a few on all who are tangentially associated. On the other hand, it is myopic if not self-sabotage to ignore patterns. Thankfully, this murder is an isolated incident; it’s not like anyone agreed with it or anything.
Sarcasm aside, there is a troubling number of people who celebrated and justified this murder. Reductively, justification goes like so: “Live by the sword, die by the sword. You reap what you sow.” The sword Charlie Kirk used was argumentation. The sword the killer used was violence. The problem with this group of people who believe these are the same is that they are equating words with violence. If they think violence is reciprocal with speech, where does that leave us?
A wilderness.
