|
Lädt ... Coercion: Why We Listen to What "They" Say (2000. Auflage)405 | 3 | 62,364 |
(3.79) | 2 | They say that human beings only use ten per cent of their brains. They say the corner office is a position of power. They say you can earn u10,000 a week in your spare time. But who, exactly, are they? And why do we listen to them? We each have our own theys - bosses, experts and authorities who seem to dictate our lives and create our futures. Like parents, in the best of circumstances they can make us feel safe. But where power and profit are at stake, they can try to make us do what they want: buy their product, vote for their party, support their cause."… (mehr) |
▾Reihen und Werk-Beziehungen ▾Auszeichnungen und Ehrungen
|
Gebräuchlichster Titel |
|
Originaltitel |
|
Alternative Titel |
|
Ursprüngliches Erscheinungsdatum |
|
Figuren/Charaktere |
|
Wichtige Schauplätze |
|
Wichtige Ereignisse |
|
Zugehörige Filme |
Die Informationen stammen von der englischen "Wissenswertes"-Seite. Ändern, um den Eintrag der eigenen Sprache anzupassen. | |
|
Epigraph (Motto/Zitat) |
|
Widmung |
Die Informationen stammen von der englischen "Wissenswertes"-Seite. Ändern, um den Eintrag der eigenen Sprache anzupassen. For Bennett - my trusted brother, sometimes teacher, and always friend | |
|
Erste Worte |
Die Informationen stammen von der englischen "Wissenswertes"-Seite. Ändern, um den Eintrag der eigenen Sprache anzupassen. They say human beings use only 10 percent of their brains. | |
|
Zitate |
Die Informationen stammen von der englischen "Wissenswertes"-Seite. Ändern, um den Eintrag der eigenen Sprache anzupassen. Companies using the soft sell fool us into believing they have abandoned the cruelest coercive practices of their predecessors, when all they've really done is replaced them with kinder-looking ones and shifted the direct abuse onto their salespeople. [61] The true outcome of the [coercion] arms race is that it makes the coercer and coercee indistinguishable. We are all coercers, and we are all coerced. Ultimately, there is no 'they'. As a result, we are suffering a collective confusion: a culture-wide inability to make choices in a rational way. [302-03] Our ruthless commerce is no longer limited to products but now includes lifestyles, political candidates, morality, and even religions. [309] | |
|
Letzte Worte |
Die Informationen stammen von der englischen "Wissenswertes"-Seite. Ändern, um den Eintrag der eigenen Sprache anzupassen. | |
|
Hinweis zur Identitätsklärung |
|
Verlagslektoren |
|
Werbezitate von |
Die Informationen stammen von der englischen "Wissenswertes"-Seite. Ändern, um den Eintrag der eigenen Sprache anzupassen. | |
|
Originalsprache |
|
Anerkannter DDC/MDS |
|
Anerkannter LCC |
|
▾Literaturhinweise Literaturhinweise zu diesem Werk aus externen Quellen. Wikipedia auf Englisch (1)▾Buchbeschreibungen They say that human beings only use ten per cent of their brains. They say the corner office is a position of power. They say you can earn u10,000 a week in your spare time. But who, exactly, are they? And why do we listen to them? We each have our own theys - bosses, experts and authorities who seem to dictate our lives and create our futures. Like parents, in the best of circumstances they can make us feel safe. But where power and profit are at stake, they can try to make us do what they want: buy their product, vote for their party, support their cause." ▾Bibliotheksbeschreibungen Keine Bibliotheksbeschreibungen gefunden. ▾Beschreibung von LibraryThing-Mitgliedern
Zusammenfassung in Haiku-Form |
|
|
Aktuelle DiskussionenKeineGoogle Books — Lädt ...
|
Rushkoff distances himself from previous arguments in Cyberia and Media Virus, in which he staked out internet-optimistic positions based upon its potential to counter coercion. Primarily the fault in these arguments was in thinking the popular will would realise this potential, whereas what appears to have happened is that sales & marketing have done so belatedly but far more systematically than have the consumer. But Rushkoff can't shake his optimism entirely, making for an ambivalence throughout the text, as though he keeps cautioning his over-enthusiastic self.
Rushkoff's argument here also is ambivalent on just what constitutes coercion. His narrative is best understood as an exploration of manipulation, one less concerned with the theory or over-arching account of what it is, than with identifying the repeatedly harmful outcomes such manipulation visits on unsuspecting consumers. At various points, Rushkoff characterises coercion as:
-- Consistent with Dale Carnegie's 1936 approach outlined in How to Win Friends and Influence People [37]
-- Exemplified in the CIA's 1963 Kubark Manual on interrogation (interrogation here evidently intended to be distinct from physical torture) [38]
-- In some instances distinct from persuasion or simple influence, but at others an extreme form of them [303]
-- Lying to oneself [212]
Rushkoff establishes the systemic nature of manipulation as the premise of modern business: consumer manipulation succeeds by identifying tactics and then adapting to the defenses people instinctively and deliberately put in place, more quickly, consistently, and broadly than any individual reacts, precisely because the factors driving commerce are organized and outfitted with resources to achieve results. And while its adherents build and employ this system of influence, it operates separately from any one of them. The victims of manipulation, on the other hand, are primarily individuals who build defenses in a scattershot and inconsistent fashion, and at present do not display a defense corresponding to the systemic efforts to influence. The dynamic at play, then, is that of a system operating upon a dispersed and only loosely conscious and integrated population, and it is small wonder the system has the upper hand.
Rushkoff's concerns lie within Gaventa's second and third dimensions of power, though he does not reference Gaventa in this work. Rushkoff's conclusion is that ultimately, no conspiracy exists in the sense of a cabal of oppressors: there are no coercers except "us", in that those behind the manipulation are the same people who at other times are the targets of those techniques. In our occupational roles, especially in the advertising / marketing / sales trades, we build the coercive machinery which operates on us outside these roles, as consumers. A valid insight, which unfortunately leads Rushkoff to suggest we should "shrug off" this manipulation, simply stop acquiescing to its pressures. This conclusion is facetious at best. What is needed is a means of countering the power brought to bear against individuals through a matrix of manipulative tactics, a parry or posture equal to the attack. What that might be, and whether it may avoid utopian ideal or a Pyrrhic victory, is unaddressed here.
Coercion is meant as a popular book, certainly, but the argument is too loose and the prescription far too weak given the underlying premise. There is a raft of suggestive data, and a broad frame (manipulation) in which to organise it. Perhaps sensitised to the techniques he studies, does Rushkoff undermine his own argument in an effort to avoid performative contradiction?
//
Another example of social sciences used in support of tyranny, though the research originally was undertaken with the intent of assisting or at least understanding the exploited. (BC's instance of efforts at community building used later as target lists following a change in administration.)
Individual defense against influence of emotion and confusion aligns with the arguments for meditation: be in the moment; ground self in principles; be present / dispel automata.
Coercion is perhaps the obverse of the coin explored in Thaler's Nudge, and highlights the drawbacks of instinctual thinking as explored in Gladwell's Blink. It lays out the case for media literacy as a life skill in post-industrial society. ( )