Voice and authority
October 25th 2007 00:54
The Bene Gesserit of the Dune series are taught "to compel obedience in listeners on a subconscious level. By controlling the subtleties of her voice, a Bene Gesserit can directly address and thus issue commands to another person's unconscious mind in a way that the conscious mind is aware of, but is unable to resist."
In the non-science fiction world, you might unable to compel someone against their consciousness, but is there no connection between voice and obedience? Consider the way that teachers speak to students, parents to children, employers to employees, humans to pets...
The "fetish diva" Midori, formerly in army intelligence, incorporates voice instruction in her BDSM classes.
One blog on her interrogation scenes contains the description, "She launched into her workshop by reading, in the resonant command voice taught to military officers"...
Is the tendency to obey, in these circumstances, conditioning or genetic?
Consider the way that voices can delight, seduce, enthrall...
The power of voice is dramatized in the "Wraith: The Oblivion" role-playing series. A "chanteur", depending on their skill level, can strengthen sadness, anger, grief, love, happiness, joy, can compel others to do their bidding, can damage others through screaming at them, can overwhelm someone with emotion.
Some sounds simply effect/affect you.
The evil diablo tritone.
The disconcerting opening of the Carmina Burana, whether the propensity was genetic or conditioned...
"In the village of Gapun in Papua New Guinea, when a woman is annoyed with her husband, she swears at him for 45 minutes, at the top of her voice so the neighbours catch every nuance. During this 'kros' -- the word means 'angry' -- the target is not allowed to answer back, nor may anyone interrupt until she’s given her feelings full expression. And what expression it is. The anthropologist Don Kulick recorded a typical kros: 'You’re a ****ing rubbish man. You hear? Your ****ing ***** is full of maggots. You’re a big ****ing semen *****. Stone balls! ...****ing black *****! You *****ing mother’s ****!'"
-- Susannah Herbert, "The Myth of Mars and Venus: Do Men and Women Really Speak Different Languages? by Deborah Cameron", Sunday Times, 7 October 2007
What is involved in "verbal abuse" -- what do people designate with the expression? why are just words and voice able to harm?
For a whole bunch of reasons -- consider insults (which require a post in themselves to discuss), belittlement, slander, humiliation, threats, and loss of face in the presence of others...
And there is also some evidence that raised volume alone can constitute damage to children (let alone beating them).
"... in some cases, researchers say, yelling can become a form of emotional abuse. And children whose parents consistently raise their voices or combine yelling with insults, criticism, ridicule or humiliation may suffer from depression, dips in self-esteem or demonstrate more aggression themselves. While physical abuse of children has been widely studied, child development specialists have in recent years begun to focus more attention on emotional abuse, which studies suggest can be equally harmful... 'Yelling overpowers children, it makes them feel frustrated and angry...' said Dr. Myrna B Shure, a professor of psychology at Drexel University, who conducted a five-year study... of children from kindergarten to fourth grade."
-- "Screaming at children seldom helps, may hurt", New York Times, 14 November 2004
Can one speak more directly of the violence, the attack of a raised voice? -- Why would a dog have evolved a bark?
When a lion roars, maybe it can compel you against your conscious mind.
Any number of just-so stories here. Perhaps the roar damages or threatens to damage eardrums, or it causes pain. Perhaps the ears of prey have been conditioned -- by natural selection -- to fear. Or perhaps the roar evolved to take advantage of a pre-existing tendency to run.
If nothing else, raised volume can often deprive you of the oppportunity to speak.
This sort of issue leaks into matters of free speech generally.
Is mental distress something that should be taken into account along with physical distress? Should there be laws against swearing or "offensive conduct"?
Or are these just an excuse for censorship of Danish cartoons and similar, and are they a slippery slope towards suppression of protest and dissent?
And if one recognized the causative power of voice, would this influence what counts as "incitement", and what does and doesn't count as consent?
When you're preparing to become a Scientology auditor, a lot of this training is speech-based. In particular, there is a tone of voice (I have a faint memory that it's called "tone 7" or some such, but don't quote me) -- and this precise tone (don't know whether it's a pitch, or a timbre, or whatever) is supposed to inspire obedience.
Couldn't find much on the ever-reliable Wikipedia, but it does comment: "The Anderson Report, an official inquiry conducted for the state of Victoria, Australia, found that auditing involved a form of 'authoritative' or 'command' hypnosis, in which the hypnotist assumes 'positive authoritative control' over the patient."
-- Check out this Christian website preaching against verbal abuse: "It is not God's will for you (or your friend) to be in a verbally abusive relationship. Those angry and critical words will destroy your confidence and self-esteem. Being submissive in a marriage relationship (Ephesians 5:22) does not mean allowing yourself to be verbally beaten by your partner. 1 Peter 3:1 does teach that wives, by being submissive to their husbands, may win them to Christ by their behavior. But it does not teach that they must allow themselves to be verbally or physically abused."
Notes
-- Sunday 28 October 2007: "The human race will one day spllt into separate species, an attractive, intelligent ruling elite and an underclass of dim-witted, ugly goblin-like creatures, a top scientist claims. In about 100,000, sexual selection could mean two distinct breeds of human will have developed. The prediction comes from evolutionary London School of Economics theorist Dr Oliver Curry... Dr Curry says men will have symmetrical facial features, deeper voices and bigger penises" -- ("Good, bad and ugly", Herald Sun (Melbourne), 28/10/07, general news, page 6). I wonder why deeper voices are an evolutionary advantage...
In the non-science fiction world, you might unable to compel someone against their consciousness, but is there no connection between voice and obedience? Consider the way that teachers speak to students, parents to children, employers to employees, humans to pets...
***
The "fetish diva" Midori, formerly in army intelligence, incorporates voice instruction in her BDSM classes.
One blog on her interrogation scenes contains the description, "She launched into her workshop by reading, in the resonant command voice taught to military officers"...
***
Is the tendency to obey, in these circumstances, conditioning or genetic?
***
Consider the way that voices can delight, seduce, enthrall...
The power of voice is dramatized in the "Wraith: The Oblivion" role-playing series. A "chanteur", depending on their skill level, can strengthen sadness, anger, grief, love, happiness, joy, can compel others to do their bidding, can damage others through screaming at them, can overwhelm someone with emotion.
***
Some sounds simply effect/affect you.
The evil diablo tritone.
The disconcerting opening of the Carmina Burana, whether the propensity was genetic or conditioned...
***
"In the village of Gapun in Papua New Guinea, when a woman is annoyed with her husband, she swears at him for 45 minutes, at the top of her voice so the neighbours catch every nuance. During this 'kros' -- the word means 'angry' -- the target is not allowed to answer back, nor may anyone interrupt until she’s given her feelings full expression. And what expression it is. The anthropologist Don Kulick recorded a typical kros: 'You’re a ****ing rubbish man. You hear? Your ****ing ***** is full of maggots. You’re a big ****ing semen *****. Stone balls! ...****ing black *****! You *****ing mother’s ****!'"
-- Susannah Herbert, "The Myth of Mars and Venus: Do Men and Women Really Speak Different Languages? by Deborah Cameron", Sunday Times, 7 October 2007
***
What is involved in "verbal abuse" -- what do people designate with the expression? why are just words and voice able to harm?
For a whole bunch of reasons -- consider insults (which require a post in themselves to discuss), belittlement, slander, humiliation, threats, and loss of face in the presence of others...
And there is also some evidence that raised volume alone can constitute damage to children (let alone beating them).
-- "Screaming at children seldom helps, may hurt", New York Times, 14 November 2004
***
Can one speak more directly of the violence, the attack of a raised voice? -- Why would a dog have evolved a bark?
When a lion roars, maybe it can compel you against your conscious mind.
Any number of just-so stories here. Perhaps the roar damages or threatens to damage eardrums, or it causes pain. Perhaps the ears of prey have been conditioned -- by natural selection -- to fear. Or perhaps the roar evolved to take advantage of a pre-existing tendency to run.
***
If nothing else, raised volume can often deprive you of the oppportunity to speak.
***
This sort of issue leaks into matters of free speech generally.
Is mental distress something that should be taken into account along with physical distress? Should there be laws against swearing or "offensive conduct"?
Or are these just an excuse for censorship of Danish cartoons and similar, and are they a slippery slope towards suppression of protest and dissent?
***
And if one recognized the causative power of voice, would this influence what counts as "incitement", and what does and doesn't count as consent?
***
When you're preparing to become a Scientology auditor, a lot of this training is speech-based. In particular, there is a tone of voice (I have a faint memory that it's called "tone 7" or some such, but don't quote me) -- and this precise tone (don't know whether it's a pitch, or a timbre, or whatever) is supposed to inspire obedience.
Couldn't find much on the ever-reliable Wikipedia, but it does comment: "The Anderson Report, an official inquiry conducted for the state of Victoria, Australia, found that auditing involved a form of 'authoritative' or 'command' hypnosis, in which the hypnotist assumes 'positive authoritative control' over the patient."
***
-- Check out this Christian website preaching against verbal abuse: "It is not God's will for you (or your friend) to be in a verbally abusive relationship. Those angry and critical words will destroy your confidence and self-esteem. Being submissive in a marriage relationship (Ephesians 5:22) does not mean allowing yourself to be verbally beaten by your partner. 1 Peter 3:1 does teach that wives, by being submissive to their husbands, may win them to Christ by their behavior. But it does not teach that they must allow themselves to be verbally or physically abused."
***
Notes
-- Sunday 28 October 2007: "The human race will one day spllt into separate species, an attractive, intelligent ruling elite and an underclass of dim-witted, ugly goblin-like creatures, a top scientist claims. In about 100,000, sexual selection could mean two distinct breeds of human will have developed. The prediction comes from evolutionary London School of Economics theorist Dr Oliver Curry... Dr Curry says men will have symmetrical facial features, deeper voices and bigger penises" -- ("Good, bad and ugly", Herald Sun (Melbourne), 28/10/07, general news, page 6). I wonder why deeper voices are an evolutionary advantage...
| 102 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Damo
It is difficult to see the line between assertion and aggression sometimes.
It is also difficult to work out who is actually effected by verbal abuse and who is crying victimhood.
It is a shame that perfect people do not exist so you will find that this issue will never go away. Then again just because some one is verbalized does it mean that they should be upset or should they be taught how to resist its influence?
How much of verbal abuse is actuall self inflicted with a negative attitude against ones self?
Comment by Nonymous
Philosophy Blog
It's possible that whenever anyone makes any unconditional claim -- even "The cat sat on the mat" -- there is a sort of violence.
For instance, in assertion there is usually the implication that you sincerely believe what you're saying, and, in many contexts, a statement amounts to "taking a position" -- such that it might be impolite to disagree with you, you might react with hostility to disagreement, disagreement might be taken as an aspersion cast on your intelligence, etc.
There are other sorts of violences also. For instance, any conclusion is a sort of violence done to knowledge, kills questioning and searching... Any translation of thought into words is a sort of Procrustean violence done to thought.
Good question... Reminds me a little of a pro-pornography argument I heard recently. "Assume that pornography does cause sexual offences. That still doesn't mean it should be banned, because we can take other measures to minimize or nullify that harm. For instance, we can get tougher on criminals."
But compare: "Beaten wives shouldn't complain -- they should be taught to be tougher and 'take it like a man', or they should be taught martial arts so they can resist."
Depends what you mean by "self-infliced"... There are difficult questions here. Without going too much into it, Peter Strawson once wrote about the difference in attitude between holding someone responsible, and treating them as an object to be managed. As a matter of legal policy, there is always a balance to be struck between "protecting the victim" and saying "it's up to everyone to protect themselves".
Compare also the idea of the "eggshell skull" plaintiff in law: "The eggshell skull rule (or thin-skull rule) is a legal doctrine used in both tort law and criminal law that holds an individual liable for all consequences resulting from his or her activities leading to an injury to another person, even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damages (e.g. due to a pre-existing vulnerability or medical condition)."
Comment by Damo
The context of violence in verbal abuse becomes controversal if it include ordinary statements of fact.
The cat is on the mat. neutral statements imply little or we will consider everything as violence even maths.
My second question relates to the concept of self respect. Gandhi once said that 'you can beat me, jail me and kill me. Then you will have dead corpse but not my self respect.'
Similar thing are told to people recovering from breakdown where they are told not to that the person they say hurt is no longer hurting them. The patient is hurting themself in maintaining the rage.
This falls into an area that I have very little knowledge so I won't try to act like an expert here.
Battered Wives Syndrome I won't even try to touch.
My third question comes from the concepts of self talk.
Or what people might consider inner thoughts. Does the person spend vast amounts of time telling themselves that they are failures or useless or stupid. Or do they spend time telling themselves that they are worthwhile humans despite what has happened to them.
The person who continually self condemns may be their own worst enemy.
Comment by Nonymous
Philosophy Blog
The cat is on the mat. neutral statements imply little or we will consider everything as violence even maths.
I guess what I'm ultimately interested in here is what it would mean to be fully respectful of another person's freedom -- how to conduct yourself such that you don't limit another person's freedom.
Now, what I wrote about assertions and "violence" was basically about (at least, I think it was about this -- it's been a while) -- basically about the idea that most human relationships and modes of relating, including conversations, have an element of force. So every time you interrupt someone, you're using force. Every time you state something firmly, such that it's impolite for people to contradict you, you're using force. You're limiting what the other would have done but for your exercise of power.
Now, one might think that such exercises of power are justified or that any damage done is trivial. And I'm quite willing to concede the practical impossibility of a world without such force relations. At the same time, I don't think one should be blind to the fact that such force relations do exist, and that power is exercised in undesirable ways (at least from the point of view of a perfect world). If nothing else, such sensitivity points the way to possible reform, improvement, in custom.
Personally, I don't like the ideas of "self-esteem" and "self-respect". I don't really understand what's meant by them.
But if I were having this discussion with Gandhi, I'd question whether it's true that we do have this sort of control over self-respect, such that it's not affected by what happens to us, or what other people think of us.
(Compare the Stoic idea that happiness is always in your power, no matter what other people do to you. You can maintain your tranqullity of mind even on the torture rack.)
This is ultimately psychological speculation, and not a philosophical question. But (for anyone who's interested in this matter), John Rawls in Part III of A theory of justice is at least one example of someone who wants to argue that self-esteem is indissociable from the opinions of others.