Glenda B. Claborne
Comm 620 (Spring '98)
Paper # 2
Argument for persuasion research: Reconsidering fixed/traditional structures in individuals and societies in understanding social and behavioral processes.
Confounded with the multiplicity and inseparableness of variables affecting a given social or behavioral problem, the trend in the social and behavioral sciences is either (1) to flatten and arrange these variables along a continuum, (2) to inject them into the dynamic but fuzzy zone of "processes," "intersubjectivity," or "interactivity" or, (3) to talk endlessly of integrating the variables into a unitary whole. The recognition that human and social systems are not dualistic or closed has led to better understanding of situational dynamics but the fact remains that the topography of society and human behavior is highly contoured, even deeply divided. Furthermore, processes, dynamics and situations are always located between or within fixed structures.
Instead of joining the ranks of postmodernist who have lost their nerve when faced with the absence of consensus and thus can only argue for a Dionysian living of the moment, social influence research must ask why is it that hierarchies, stereotypes, violence, and religious traditions persist despite this century of scientific efforts to eradicate these "oppressive" and "irrational" aspects of personal and social life? While aware of the dangers of bringing back the ghosts of biological or social determinism and of falling into the eternal questions of free will and determinism, this paper nevertheless argues for the reconsideration of fixed structures both in individuals and societies, structures that are bracketing social and behavioral processes.
In terms of the biological, beyond the genetic and neural structures that are claimed to be determinants of certain behaviors, this paper argues for the full acknowledgement of the simple corporeality of humans. Simply put, humans must eat, need sex, and eventually die. That is, regardless of who is dominant or oppressed. In terms of cognition, Chomsky's and others' research into fixed linguistic structures in the mind are important in reconsidering theories of learning and socialization. That is, that humans have built-in mental structures into which external data are arranged into a coherent whole regardless of race, culture or sex. In terms of consciousness, of the ageless and beguiling question of why is it that humans can think that they are thinking, perhaps it is time to reconsider the Darwinian evolutionary framework in which we draw our assumptions about the origins of humans and other living things. Can and should persuasion research reconsider these and take them into account when formulating messages to change attitudes and behavior?
Basic human corporeality, fixed mental structures and origins of consciousness form both the substratum and the superstructure on which and to which any abstraction about human behavior and societies must be based on and must lead back to. To just go ahead and formulate theories about social influence and design informational campaigns without a firm footing on these substrata and superstructures would be to continue turning grand and specific theories into mere techniques and methods that have no power to change attitudes, much less behaviors. The consideration of processes and situations in persuasion research must be grounded both in empirical facts of existence as well as in fundamental questions of fact regarding human nature. Otherwise, persuasion efforts can only be situational and local at best or faddish at worst.
The empirical fact that we either live or die is easier to incorporate into persuasion research than questions of fact about human nature and origin. It must be remembered, however, that there was a time when modern societies operated on a direct link between corporeality and spirituality. The fear of death and the promise of eternal life ordered personal and social life. It has been claimed that with modern medicine and technology most people nowadays live without the fear of deadly epidemics or eternal damnation. But the proliferation of fitness centers, alternative medicines, spiritual enclaves and energizers as well as the resurgence of traditional religious practices can only shout the opposite: people nowadays are as much fearful of death and hopeful for eternity as much as ancient people. How can persuasion research bring people closer to the reality of death and also connect to their deeper spiritual needs without spewing brimstone and fire or dishing out utopian nonsense?
Based on Petty & Cacioppo's elaboration likelihood model in which attitude change can occur either through a central or peripheral route, it can be argued that hard, empirical data about diseases can be routed through the central route while messages about spiritual well-being can be routed through the peripheral route all in one integrated message strategy. We are still faced however with the problem of diversity of religious and spiritual beliefs. I would argue however that instead of allowing diversity to make us close our eyes to the differences between religious beliefs in the name of equality and fairness, we must make the argument that recognizing and connecting to these differences is the more equal and fair thing to do. For example, it has not done much good either for individuals directly involved and to society as a whole to say glibly that all religions point to the same God when in fact they differ fundamentally in their conceptions of God. The pantheistic notion of God in Eastern mysticism and Native American spirituality is in direct contrast to the monotheistic notion of God in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. While one claims that God (or gods) is an impersonal, infinite force infused in all of nature, the other claims that God is a personal, infinite entity whose creation is external to Him. The uniqueness or sacredness of the individual as derived from a personal, infinite Supreme Being is nonsense in a pantheistic notion of God while the concept of a divinely-derived personality is the defining concept of self in the notion of a personal, infinite God. The point here is not to contest the truth or falsity of religious beliefs but to connect individuals and communities concerned to the substrata and superstructure that define their very personalities and communities. In a sense, persuasion messages can be tailored to specific communities while recognizing the integrity of both reason and spirituality together in one message.
Integrating reason based on universal material, empirical truths and spirituality based on a community's notions about God and the origin of their personalities answers to the integrity of the individual and his/her community. The material and spiritual bases of existence are the fixed structures within which processes and interactions must be understood. People may or may not be totally conscious of their presuppositions but their cognitive processing tend to dip into their more fundamental concepts about themselves, materially and spiritually, when faced with persuasive messages about changing their attitudes and behavior.