The Seductive Rhetoric of Conspiracy

Wikipedia.org
                   Wikipedia.org

Singular explanations that cast entire communities in the same mold are a reminder that we articulate what we need more than what we know.

The stories we tell ourselves can be breathtaking in their credulity. Who could respond otherwise to an account by an old John Bircher that would have us believe a member of the Senate died because the Soviets planted radium in his chair;1 or that cartoon animators were collaborating to turn Daffy Duck into a shill for communist propaganda;2 or that Princess Diana was intentionally rubbed out by the royal family,3 or that there are about 80 “Communists” in the current House of Representatives?4 or that the KKK is “a leftist group.”5  Singular explanations that cast entire communities in the same mold are a reminder that we articulate what we need more than what we know.

On their face, characterizations of collective motives are always implausible. Groups of humans are never really of one mind. Anyone who has worked in a multi-layered organization or tried to get definitive answers from a committee probably carries some of the shrapnel thrown off from their fractured responses.6 To be sure, humans are social animals. But it doesn’t follow that they behave with the uniformity that the grammar of our descriptions implies. We are simply not well suited to think or act in complete concordance with others. The need to define the boundaries of our own worlds is strong, and a language of simple pronouns propels us into delusions of uniformity.

On those occasions when groups seem to be functioning as one, we are willing to pay handsomely to watch it happen: at a football game, attending a performance by a great orchestra, or perhaps watching a play, where what the writer and actors intended more or less unfolds as planned. The attractions of perfect coordination are undeniable. Synchronicity creates the impression of coherence. And from the illusion of coherence we look for shared intentionality.

The more enlightened assumption is surely to expect natural divergence. Descriptions of behavior have more credibility when they are understood in their uniqueness. There is even something pleasing when unimpeachable fact sabotages the smothering weight of a glib assertion. Good histories often provide this function: for example, when reminders of the impressive civil rights legacy of Lyndon Johnson defeat the instinct to place him in a rogue’s gallery of regressive Southern “pols,”7 or when we discover that Hollywood was largely invented by Eastern European Jews who set out to create fantasies of middle-American normalcy.8 Unassailable details like these have a way of wringing out the excesses of condensed and fantasized narratives.

The justifiable caution against defining others in categorical terms is nothing less than an offense to our rhetorical nature.

Even so, the well-grounded caution against defining others in categorical terms is nothing less than an offense to our rhetorical nature. Talk gains importance from the mostly false imprimatur of categorical certainty. We always need to find a way to marvel again at how language sets down the tracks of thought. Discourse is enabled by the descriptive uniformity made possible by the language of “them.” Add in the trio of “us,” “we” and “they” and we have the core terms that can map the boundaries of alien territory. Against the realist’s impulse for practical observation, there is a countervailing compulsion in our public discussion to find forms of generalization that will add force to our arguments. Aggregating “their” presumed motives tantalizes us with the kind of intelligibility that allows making sense of factions that matter, including those from whom we want to stand apart. It’s our nature to enter the fray of ordinary conversation often ignoring caveats about what a gloss of simplified characterization misses.

Interestingly, we are always willing to describe the uniqueness of the causative factors in our own biographies. We cherish our individuality and implicitly ask those around us to acknowledge it. But our search for universals that can be applied to others is unquenchable.

All of this takes on more urgency in an election year, when the tight compression of candidate’s comments in our news media encourages what amounts to speaking in gross overgeneralizations.  Arguments and evidence tend to vanish from our discussions, replaced only by highly inaccurate characterizations of individuals by age, gender, their own religious traditions, political affiliations, and their home regions.   We usually know these risks.  Even so, we look for uniform intentions as a pathway to easy understanding of complex phenomena.

________________

Adapted from Gary C. Woodward, The Rhetoric of Intention in Human Affairs (Lexington Books, 2014).


1. Steven Goldzwig, “Conspiracy Rhetoric at the Dawn of the New Millennium: A Response,” Western Journal of Communication, Fall, 2002, 492.

2. Karl Cohen, “Toontown’s Reds: HUAC’s Investigation of Alleged Communists in the Animation Industry,” Film History, June, 1993, Ebsco Communication and Mass media Complete, accessed April 17, 2012.

3. Nicholas Witchell, “Fayed Conspiracy Claim Collapses,” BBC News, April 7, 2008, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7326311.stm, accessed April 2, 2012.

4. This was the belief of former Congressman Allen West. United Press International, “West: 81Democrats in Congress Communists,” April 11, 2012, http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/04/11/West-81-Democrats-in-Congress-Communists/UPI-77841334174749/, accessed April 30, 2012. West narrowly lost his re-election bid in 2012.

5. Jeffrey Lord on CNN, quoted in Salon, June 10, 2016, http://www.salon.com/2016/06/10/good_lord_what_a_fiasco_cnns_shameless_trump_surrogate_is_poisoning_our_national_discourse_partner/

6. For Franklin Roosevelt, the villains were the Departments of the Treasury, State, and the Navy. To “change anything” was nearly impossible, he noted. See Emmett John Hughes, The Living Presidency (New York: Coward, McCann and Geoghegan, 1972), 184.

7. Robert Caro, “The Compassion of Lyndon Johnson,” The New Yorker, April 1, 2002, 56-77.

8. Neal Gabler, An Empire of Their Own (New York: Crown, 1988).

Comments: Woodward@tcnj.edu

Perfect Response logo

 

What We Can Learn From the Persuasion of LDS Missionaries

Missionaries-elders-mormon
       Source: Mormon-wiki

One researcher studying Mormon missionaries estimates that in the thousands of contacts a single member makes in a given year, he or she will convert only about four to seven people. 

Every year about 30,000 men and women between the ages and 18 and 21 pass through a well-manicured collection of low buildings that adjoin the Provo campus of Brigham Young University.  The Missionary Training Center of The Church of Latter Day Saints (LDS) lies at the base of Utah’s Wasatch Mountains and runs what is perhaps one of the largest missionary training schools on the globe.  The specific goal of the center is to prepare recruits to proselytize for converts in the United States and overseas.  These intending missionaries spend up to twelve weeks honing their foreign language skills, studying The Book of Mormon and The Bible, and getting ready for the rigors of 10-hour days trying to ingratiate themselves to strangers in distant locales.  It’s all part of the church’s tradition of encouraging young members to give up two years to find new converts.

This massive effort at persuasive outreach is a huge change from the mid-nineteenth century, when small groups of followers of Joseph Smith escaped the east and Midwest in their own Diaspora.  Though they eventually settled in the geographic isolation of Utah hoping to be left alone, the LDS Church is now among the largest five denominations in the United States, and one of the fastest growing religions in the world.

All male Mormons over 18 are asked to serve on a mission, and about half do.  Women who are at least 21 can also join the ranks, but in smaller numbers. After they leave the center individuals are assigned a partner who will be their constant companion for the duration of the mission.   Young men in white button-down white shirts, pressed slacks and conservative haircuts easily stand out from their surroundings.   They may end up in Baltimore, Manila, or Sao Paulo.  But they look like they could have just walked out of the pages of your grandparent’s high school yearbook.

Missionaries call potential converts “investigators,” in recognition of the likely fact that conversion is not necessarily a sudden thing.   They are people who seem at least willing to listen, often at bus stops, or on street corners and front yards.  The logic is that the more they learn, the more willing they may be to explore the church be attending services or meetings.

The Student Manual at the Missionary Training Center sees the task of winning converts in terms of the expected biblical admonitions to go out and serve as witnesses for the faith.   In this frame of reference, missionaries often think of themselves as “sharing” or “teaching” the two primary works in the Mormon canon, with the hope that some of these scriptures will be prophetic or provide moral clarity.  The church also emphasizes the classic persuasion idea that you should somehow physically embody what you advocate, a principle that echoes back to ancient rhetorics that urged persuaders to show in their own demeanor the values that they espouse.  New missionaries are taught to be positive and always courteous, and to approach every person as a potential new friend.  This is not an effort that owes much to the irony or cynicism that flows through much of the rest of American life. Earnestness is the order of the day.  They also talk up the importance of family, and especially try to communicate with the unambiguous certainty of a committed believer.

Many new recruits are initially shy.  Most who openly write about their experiences are positive about the experience.  But a reader of these accounts sometimes gets a sense that many of the church’s volunteers don’t see themselves as natural persuaders.  Some appear to struggle to find the confidence to approach people in settings far different than the prosperous Rocky Mountain enclave that is the center of the LDS church.  What do you say to an impoverished mother of seven in a rundown section of Columbus Ohio?  One resident, Star Calley, feels the awkwardness of the moment, but invites Jonathan Hoy and Taylor Nielsen to sit on her porch and talk.  She worries about raising her kids in the neighborhood.  The missionaries listen, sympathize, and then ask her to pray with them.1 After they leave, she admits she was just trying to be nice, noting that “it must take a lot of courage to do what they do, for all the good it does.”  For their part, they hope they can come by again, perhaps building on a first encounter to offer more reassurance that her family will be better off within the local LDS community.

The Manual also offers a range of more secular advice about how to maximize success.  As a general rule, it urges missionaries to follow what is by now an axiom of political persuasion:  look for people who have recently been buffeted by reversals or unwanted change.  “People who are experiencing significant changes in their lives—such as births, deaths, or moving into new homes—are often ready to learn about the restored gospel and make new friendships.”2  It also reminds recruits to find a way to be brief and effective.  What can be offered to someone waiting for a bus, or a person who is willing to give up just a few minutes?  The promise of eternal salvation is, of course, the primary message.  But there are other inducements that open doors as well, such as helping someone do a simple household repair, or offering to help a family research its own history through the vast genealogical resources of the LDS church.

One researcher studying Mormon missionaries estimates that in the thousands of contacts a single member makes in a given year, he or she will convert only about four to seven people.3 That can amount to a “success” rate of one percent or less.  Jonathan Hoy went through the experience and remembers even fewer, but still found his limited success worth the effort.  In 2007 Hoy recalls the nearly 10,000 people he probably talked to during a 22 month stint in Ohio and Greece.  He especially remembers a young woman in Athens who converted after spending time studying various “restored” scriptures from The Book of Mormon.  “I saw it change her life,” he said.  “That’s what keeps me going.”4 

What is sometimes missed in the seemingly low rates of conversion is the crucial role that this rite of passage has on the missionaries themselves.   In the important process self persuasion sometimes the greatest effect a message has is actually on the persuader.  If these missionaries come back with limited success in turning large numbers toward the church, it is nearly certain that they have become committed activists for their faith, carrying some of that fervor into their relationships with others.

___________________

Adapted from Gary C. Woodward and Robert E. Denton Jr., Persuasion and Influence in American Life, Seventh Edition, (Waveland, 2014).

1 Josh Jarman, “God’s Salesmen,” The Columbus Dispatch, Friday July 6, 2007, p. 3B.

2 Missionary Preparation, Student Manual (Salt Lake: Church of the Latter Day Saints, 2005), 99.

3 Gustav Niebuhr, “Youthful Optimism Powers Mormon Missionary Engine,” New York Times, May 23, 1999, http://www.nytimes.com/1999/05/23/us/youthful-optimism-powers-mormon-missionary-engine.html, August 10, 2010.

 4Jarman.