Violence, coercion and manipulation are three of the main ways individuals use to control the other person, or persons, in a relationship. We have identified violence as the worst of the three, for good reasons. However, I believe that we overlook the prevalence and significance of manipulation in our relationships. And there are real consequences, on a relationship level, but also on a societal level.
Violence
Violence, whether by deed or word, is utilized far too often in our relationships. (Let’s leave aside those whose pathologies incline them to violence because I believe they are distinct from the general population, in their motives and their ability or willingness to control their behavior.) It is important here to recognize that violence by word can be, and is often, as powerful as physical violence. Think, for example, of a child who is not once struck, but is threatened with physical violence on at least a daily basis. Would we say that this child was less of a victim than one who is spanked? Some might, but I would argue that each child’s neurological development will be affected and each may present, at times, with symptoms of PTSD.
Why, then, if we are able to recognize the physical and emotional consequences of violence, do we utilize it too frequently? My belief is that violence is often brought on by an individual’s inability to express their emotions in a healthy manner. Take, for example, the lover who does not feel secure in her relationship. She has concerns over her partner’s fidelity, but is afraid to ask. So she bottles up her feelings of insecurity, worry and concern. This goes on until one day, her partner comments on a female friend. She snaps and throws a glass at his head. This happened because she never aired her concerns. The comment about the female friend may have even been completely anodyne, but she did not actually hear the message. What she heard were all of her concerns rushing out to her hand that held a glass. If she could have expressed her feelings of insecurity within the relationship, this could have been averted.
Again, to return to our verbally assaulted child example. What is behind her father’s threats? Perhaps his feelings of inadequacy as a parent. How hard is it for an adult to admit vulnerability, especially to his child? Instead of talking about his feelings, they come out as verbal violence toward his daughter.
I am leaving aside, for now, a discussion of how the desire for control underlies most violence, coercion and manipulation. But you should feel free to think of your own example of violence brought about by someone feeling out of control, or in control of their partner.
Coercion
Coercion is another tactic used to shape our relationships in ways that, for our own idiosyncratic reasons, we desire. I want to be sure that here we are separating the threat of violence from coercion itself, as I do think many people find the threat of violence to be coercive (and it is). Here, I want to focus on what might be called unspoken quid pro quo. Partners or parents do not often explicitly tell their lover or child that if they do not do x that they will withhold their love, affection and companionship.
But we use coercion so often in our relationships that we likely do not even recognize it. Here, a controversial example- if you don’t eat your green beans, you cannot have dessert. How many parents have said something similar? Just about all of us have, at one point or another. We think of this as applying a rule or providing an incentive for a child to finish their vegetables, but it’s no less coercive than any other example we might come up with. We may also think of it as striking a bargain where both parties win- the parent gets vegetables into their child’s diet; the child gets dessert.
That is not unlike “deals” that partners may make with one another. For example, if you go to this concert with me I will watch Orange is the New Black with you. Again, both parties have “won.” Maybe it is not coercion if both parties had some willingness to engage in each other’s preferred activities, and the trade off was merely a sweetener. But, what if neither party really wanted to do the other’s activity? Are we then more comfortable labelling it coercion?
To me, coercion may not always be bad or wrong. I am sure that there are an infinite number of potentially coercive acts that we could all agree were not quite a bad kind of coercion. And, if we are to avoid all such “good” coercion, I am not sure that we could function as a society.
Manipulation
We have now arrived at what I believe to be the most insidious of the three methods of relationship control- manipulation. In general usage, coercion and manipulation are not too distant cousins. I would distinguish one from the other by saying that coercion involves some sort of threat, implied or stated, while manipulation is more covert and deceptive.
Manipulation can take many forms, some of which have pleasant aspects, such as flattery. Underneath the pleasant veneer, though, is an ulterior motive. Maybe you flatter your partner as a way to distract them from some bad act you have done, or are about to do.
More frequently, manipulation focuses on the emotions, thoughts and beliefs of a partner or a child. For example, making a lover feel fat, so that they come to believe they are undesirable by others and have no choice but to remain in the relationship. Maybe a parent making their child feel stupid to reinforce their power and dominance in the parent-child relationship. Sometimes we make others come to believe that our needs, wants and desires are also theirs, stripping away their individuality and personal agency.
That this happens so covertly, and over a long period of time only adds to its power. unlike violence, which is clearly visible, and coercion, which may not be as clear as violence but is still readily discoverable, manipulation is so cleverly disguised. That is what makes it the most poisonous to relationships and to society.
Manipulation, when discovered/detected, reduces our ability to trust a loved one, be they a partner, child or close friend. Multiply that over billions of people, and we can start to see why there are so many problems in our world. What begins in close relationships serves to undermine one of the cornerstones of society- trust.
Without trust, we cannot truly and deeply love others. Without trust, we cannot live peacefully and securely. Think about how little the average person trusts- others and institutions. It’s not a lot.
Bringing It Together
We engage in violence, coercion and manipulation in order to exercise control. Control over our relationships, control over our loved ones, and illusional control of ourselves. In doing so, we betray ourselves and others. We destroy trust, in ourselves and the world around us. Without trust, we find it more and more difficult to not want to be in control. There has to be a better way.
That way is to practice non-possession and acceptance. When we stop viewing our partners and our children as possessions and we accept them for who they are, we can know happiness. We can eliminate violence, coercion and manipulation. When we break free from our need to control, we can truly love, without condition. We can love ourselves and others, for who they are.
It is not an easy task, nor is it a path that is always comfortable. As you make your journey toward your best self, others may not be on theirs. Or they may be at a different point on their trail. You may get hurt along the way, and your instinct may lead you to want to exert control once again. While that may seem like a quick solution, it is not. When you return to violence, coercion and manipulation, you are also returning to heartache, disappointment and lack of peace.
Until you can free yourself from possession and attachment, you will not know happiness. Until we can free ourselves from possession and attachment, we will not know peace.
Sukhi Hotu
Suburban Buddhism 