The Question of Morality "
The very presumptuousness of molding or affecting the human mind through the techniques we use has created a deep sense of uneasiness in our minds."—W. Howard Chase, President, Public Relations Society of America, 1956.
What are the implications of all this persuasion in terms of our existing morality? What does it mean for the national morality to have so many powerfully influential people taking a manipulative attitude toward our society? Some of these persuaders, in their energetic endeavors to sway our actions, seem to fall unwittingly into the attitude that man exists to be manipulated.
While some of the persuaders brood occasionally about the implications of their endeavors, others feel that what is progress for them is progress for the nation. Some of the depth marketers, for example, seem to assume that anything that results in raising the gross national product is automatically good for America.
An ad executive from Milwaukee related in Printer's Ink that America was growing great by the systematic creation of dissatisfaction. He talked specifically of the triumph of the cosmetics industry in reaching the billion-dollar class by the sale of hope and by making women more anxious and critical about their appearance.
Triumphantly he concluded: "And everybody is happy." Others contend that the public has become so skeptical of advertising appeals that its psyche is not being damaged by all the assaults on it from the various media. (On the other hand, it can be pointed out that this growing skepticism was a major reason ad men turned to subconscious appeals.
They wanted to bypass our conscious guard.) Business Week, in dismissing the charge that the science of behavior was spawning some monster of human engineering who was "manipulating a population of puppets from behind the scenes," contended: "It is hard to find anything very sinister about a science whose principal conclusion is that you get along with people by giving them what they want."
But is "everybody happy"? And should we all be "given" whatever our ids "want"? Certainly a good deal can be said on the positive side for the socially constructive results that have come from the explorations into human behavior arising from the persuaders' endeavors. The merchandisers in their sales appeals to us have gotten away from some of their crude excesses of old and are more considerate of our wants and needs, even if those needs are often subconscious.
Edward Weiss, the ad executive, made this point when he said that social knowledge was helping ad men to "forget about the gimmicks and to concentrate on the real reasons why people buy goods." We've seen how the merchandisers of beer and other predominantly middle-class products have become more realistic in their messages.
Likewise a food packer became more sensible in his selling as a result of a depth study. He had been offering a free trip to Hollywood as a prize to persons who sent in the best fifty-word statement "Why I like___" This brought in lots of statements but very little stimulation of sales. A depth study of housewives showed why.
Married women with two children and a husband working weren't interested in going to Hollywood, free or otherwise. Who'd take care of the children and cook for the husband? An analysis of people sending in the statements showed they were mostly teen-agers who had never done any food shopping in their life!
The use of the insights of the social sciences in dealing with company personnel has likewise—where not accompanied by "social engineering"—brought some enlightened policies and constructive changes. Advanced Management reported that one large company now carefully interviews researchers
and other responsible newcomers to find the conditions under which they feel they work best. Do they like to work alone, or with a group? Do they like their desk in a corner or in the middle of their cubicle? Do they like to work on one project at a time or have several going simultaneously?
This management, in short, tries to manipulate the environment to suit the individual, not vice versa. On the other hand, a good many of the people-manipulating activities of persuaders raise profoundly disturbing questions about the kind of society they are seeking to build for us.
Their ability to contact millions of us simultaneously through newspapers, TV, etc., gives them the power, as one persuader put it, to do good or evil "on a scale never before possible in a very short time." Are they warranted in justifying manipulation on the ground that anything that increases the gross national product is "good" for America;
or on the ground that the old doctrine "Let the Buyer Beware" absolves them of responsibility for results that may seem to some antisocial? Perhaps the supporters of optimism-generation in both business and government can make an impressive case for the need to preserve public confidence if we are to have peace and prosperity.
But where is it leading us? What happens, actually, to public confidence when the public becomes aware (as it gradually must) that the leaders of industry and government are resolutely committed to a confidence-inspiring viewpoint, come hell or high water?
How can you know what to believe? It is my feeling that a number of the practices and techniques I've cited here very definitely raise questions of a moral nature that should be faced by the persuaders and the public. For example: What is the morality of the practice of encouraging housewives to be non-rational and impulsive in buying the family food?
What is the morality of playing upon hidden weaknesses and frailties—such as our anxieties, aggressive feelings, dread of nonconformity, and infantile hang-overs—to sell products? Specifically, what are the ethics of businesses that shape campaigns designed to thrive on these weaknesses they have diagnosed?
What is the morality of manipulating small children even before they reach the age where they are legally responsible for their actions? What is the morality of treating voters like customers, and child customers seeking father images at that?
What is the morality of exploiting our deepest sexual sensitivities and yearnings for commercial purposes? What is the morality of appealing for our charity by playing upon our secret desires for self-enhancement?
What is the morality of developing in the public an attitude of wastefulness toward national resources by encouraging the "psychological obsolescence" of products already in use? What is the morality of subordinating truth to cheerfulness in keeping the citizen posted on the state of his nation?
