Predictable Fears

Predictable Fears

Some basic principles in discussing them:

Real dangers exist. We need a sense of fear to survive. We need to teach the young what to avoid, what precautions to take, as part of our self-defense, our survival strategy.

But, our fears can be exploited and manipulated. The emotional responses that our fears stir within us can be used by others to gain our support and allegiance to their viewpoint -- and often, our money. Alas, it would be nice if the world weren't that way. But, it is

Join whatever group you wish: save souls or seals or whales or freedom. Just be aware of how words and images are used by persuaders for every cause, so that your choice will be a more reasoned decision. Professional persuaders already know these things, but do young people (5 years old? 10? 15? 20?) recognize these patterns of persuasion?

Related to every "fear" is a predictable cluster of associated words and images, heroes and villains. Furthermore, the whole cluster can often be triggered by any of its parts: an emotional response can be stirred by a brief allusion or a fragment image or a song or a mention of a name.

Several general kinds of fears are discussed here (Death & Destruction; Invasion; Restriction; Dominance; Injustice; Chaos). This list is arbitrary, but useful. Other may create different lists of fears, or use different labels, but the basic point is that humans do have a set of predictable fears. These are the "bads" which people do not want. If persuaders want to get our adrenaline flowing, they know how to do it: "to push our buttons" or "to rattle our cages" as some cynics say. They know the things which are likely to stir the emotions and arouse the passions.

People aren't controlled by outside persuaders, but audiences can be influenced. . Our world is filled with many persuaders in conflict, vying for our attention and seeking our assent, with a great variety in their credibility and effectiveness. Audiences, too, have different degrees of susceptibility and immunity to these various persuaders. People aren't limited to emotional responses, yet, the fact remains that people are persuadable by emotional appeals based on their fears. Receivers can be very idealistic, sincere, dedicated, and well meaning, but still can be misled or manipulated by such emotional appeals.

Persuaders are problem makers. If a persuader emphasizes a problem, you can expect the solution to be offered. If fears are stirred up, expect to be offered a way to relieve them. Persuaders often set up a situation so that the receivers themselves "jump to a conclusion."

Audiences and their Fears

Until just a few generations ago, professional persuaders didn't have direct, immediate access to large audiences. Loudspeakers for outdoor speeches to a few hundred people, for example, weren't even invented until 1921. Less than a century later, people now have the technology for instant, worldwide, delivery possible for all kinds of messages, including those designed to stir our fears and inflame our emotions.

"Pep talks" are directed at audiences with the same relationship to a benefit. For example, a conservative "pep talk" is directed to an audience of Haves, of other conservatives; a progressive "pep talk" is directed to an audience of Have-Nots, of other progressives.
In either case, the bonding of the in-group, and the antagonisms against the "other," may be very effective within the group itself, but may sound strange or offensive to outsiders. Sometimes, in fact, a group's "pep talk" is overheard, by unfriendly audiences and creates a backlash, inspiring the opponents to do more.

In the 2004 election campaign, for example, ads which were broadcast on TV and radio, to a general audience and "Undecided" voters, were much less emotionally intense, basically a simple "pitch" asking for a vote. However, highly emotional "pep talks" dominated the narrowly-targeted direct mail, e-mail, and phone messages sent to carefully selected lists of group members and their allies, seeking their "committed collective action" to their side's good causes.

Progressive good causes (environment issues, anti-war, minority civil rights) targeted their audiences using their selected lists, with "horror stories" about the dangers of the Other. Conservatives linked economic conservatives (the rich, relatively few, but able to donate) with religious conservatives (relatively many, and able to deliver volunteers and votes) by emphasizing the good cause of "values." A few months after the election [see, Terri Schiavo case] these religious groups were outraged that their efforts to re-elect President Bush were ignored while the President's priorities in 2005 were all about conservative economic issues -- Alaskan oil drilling, "tort reform," "bankruptcy reform," and privatization of Social Security. (Surprise! Surprise!)

CNN reports on the "Fear theme" in the 2006 campaign.

Haves are afraid of losing the "good" they already possess. To an audience of Haves, conservative persuaders stir up fears of loss: someone else is going to take away what they have, invade their nation or their neighborhood, destroy what they own, take away their "just rewards," upset the existing order.

Have-Nots are angered at being deprived of the "good" they desire, and fear they will not get relief from the "bad." To an audience of Have-Nots, progressive persuaders intensify their awareness of deprivation and suffering: they point out all the "goods" they don't have, the restrictions placed upon them, the injustices in being denied a "fair share," the problems, the corruption and the mismanagement of the existing System.

Haves fear that things will change; Have-Nots fear that things won't change. Haves fear future evils, that things will get worse. Have-Nots fear existing evils, that things won't get any better. Both conservative and progressive rhetoric share the same basic problem/solution pattern. Both stimulate the fears of their audiences on this basic theme of the absence of the "good.

Back to Threat | The Pep Talk | Home