David Birren sums up:"So maybe we should just say that manipulation of
objects is value neutral but manipulation of people is not."
David, I know some people are tiring of this part of the conversation, but
your comment points to an issue which I see that many have skirted around
but none have clearly articulated. Let me try:
The negative connotation of "manipulation" arises, as many of us have
said, because people don't want to feel like objects in the hands of
operators. Indeed, in our culture, we have defined the feeling of being
"operated" this way by an invisible hand -- if we feel it all the time --
as a mental illness. Most people engaged in this conversation seem to
agree that "manipulation" is not "value-neutral", and that it demeans and
derogates the person being manipulated.
--But there is a counter-current, which suggests that in any interaction
there is an inherent objectification of the other, which is necessary for
"persuasion" or even "suggestion" to occur, and that practices which
encourage change render this particularly obvious. In short this view
proposes that without "manipulation" no human interaction is necessary,
and perhaps not even possible...
-- Jack Hirschfeld A kiddly divey too, wouldn't you? jack@his.com