Psychology and Communication -

On the subject and influence

Conducted by Daniel Lutzky

The theory today is slightly out of the program; not strictly a point of the program, seeing

as we saw, but articulates points. In particular it is intended to reflect on a theme, which we

call influence. All you have to do with influencing other dependent or manipulate the

relationship with the other low forms of influence. And to highlight any of the contexts in

which the relationship with the other has a strong influential character we mention the

subject that set out to investigate the chair this year, which is the theme of love. We talked,

in any of the past theorists, the paradox of the relationship with the other, we talk about the

other as image, another that it is not for my body. We said the paradox of this relationship

with the other, as the other is as a picture in which I can not discover whether you have a

body. We refer here to a subjective body; not the objective of bones and flesh body, but

the subjective body of bodily sensations. The other, formed as an image, is someone who

in principle I do not know what they feel, and so I can make a subject somehow have to

invent certain feelings, certain emotions have to be deposited on the image I see feelings,

joys, sorrows, emotions, etc.

It is in this sense that we say that we take the other as an image to which it is not for a

body. And we said that the magic of communication, in a broad sense, is precisely the

attempt to take the place of that image, and from what I play, somehow feel what the other

person feel. That's what we call the magic of communication. In one of the few books I

found in speech communication Pierce says just that: it involves putting in place of

another. A kind of paradoxical consciousness of the other is then constructed. On one side

the other is built for us by yourself, to the extent that I put that image on a series of

sensations that in principle I do not know; but at the same time I built it, the other escapes

me, as it finally can not know if they really feel that I believe. So I build another, I made it

up, but the other escapes me also, and in that sense the relationship is paradoxical. And

this is where we feel the drama appears; If before we talk about magic, this would be the

drama: I finally find that my connection to the other is not real, and that makes me anxious;

when I feel and I realize that what I thought was the other ultimately is not what I thought.

So it is a combination of magic and drama are born social sciences. In this attempt to

invent, to build another that I set, and occasionally realize I'm wrong; because this

happens in emotional and close relationships also it happens in the social sciences: I do

an interpretation of history, of what happens, and suddenly something shows me that my

interpretation was wrong. This is where my solitude appears unable to go to that other.

And in the human sciences also comes the desire to apprehend the other. Learn and

grasp: in the double sense of understanding and taking it because as far as I understand

what I can take, in the positive sense: to understand society, understanding the psyche,

understand the communication to apprehend.

The other also appears as a possibility. And this already involves another sense, it is

essential to understand this intersubjective dialectic: it is possible to get out of myself. In

one of the notes, Alain Finkielkraut talks about the drama of Oblomov, that at some point

in their lives want to give up their existence, and it is isolated, to have no effect or influence

from outside make you feel something. But poor Oblomov finally realizes that he can not

help feeling; even though isolate and close your eyes, you can not help but be himself.

Then he understands the great tragedy: one can not give away the existence, and this is

actually a metaphor for an even greater drama of the subject, which is not to stop being

individual. Then the other is as a way out of oneself, a way of temporiariamente escape

from identification with the other, we have the largest prison in our lives, which is

ourselves. We can use the metaphor of the gaze of the traveler: a person walking down

the street, usually looks at the people he comes across. Why do they look? What they

seek respectively in each other's faces? What they want, surely, it is a connection; but

what we also want is to check that there is another who feels and lives, and looking so that

seems to be alive, and that those who are sitting there near the subway are not robots, but

beings like me. Why look Walker wants to find living things? What gives this visual

relationship with another person sitting in front, beside or standing there nearby? What

brings you is abandoned himself, realizing that he is not alone. That's what we try to flee,

and occasionally we get it for short periods, is the conscience not always be able to stop

ourselves; and sometimes the connection with others that somehow achieves, albeit

illusory, stop being ourselves. If in this life only acknowledgment we would be terrible,

because our I occupy all and no room for anything else. The only way to reduce that

feeling is through the relationship with the other. So in a moment Jean Paul Sartre will say,

in a text that we put in the literature, the other is for me who steals my being, because the

eyes of others define me from outside myself, someone to look at me define my identity.

But the other is also what makes my being is my being. Sartre defines this relationship

with the other in an interesting way in his work Being and Nothingness.

In relation to the other many things they are played. And one of the things that are played

more strongly is this thing we call the relations of influence. In general the idea that

influence someone else is seen as wrong. Whether we speak of having political influence

or power, of manipulation, of witchcraft as a way to influence others and take it to a place

where not to, control the minds of subliminal propaganda, injection ideologies ...

- Hypnosis also be a form of influence?

Sure, and that we were heading towards the problem of hypnosis. Hypnosis as something

that is also frowned upon: its practice is frowned upon and is almost frowned think it,

because it seems to be somewhat serious. The influence, in its various degrees, seems to

be acceptable in modern societies only when he is not aware of it.

- When the person receiving the influence is not aware?

Of course, when the process of influence is unaware. For example: I tend to believe that if

I vote for a candidate because I decided to vote for him, not because it has an influence of

the candidate, his speech, which leads me to do. Then, the influences can only be

accepted when it is not aware of them.

- But in any group there is always most influential personalities than others.

Absolutely. And an interesting thing is that these most influential personalities in a group,

largely are built by the group itself. I mean, when a person is influential on a group of

people, and takes them from one place to another, an outsider may wonder and say: "how

do takes such a thing". But as soon as one investigates in depth he realizes that it is the

people themselves influenced which needs someone to exert influence on it. Then, the

most influential group is somehow used by people to be influenced.