This conversation has gone into what I consider a potentially productive
path. That is, we are looking to the meaning of a word in use and
inheritage instead of "in truth". We are reclaiming the language as
powerful tools rather than descriptors of reality.
I checked my favourite dictionary too. But mine is very different. Its
the Chambers's Etymological Dictionary of 1912. Why this is my favourite
is that its a Scottish dictionary before the advant of psychological
thinking. It has many refreshing definitions. (Maybe more later.)
Manipulate is simply "to use the hands; to handle or manage"
Manipulation is "the act of working by hand; use of hands, in a skiful
manner, usually in science or art"
Manipulative is "done by manipulation" and Manipulator is "one who ...."
The point is, that before we got obsessed with (mechanistic) pyschology we
did not attach all of this meaning where none was required. We had a much
more empirical and pragmatic language. How many words can we not use -
updated to match the times - because we can't confront the baggage that
has been attached?
Here is one of the values of _operational definitions_ that scientist,
doctors, artists, engineers, etc are quite comfortable with (although most
aren't aware that's what they are using). When it comes to "human
affairs" (such as management) we seem to think that everyday, ordinary,
culturally normal language is quite adequate. No wonder we're in such a
mess in these areas!
> I've always felt a negative meaning in this word, though my older more
> conservative dictionaries give a more neutral definition.
The source of the negative meaning is psychological interpretation that
has been added to our social language. The condition and the problem is
well stated in the (1912) introduction to my dictionary which says,
"Language is not an arbitrary and meaningless thing, but the result of
laws of historic growth. It will be seen also that words throw no little
light on the history of the men that formed and used them."
>
> Interesting to me, one of my most language-conscious friends feels that
> when we say "manipulation" we mean that the person pulling the strings is
> doing so *unintentionally*. This meaning is not mentioned in any of my
> dictionaries -- Do others recognize this in the word?
I have never seen "unintentionality" applied to manipulation in any
dictionary. Such use is applied by psychologists from time to time when
the they are using the term to describe controlling behaviour that has
been suppressed. This is a special and rather technical case and I have
not found it in any popular use.
I suspect some of the disrepute is that "skillful use" is frowned upon
when the consideration already mentioned by others is that we have applied
the term, in management and other areas, to violation of the free will of
others. (This whole argument is about 100 years out of date.)
--
Mike McMaster <Michael@kbddean.demon.co.uk>
"Intelligence is an underlying organisational principle
of the universe. The 'logos principle' is hidden and
perceptible only to the intelligence." Heraclitus