Compassion-language is often used to conceal fear, ignorance, and manipulation. The deceptive use of compassion-language to coerce and control persons and populations, whether among families, friends, colleagues, citizens, or nations, is pervasive and must be guarded against. The motive is not always strictly nefarious, but it is nonetheless harmful. What follows are a few ways in which one can discern whether or not compassion-language is being used falsely to conceal some manipulative agenda.
One way to discern if compassion-language is being used in a manipulative way is by the use of passive-aggressive rhetorical questions that function as “traps.” These questions, really statements, can take the form: “You wouldn't want so-and-so to die, would you?” or “You’d hate for x or y bad event to occur, right?” or, more bluntly, “If you love your neighbor, then of course that means you will agree with me to do z.” These are false dilemmas that essentially function to posture as if disagreeing with that person means you either want or don’t care that so-and-so dies, or that some bad event occurs, or that you don’t really love your neighbor. To care is to agree, and yet these black-and-white scenarios are inherently manipulative because they immediately shut down differing assessments, perspectives, and concerns from being seriously considered. Since no one wants to be accused of being loveless and cruel, such a false use of compassion-language is a way to acquire or use power to “enemize” all non-conformance and bully submission, to pressure and garner support. And yet posing the entire time as compassion, love, and sympathetic concern for others, it is not but a passive aggressive way to militate certain behaviors and attitudes. It is axiomatic that love does not manipulate or coerce through the dishonest use of language, and so despite its seeming appearance of love, such pseudo-compassion rhetoric is not of love. It is thus shown to be dishonest and hypocritical play-acting because, concealing fear and/or anger and promoting manipulation under the guise of care, the means falsify the end and expose the reality of the ulterior manipulative motive. In short, it’s not love, it’s control.
A second way to tell if compassion-language is being used manipulatively is if questioning, doubting, or challenging their purportedly compassionate view does not produce a compassionate response, but rather produces anger and/or censure from the user of the compassion-language: e.g. "How dare you?!" In other words, if questioning them makes them dismissively angry or obstinately haughty, then the compassion-language is only skin deep and maintained for the sake of appearance and manipulation. In short, this compassion-language conceals a fist. Emotionally threatening people with anger and insult in the name of compassion must be treated with suspicion. If someone is, on the one hand, talking about love and sympathy, and on the other hand grows irate and hurls insult at those who disagree with their view, then this shows that the compassion-language is veiling some controlling passions. This does not necessarily mean that their conclusion is wrong, of course, but methodologically they insinuate compassion while only anger is exposed at any resistance, where to disagree is to provoke them to wrath, ridicule, impatience, irritation, haughtiness, etc. Now, it is one thing to believe something intently, even to get excited about a belief held zealously, but if a person cannot maintain a space to be questioned and disagreed with without anger being aroused, then underneath their specific use of compassion-language is not simply compassion but a desire to control, for the anger comes from the personal desire to control being resisted, and fear that the goal will not be met. In this way it is possible to hold a noble idea ignobly, and by fusing the nobility of the idea with its ignoble handling, the noble idea is being held captive by the passions. Thus, it can be concluded that if their persuasive appeal to/from compassion is excessively fragile due to its being confused with the passions, then their attempt at using compassion-language is veiling a manipulative or controlling spirit. It’s not only about being correct, but being true, and not merely right but righteous.
A third way to discern if compassion-language is being used manipulatively is if there is an unwillingness to reason about the subject at hand, or if all attempts at reasoning are met with condescension. People who try to “reason” with people to “save lives” while at the same time refusing to honestly engage with differing viewpoints, are using reason to manipulate. They will assemble facts, figures, graphs, charts, statistics, history, and any possible intellectual weapon to persuade you while all the while remaining firmly aloof to the consideration of any substantial counterargument - and yet try to make you agree and conform to their conclusion. What is more unfortunate is that they will end up using shame to manipulate people to agree with them. They will treat their conclusion as if it were as obvious as water is wet. Without compassionately explaining their position, they will ridicule or represent negatively the intelligence, motive, and/or education of those who oppose their view. The “bigger” picture is decidedly their perspective, and therefore the claim that there may be a different or unacknowledged big picture, or perhaps an even bigger picture, will be met with firm scorn. All the while there will be a refusal to listen, a refusal to expose their reasoning to examination, and all the while a use of compassion language to represent their conclusion. This is manipulative and anti-compassionate, for compassion must be used compassionately, and reason as a tool of compassion, not a bludgeon, not an instrument of intimidation, and not the expression of a hardened heart. In this and the foregoing example, it might be noted, it is not possible to tell whether the idea is being created by the passions, for it is possible to hold a correct position for incorrect reasons, or if the idea is simply being choked by the passions, for it is also possible to hold a correct idea and yet carry it impurely.
In conclusion, it is clear that not all uses of compassion-language are actually expressing compassion. Although more examples could likely be given, hopefully what has been shared above will alert people to at least some of the ways in which compassion language is often used to emotionally manipulate people and strongarm conformity to pre-given conclusions or agreement to pre-given courses of action. As has been shown, a unifying symptom revealing manipulation is that there is almost always a suppression of thought or serious consideration of themes that upset the balance of the preset conclusion(s). Not compassion, agreement and conformity are paramount to manipulation. This does not mean that the manipulator’s conclusion is necessarily wrong, logically, but that the manipulator’s use of compassion-language is hypocritical and that its deceptive nature needs to be exposed and ended. Reason must hold sway over passion. The means cannot oppose the motive or the end, and so manipulation cannot be allowed to continue unchecked by its deceptive use of compassion-language. Manipulation conceals fear, anger, judgment, or some other passion(s), and often ulterior motives also. Sometimes compassion-language is even used intentionally to deceive. In today’s often fearful climate there is an enormous amount of manipulation occurring that is precisely utilizing compassion-language as the vector for leveraging, applying, or implementing whatever conclusion or action is desired by the manipulator(s). Manipulation thus secures “agreement” without reflection, freedom, or wisdom, and so is by nature an unsustainable method. A compassionless compassion, to speak manipulatively in the name of compassion is even a great evil.
-Fr. Joshua Schooping
