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.