On
the Nature of Threat.
A
Social Psychological Analysis
Thomas W. Milburn & Kenneth
H. Watman
Praeger Publishers, New York,
U.S.A. 1981.
Από
τη μονογραφία των Thomas
W. Milburn και Kenneth H. Watman «Περί
της φύσεως της Απειλής. Μία κοινωνική ψυχολογική ανάλυσις» (1981) αντιγράφω
με συντμήσεις ορισμένα χωρία εκ του προλόγου.
Δεν υπάρχει μετάφραση, αλλά η κυριολεξία στη
διατύπωση καθιστά ευανάγνωστο το νόημα του κειμένου, τη στιγμή μάλιστα που
απουσιάζουν άκρως εξειδικευμένοι όροι.
/ - 1. INTRODUCTION
AND OVERVIEW
“Guilt
arises from the invocation of violated norms by a person in a legimate position
to do this.
The important roles of norms and legitimacy in effective threats
comprise one of the two major themes of this book.
The
second (major theme) of these proceeds logically from the first: Threats can be
seen as one of the mechanisms of social control, and, therefore, of personal
control over an unpredictable environment.
This theme, the use of threats
to control an unpredictable
social environment,
is part of the larger struggle by human beings to reduce the uncertainty of
their environment in general.
Threats
are one means to this end; promises,
mendations,
warnings,
rewards, and punishments
are alternatives.
Promises take the same
implicative “if/then” form as threats.
Given this close relationship, it is not surprising that a threat is implicit in every promise. Likewise, there is a promise in every threat,
assuming the threat to be truly contingent.
Threat Definitions
Kinds of threat definitions which can be described
as external.
Kinds of threat definitions which can be
described as internal.
The internal theories of threat have been criticized as lacking
objective criteria for evaluation (Tedeschi, 1970).
The external theories (of threat) attempt to avoid this problem by
looking to those elements of threat that can be objectively measured and
verified.
Ορισμός απειλής:
We define the condition of
threat/ to be the coexistence of two conditions: i) a
danger of loss or damage (perceived or unperceived to the target) to
some value of the target’s and ii) the inability
(perceived or unperceived by the target) of the target
to reduce the danger by exerting some degree of control over some
element of the danger.
Control can take a very wide variety
of forms.
The definition of threat as the coexistence of increased danger and
decreased control permits one to use the term “threat” in the context of
situations not involving social communication.
A threat can be subjective
or objective, depending upon
the perceptions of the target.
Threats exist as part of a larger system consisting of five other elements: a medium of communication, a source, a target, an
audience, and a situational context.
The medium
of communication may be written or verbal messages, and/or physical
actions taking the form of threats.
The source is the threatener (ο απειλών).
The target
is the person or group threatened (ο απειλούμενος).
By audience,
we mean one or more third-party observers of the threat. These may by
disinterested bystanders, or they may be actively involved with the major
actors in a variety of ways.
The context
refers both to the immediate situation in which the threat occurs, and to the
social and personal norms present that exert control over the actor’s behavior
and the outcome of the threat.
TYPES OF THREAT
Explicit threat
[σαφής, ρητή]
An explicit threat is a message, communicated in the following form: “If
you do A, I will do B”.
Such threats usually appear in bargaining
situations.
Bargaining refers to the interaction that takes place between parties
wishing to pursue conflicting policies or courses of action. Threats are used
in such situations to alter the costs and benefits of the alternatives facing
each party.
Τα
πλεονεκτήματα του τύπου «ρητή» απειλή:
Explicit threats have several advantages
of other types of threats.
First, the threatener (απειλών) can exercise a high degree of control over the
timing, terms, and ambiguity of the threat.
Second, explicit threats permit
clarity when threat, as a form, is being used to communicate a position or an
attitude.
The tone of the verbal threat supplies
an added dimension.
Τα
μειονεκτήματα του τύπου «ρητή» απειλή:
But
explicit threats have a major disadvantage
as well: The target is more apt to respond angrily or stubbornly than with
other types of threats.
Presumably, this is because an explicit threat often involves close
personal contact between the actors.
Συνοψίζοντας:
In other words, though an
explicit threat permits the greatest degree of control, its failure rate is the
highest.
Implicit threat
[σιωπηρή, υπονοούμενη]
Implicit or tacit
threats are threats conveyed by some action without an added verbal or written
explication.
The prominent characteristic of an implicit threat is an irreducible
ambiguity traceable to two elements:
First, the threatener never explicitly communicates that an action is
intended as a threat, or that action is contingent upon future behavior of the
target.
Second, at times, even the identity of the target is unclear.
There are indications in the historical literature that implicit threats
are quite powerful. This may be related to three
factors:
First, implicit threats seem to be less personal than explicit threats, so the target is
less inclined to dig in his heels instinctively.
Second, the credibility
of such a threat is high since the
threatener has indicated that he is not averse to action.
Third, because implicit threats are ambiguous,
they act somewhat like a projective test. The target is free to use the threat as a screen for his worst fears.