Theory of Provocation

In general, advertisements bend over backward to surprise me, stun me, urge me to shop faster or present something to outrage me. One way or another – to draw me in and tempt me.

A dealer puts an undecided, non-overly wealthy and a rather frugal customer under his thumb with a bundle, and thus ties agreement – “so many bonuses for such a low, and additionally reduced, price” – and a loan “without interest” with a deferred payment.

A colorful tabloid feeds me with ephemeral news from the “greater world.” It tries to make me an addicted rumor- and gossip-eater so I do not fall asleep until I am sure who divorced who, who got together with whom, who converted, how much money someone got for this or that role. Likewise, television sucks me into its moronic quiz games and series through the “idiotele” system of “Call and win. A Toyota already waits for you.” By stimulating and exploiting my greed, it forces me to know or immediately find out who plays the janitor, and who plays the broomstick in some movie. And then, counting the statistics, the television reports the numbers concerning the audience and informs me that it is my will that they will broadcast TV theater, concert, or reportage only around midnight because quiz games and sitcoms pushed them out.

A scandalous artist shocks, profanes, and blasphemies. He insists on changing our perspective when we look at his sculpture, painting, or installation. He wants us to start thinking and broaden our imagination. Another artist may have no creative ideas anymore but he always has an idea for a scandal and a crowd of journalists interested in it. A writer or filmmaker can do it too because one spicy scene drives the mass demand for a trivial work, which is sensational and forbidden. Stimulating protests among some activists, clergy, or parishioners works even better.

A journalist lurks with a hidden camera. Is he a peeper? Not only, because he also “fools” the people he filmed. Or, a journalist who pretends someone else to investigate something. Both he and some grave official imitate the ancient sultan, who sneaks out of his palace in disguise to learn how things really are, try the reliability and loyalty of his servants, and know the opinions and moods of the people.

A pickpocket charmingly addresses me or “accidentally” stumbles and leans on me. His people make a flash mob around me so that I can say goodbye to my wallet in a pleasant atmosphere of contact with polite people.

A broke poker player with unlucky cards outplays richer players with better cards by bluffing.

A police officer gives a bribe or buys drugs, and already has handcuffs in his other hand. A car or apartment is in fact a trap for a thief.

A guardian of an exceptionally resistant and obstinate child camouflages a command in such a way that it does not seem like an order but a question or begging. Or, the guardian orders subversively so that the child meets his expectations defiantly.

A head of hypermarket security, burdened with an invidious task of taking away too many people greedy for the already sold out goods, announces that he got a message about a bomb deployment.

The commander of “The Dirty Dozen” turns a bunch of outcasts and degenerates into a solidary and efficient team. He succeeds because he begins with marking himself as an object of common hatred, which motivates all the renegades to desire revenge that is possible if they survive an almost suicidal action. This, in turn, requires them to learn to cooperate. Here lies the trap of camaraderie and team ambition.

A psychologist or sociologist wants to make sure that the declared principles and views are as rigorously followed as they are required from others. Thus, in surveys, the researcher asks tricky questions, and in observations, he arranges incidents, that is situational tests. Another scientist is curious to what extent we can convince people, or to what extent they are susceptible to someone’s self-confidence, domineering character, and nerve. Hence, he experimentally checks the reactions of the examined to behavior or statements of a provided individual with a strictly defined task, for instance to persist in a clearly erroneous statement.

A teacher or lecturer invigorates a dreary audience with spicy anecdotes or shocking theses. He transforms the bored and indifferent into amused or outraged, thus, into the interested.

A colleague, who is my rival in a competition, gives me wrong information about the date and place of the final competition due to emotional arousal.

Mr. Smith eagerly informs, and perhaps also disinforms, Mr. Johnson what Mr. Williams told Mr. Brown about him. He sweetens the sad news with his own compliments.

A driver, irritated by urges from a rushing man behind him, stubbornly slows down to the speed limit but does not go down the right lane, where others go slower too.

A store owner marks the entrance door with a clear inscription “Christian customers are welcome.” Another one puts information in capital letters, with an exclamation mark: “I do not speak German!”

An enemy puts cardboard tanks or planes in front of me to bomb.

Hitler provides Stalin with information about Marshal Tukhachevsky because of “losing papers” in Czechoslovakia.

An intelligence service or inventive confidants of a leader with a help of available or eager journalists arrange a strange “controlled leak” concerning some undesirable person.

At a rally, a demagogue like Harris or Kashpirovsky heals listeners’ beliefs, the economy, and the state with spells. With promises and encouragements like “you deserve it” and “I will help you with this,” the speaker evokes gratitude and spasms. Indeed, the demagogue’s wonderful prognoses and mirages seem like a dream, but they stir no less than movie special effects. The indication of the guilty ones wakes “the people’s wrath,” and mobilizes volunteers for lynching, so they can take care of their problems, which means settling accounts or repaying for a theft. This means the demagogue deals with own affairs with people’s hands.

Before an election, a few celebrities of the ruling party change their emploi. Overnight they transform into oppositionists, insightful critics, muckrakers, and accusers. They hastily change their social circle, identity cards, perfumes, and ties. They will not be disappointed. A sensation, new riddles, speculations, and calculations will follow. There will be a new distribution of positions. Other party members remain faithful but, on this occasion, they now appear “on a daily basis,” at a mass, in the Vatican itself, at a match, in philharmonic, and even in a library.

Is your competitor in elections too strong? Does he have too much support, authority, and competence? Does he not talk nonsense, and make embarrassing mistakes? It is fine, we will dig out some dirt, namely, we will discover something in the archives, ask his old friends for interesting stories, and, if necessary, prepare a spicy case file ourselves.

Despite quite common prejudices, obtaining and using such manipulative, tactical advantage in provocative influences may serve not only particular and destructive purposes like harming, exploiting, and enslaving other people. This advantage may also serve the good of others as well as the common good. Not every provocation is a perfectly obvious “dirty job” because the goal of applying it can be sublime, and the methods can be sophisticated.

Moreover, we need to realize that provocation is not a sparse, marginal, or extraordinary and absolutely pathological phenomenon. Despite appearances, it is a common way of behaving for each of us. We use provocation every day in flirting, making advances, social games, caring and pedagogical behavior, marital and family arguments and accommodations, neighbor conflicts, drivers’ fiery discussions and meaningful gestures, professional work, social initiatives, habitants’ group protests. Every one of us uses provocation schemes and impact methods in our typical roles of citizen, voter, consumer, information and propaganda receiver, entertainment events participant, or in specialized roles of pedagogue, journalist, police officer, or criminal. Moreover, we all are subject to such influence.

Therefore, it is worth considering what is the essence of provocation, what is its accidental and changeable form, what is the use of this way of influencing people, how effective are the tactics and methods of provocation, and also how much does it cost the provocateurs and the provoked.

This is the purpose of the present book. This publication is supposed to be a compendium of knowledge on the possible repertoire of provocative interactions. Thus, first, we need to determine an adequate definition that would comprise various fields and forms of provocation. Second, we have to reevaluate stereotypes and prejudices against the word “provocation” itself. Third, we need to capture the typical structure of the phenomenon in its simplest, complex and sophisticated forms. Moreover, the analysis of various forms and manifestations of provocation provides the basis for systematizing its typical functions and repetitive forms.

Let us try to systematize the knowledge about the mechanisms and schemes of provocative action. They should embrace universal, that is typical and repetitive in different historical situations, cultural circles, and political realities. We may assume that the repertoire of possible provocative methods understood “purely technically” is relatively independent of the ideological and political situation. However, of course, the climate of the epoch, political patterns, and the balance of political forces influence the preference of specific methods and lead to the recognition of admissibility or inadmissibility of specific measures.

We will base our typology and model interpretation of the provocative action schemes on historical and literary examples, taken from strictly academic literature, textbooks, and popular literature, for example fiction. We will also include feature films basing on sensational, investigative, and war themes in our considerations. Moreover, we can find rich empirical material like pieces of information, analyses, commentaries, official statements, and disclosed documents in documentary and para-documentary films, and press publications. However, in this reservoir, we will prioritize reports or reflections which can be clear and instructive only from a certain distance, apart from current references and emotions in which they are entangled. We can find inspiration for the theoretical synthesis not only in philosophical treatises but also in essays and columns.

In the present work, we understand the eponymous “theory” not in the sense typical for science methodology but in accordance with the established didactic tradition. For science methodology, a theory is a relatively coherent and exhaustive system of strictly general claims, meaning the laws of science, which explain the basis, origin, mechanism of functioning, or determinants of certain phenomena evolution. The theory also explains claims based on certain assumptions, which usually focus on a particular type of factors. In this sense, many alternative or complementary theories of the same phenomenon are possible. On the other hand, in didactics, especially in the teaching of separate scientific disciplines, a systematic lecture addressing key concepts, the phenomenon’s range and limits, which are often contractual or conditional, determining the specificity of a given phenomenon in comparison with others, especially related ones, is called a theory of a given object. We study textbooks of the theory of law, upbringing, politics, or literature according to this principle. Such textbooks serve similar purposes as popular tutorials and guides held in the convention of “what every girl should know.” Therefore, respectively: what every lawyer, sociologist, pedagogue, political scientist, literary historian, or literary critic should know to competently study specific and detailed phenomena in their field. In a way, these are the “preliminaries of theory.”

However, the author may admit without exaggerated assurance that the book also contains elements of the theory understood rigorously since it addresses particular topics. These topics are, for instance: reasons for using provocative methods, conditions and limits of their effectiveness, factors causing the addressees’ susceptibility to provocations, attempts to assess the effectiveness of provocative methods, and the problem of whether and to what extent we can prevent or resist provocations. Nevertheless, of course, such problems require in-depth research, and more complete and systematized responses.