【Toward a General Theory of Social Manipulation (Part IV) 】
Thus, at present, such a demon appears before the Bodhisattva Lokadhara in the form of the god Indra. This, too, is one of the inner demons, and the fact that it appears in the guise of a god strikes me as an especially ironic kind of demon.
— Gazin Nagao, Reading the Vimalakīrti Sūtra, p.159
7. Affective Manipulation
7.1 Definition of Affective Manipulation and Its Five Phases
Originally, I had planned in this installment to continue the discussion of structural manipulation by analyzing Yasukuni Shrine under the theme of “the state and commemoration.” Before doing so, however, I came to realize that, as a typology of social manipulation, it is necessary to introduce and examine a third category — affective manipulation — in addition to information/knowledge manipulation and structural manipulation.
The immediate trigger for this realization was, once again, the figure of Sohei Kamiya, leader of the Sanseitō party.
Affective manipulation finds its typical expression in the electoral strategies employed by far-right populist parties such as Japan’s Sanseitō, the United Kingdom’s Reform UK, France’s National Rally, and Germany’s AfD.
For the time being, affective manipulation may be defined as the deliberate manipulation of emotions such as fear, anger, guilt, empathy, exhilaration, and a sense of victimhood, in order to guide judgment and behavior in a particular direction — most often toward the maintenance or expansion of power by specific groups.
Whereas information/knowledge manipulation and structural manipulation operate on our external objects — such as information, knowledge, and social institutions — affective manipulation operates on our internal objects: emotions and affects.
Typical examples include exploiting anxieties such as the fear that land crucial to national security or everyday life is being bought up and that the nation may be taken over by foreigners; stirring fears that mass immigration will lead to disorder as in Europe; or inciting a sense of crisis that Japanese culture might disappear, as allegedly happened in cities like London or New York.
Become a member
Paired with this is an emphasis on national identity centered on the Emperor, along with a “return” to the “Japanese traditions” constructed during the Meiji period.
Affective manipulation concentrates power in the manipulating subject,not through rational persuasion, but through the arousal of emotion and excitement.
Affective manipulation is inseparably linked to democracy as a political form. Put differently, it is closely connected to the use of language — and not only language, but communication as a whole, including visual media.
Communication does not consist solely in the transmission of information. There also exist arts that appeal directly to emotion, such as film, music, painting, and literature. Some of these arts have served power and violence in the past and continue to do so today; others, by contrast, have served freedom and love.
Thus, in general, social manipulation includes both innocent forms and sinful forms. Indeed, social manipulation is necessary for the reproduction of society itself. This proposition will be revisited later, when social manipulation theory is incorporated into a general social theory.
Sinful affective manipulation reduces individual freedom while increasing the overall level of violence in society. It arises from democracy, yet simultaneously damages democracy itself.
I use the term affective manipulation rather than emotional manipulation for several reasons.
First, it makes clear that the object of manipulation is not emotion as content, but affect as a state.
Second, it allows us to include within our scope the fluctuations that precede the fixed attribution of meaning to emotion.
Fourth, affective manipulation enables a link between discussions of individual psychological states and discussions of social and institutional manipulation.
Finally, the term preserves the transitive aspect of affect — the act of moving others by stirring emotion.
These five points define the five phases of affective manipulation.
7.2 Affective Manipulation and War
Affective manipulation reaches the peak of its sinfulness when it is used in the formation of war.
In 1943, regarding Adolf Hitler (1889–1945), the Harvard psychoanalyst Walter C. Langer (1899–1981) authored a classified document for the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the predecessor of the CIA, titled The Mind of Adolf Hitler.
In that report, Langer enumerated Hitler’s propaganda techniques as follows:
• Never allow the public to cool off — maintain a constant state of agitation and keep emotions running high rather than letting rational reflection set in.
• Never admit fault or wrongdoing — any concession of error would undermine the image of infallibility.
• Never concede any good in an opponent — enemies must be portrayed as entirely evil with no redeeming qualities.
Become a member
• Never leave room for alternatives — present only one path forward, making it seem inevitable.
• Concentrate on one enemy at a time — avoid diffusing blame across multiple targets.
• Blame others for setbacks — never accept responsibility when things go wrong.
• The “big lie” principle — people are more likely to believe a massive falsehood than a small one, because they can’t conceive of such audacious distortion.
• Constant repetition — repeat claims frequently enough and they become accepted as truth.
The Nazi regime (1933–1945) and the Tōjō Hideki administration (1941–1944) were unique historical phenomena; the identical fascist system will not be repeated.
Nevertheless, on July 29, 2013, then–Deputy Prime Minister Tarō Asō stated the following in a lecture in Tokyo, referring to constitutional revision in Japan:
“The Weimar Constitution changed into the Nazi constitution before anyone noticed. No one realized it. Why not learn from that method? Without making a fuss, everyone agreed it was a good constitution — and before you knew it, it had changed.” (emphasis added)
Thus, governing powers can learn from Hitler’s propaganda techniques, and indeed many of these techniques have been studied and implemented as methods of governance in Japan, the United States, and many other parts of the world.
7.3 Affective Manipulation under the Takaichi Administration
One typical example is the response following Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s remarks concerning Taiwan as a “survival-threatening situation.”This follows Hitler’s second propaganda principle: never admit fault or wrongdoing.
As a result, Chinese tourism to Japan declined sharply, producing an estimated annual loss of approximately ¥2.2 trillion (USD 14.2 billion), according to Nomura Research Institute. Moreover, restrictions have begun on Japan-bound exports of Chinese rare earths — despite longstanding awareness of human rights abuses and environmental destruction associated with their production, and despite Western dependence on them. Severe damage to smartphones, computers, and the EV industry is inevitable.
Before the revival of the Unification Church issue triggered by the “TM(True Mother) Report,” and before renewed scrutiny of her own political funding problems, Prime Minister Takaichi seeks to dissolve the House of Representatives while her personal approval ratings remain high.
Such a dissolution would nullify strong political funding reform bills submitted by the Democratic Party for the People and Komeito, as well as legislation to reduce parliamentary seats agreed upon with Ishin no Kai. Deliberations on social security would be delayed, and even the timely passage of the new fiscal year’s budget would be jeopardized.
This is a dissolution for personal convenience, amounting to a form of dissolution-right dictatorship, with all negative consequences borne by the public.
Within democratic institutions lies the prime minister’s dissolution power — a convention not explicitly stipulated in the Constitution but derived from Article 7. This introduces an authoritarian element that disrupts the entire social system, while the costs of disruption are borne not by rulers but by citizens. This disruption is not unrelated to the study of Hitler’s propaganda methods.
The high approval ratings of Prime Minister Takaichi themselves testify to the effectiveness of affective manipulation.
According to an FNN poll conducted on December 20–21, 75.9% expressed support for the Takaichi Cabinet — the highest since its inauguration. Among supporters, the most highly rated policy area was “economic measures such as inflation countermeasures” (40.2%), followed by “foreign and security policy” (22.9%), and “immigration policy” (11.7%).
On social media, many opinions like the following can be found:
“The House of Representatives election is a battle between Japan and China.”
“Even within the LDP, I hope the pro-China, China-kowtowing lawmakers get voted out! We don’t need them in Japan!”
Become a member
“A government formed by China’s subcontractor parties with a combined approval rating of under 10% (the so-called ‘centrist reform coalition’ created by the Constitutional Democratic Party and Komeito)? Give me a break.”
“Pro-China parties like the CDP and Komeito can’t do anything even if they join forces — they should be crushed.”
“Is the LDP really going to endorse all of its current lawmakers just as they are? They shouldn’t endorse the China-kowtowing faction. Surely they already know who they are inside the party, don’t they?”
The opinions expressed here regard China as an enemy state and treat politicians who seek friendly relations with China as enemies, labeling them as “pro-China” or “China-kowtowing.” It can be seen that these views are reflected in the stated reasons for support, namely “diplomacy and security” (22.9%) and “foreign policy toward foreigners” (11.7%).
There is no doubt that those who hold such views highly value Prime Minister Takaichi’s stance of never admitting mistakes or wrongdoing, adhering to Hitler’s propaganda principle of “never admitting error or injustice,” and of never acknowledging her own fault or apologizing to China.
And such an obstinate attitude has, in relation to China, led to the stirring up of hostile sentiments among voters.
As a result, Prime Minister Takaichi, through this single stance of “never admitting mistakes or wrongdoing,” has succeeded in realizing among voters the following: “recognizing no good whatsoever in the enemy (China),” “leaving no room for alternatives,” “concentrating the enemy on one single target at a time (China),” “blaming failures on others (China),” and “unceasing repetition (of confrontational discourse).”
Taken together, these constitute what can be called affective manipulation.
However, as has been analyzed so far, Prime Minister Takaichi’s true primary objective is neither the urgently required economic measures such as countermeasures against rising prices, nor diplomacy or security, nor foreign resident policy, but rather the maintenance of her own administration.
This is evident from her action of dissolving the Diet at this juncture, immediately before various problems were about to erupt.
This method of affective manipulation is something she has inherited from the Abe administration, which was accompanied by a return to the emperor-centered state and to so-called “tradition”; however, compared with the Abe administration, it has produced a far stronger atmosphere of hostility toward China.
Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi will dissolve the House of Representatives at the opening of the ordinary session of the Diet on January 23. This is despite the fact that, at her press conference on December 17 just the other day, she clearly denied the possibility of dissolution, stating as follows:
“(Omitted) As I have stated since taking office, I believe that without political stability it is impossible to advance strong economic policies, or strong diplomacy and security policy.
Furthermore, there are an enormous number of tasks that must be addressed immediately, such as the compilation of the FY 2026 tax reform and the initial budget, and therefore I have no time to consider dissolving the House.”
In this way, a subject that engages in affective manipulation inevitably becomes a liar.
7.4 Re-formulation of Affective Manipulation
Taking into account the dissolution of the House of Representatives, Sohei Kamiya, leader of the Sanseito party, stated the following on a YouTube program distributed on the 13th:
“In the next House of Representatives election, we will field at least 50 candidates. If things go as expected, we will win around 20 seats. We aim for 30 to 40. Unless we reach that level, we cannot influence the direction of the country.”
He also stated:
“If we end up competing against LDP candidates in single-member districts, we will decide based on whether they support proactive fiscal policy or support the LGBT legislation. In districts where LDP candidates are close to Sanseito, we will not field Sanseito candidates.”
He further stated:
“It’s not about whether they are from the LDP or the Constitutional Democratic Party. In single-member districts where there are candidates who should step down because they do not serve the national interest, we will field Sanseito candidates.”
What is meant by “the national interest” here is, in effect, Sanseito’s policies.
“For example, if it were us, our foreigner policy would be strict. Yet there are LDP lawmakers who say things like, ‘Let’s bring in more foreigners and promote multicultural coexistence.’ In such places, we will field Sanseito candidates.”
The strength of Kamiya lies not in principles such as “egalitarian ideology” or “anti-discrimination,” but in directly appealing to the masses’ “emotions” — such as anxieties that the nation might be taken over, Japanese people’s sense of belonging, and a national identity centered on the Emperor.
Emotion is far stronger than reason.
That is not all.
Kamiya has a characteristic that neither Prime Minister Takaichi, nor the late former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, nor other conservative politicians possess.
That characteristic is a social technique that reorganizes the subjectivity of voters and causes them to identify themselves with Kamiya and with Sanseito.
This is the form toward which affective manipulation aims.
Become a member
Accordingly, affective manipulation, as defined in 7.1, can here be reformulated as a social technique that reorganizes the subjectivity of its targets and induces self-identification.
At the same time as appealing to various emotions, Kamiya repeatedly tells the “myth” that Sanseito and Kamiya have, over the past five years, built the party by hand from scratch.
During this process, fierce struggles for leadership, internal conflicts, Kamiya’s own power-harassment issues, and criticism from party members are all pushed to the periphery before this beautiful myth.
As a result, the social distance between the “hand-built” Sanseito and the audience becomes extremely small, thereby creating the necessary condition for self-identification.
Self-identification depends heavily on Kamiya’s speech techniques. In his speeches, the audience reaches self-identification with Kamiya through the following four stages.
In the first stage, emotions are shared, and anxieties, anger, and a sense of discomfort are made to feel as though they are “not mine alone.”
In the second stage, the enemy is named. The causes of emotions such as anxiety, a sense of crisis, and impatience are made visible as “China,” “foreigners,” “liberals,” and “the existing political establishment.”
In the third stage, Kamiya himself appears as the spokesperson for these emotions.
In the fourth stage, self-identification with this spokesperson occurs.
At this moment, the transition is made from “I support him” to “I am a member of the ‘we’ that he speaks of.”
At this moment, political choice is transformed into personal belonging.
The most dangerous aspect of this politician is precisely his ability to carry this out as affective manipulation.
Rather than obeying orders, he creates reorganized subjects who, without any awareness that they are being manipulated, instead believe that “it is my own will.” For subjects who have identified themselves with Kamiya, not following him becomes a denial of the self.
This reorganization of the subject and self-identification arise from democratic institutions, but because domination is internalized, the hollowing-out of democracy occurs. This is a form of domination with zero governance cost.
At this point, counter-evidence presented to supporters does not serve as material to correct an “opinion.” The presentation of “facts” becomes an attack, “criticism” strengthens cohesion, and “dissent” is taken as proof of being an enemy.
As a result, in its most successful form, affective manipulation comes to produce subjects equipped with a self-immunizing mechanism.
(To be continued in Part 5.)
