I wrote a book review for this book for one of my grad-level classes a few months back, and I've decided I actually want to share it here in hopes that others understand why this book is problematic in many ways and to spread awareness about the nuance in manipulative dynamics:
Who’s Pulling Your Strings? by Harriet B. Braiker dissects what manipulation is, how to identify it, and gives you tools to break cycles of manipulation in your life. The purpose of this book, as stated by the author, is to “help you to become more aware of the “buttons” of vulnerability that you unwittingly expose to other people and that set you up as a mark for manipulation” (33). Unfortunately, I have many critiques of this book, so will I begin this review with a list of points were I believe the author did a good job: she aptly dissects the psyche and motives of the manipulator; she examines the tools and methods that manipulators use to manipulate; she makes it clear that a victim cannot and should not change the manipulator as they view power as a zero-sum game; and she provides cognitive therapy techniques (208) that help victims to empower themselves to change/leave manipulative dynamics.
I do not disagree with Braiker’s analysis of manipulation and manipulative tactics, however, the most fundamental issue with this book is that Braiker conflates all kinds of manipulation into one, thus her solutions to ridding oneself of manipulators is grossly oversimplified and ignores a multitude of nuances. How it is presented in this book, the author appears to believe that all kinds of manipulation are equal in kind, strength, and impact. On page 80 she lists all the people that may be potential manipulators in one’s life, but the issue is that each of these categories of people has different power dynamics at play; to say that the manipulation by a daughter (20) is the same as manipulation from a boss, is the same as manipulation from an intimate partner, is utterly oversimplifying the role of power in these manipulative dynamics. As a result, her solution to manipulation of ‘countercontrol’ – the pushback against manipulation – comes off as painfully ignorant because it neglects to meaningfully contemplate nuances and the consequences of countercontrol.
The author seems to think that the only consequences of countercontrol are, a) “[the manipulator] can adapt to the changes you have made by developing healthier, more respectful, and more balanced forms of interaction and influence” or b) they “simply may tire of the resistance and choose instead to manipulate another vulnerable target whose capitulation and control are far less difficult to achieve” (173). With this in mind, I will dissect the real nuances behind manipulation and countercontrol, primarily as it pertains to the power of money and the power of anger.
The first critical oversight with respect to the consequence of countercontrol is failing to fully understand the power of money in manipulation. The author acknowledges the role that money plays in manipulation when she writes about ‘control levers’ (108), saying that promises of money and threats of loss of money and loss of a job can be used as tools for manipulation. Despite this acknowledgement, she makes no effort to address the reality that financial dependence is oftentimes the sole reason people remain in manipulative relationships. This book talks extensively about manipulative relationships with bosses and superiors and even offers resistance strategies to their manipulation, all the while ignoring the fact that that many people do not have the financial luxury of challenging the manipulation of their superiors for fear that they may sabotage their career, or worse, get fired and lose their source of income. Even within intimate partner relationships, oftentimes a manipulator uses money as a leverage over the victim by controlling their ability to acquire, use, and maintain financial resources. This is exacerbated in instances where the victim’s sole source of income comes from the manipulator making it incredibly difficult to leave the manipulative dynamic when the victim may have no financial foundation on which to continue their life with. Countercontrol is not a luxury that victims have when money is involved.
As an example of the author’s ignorance, she provides an anecdote of a former patient of hers who was once a vice president at a large public relations firm in Los Angeles. This man was earning a lot of money but was unhappy at work as he was being manipulated by his boss (203). The solution: quitting his job. She presents this as a self-respecting decision, one that took courage but ultimately was beneficial. Yet she fails to acknowledge the multitude of privilege behind this man being able to quit so abruptly; he had already earned a lot of money and was likely in a financial position where he could afford to be without a job for some time, and his ability to be rehired elsewhere is likely high given his previous position as a vice president and the fact that he is a man. As a matter of fact, the author did not use the word “privilege” once in this entire book which I believe epitomizes the lack of nuance in this book.
The second major oversight with respect to the consequences of countercontrol is the books discussion of anger and aggression. Braiker presents the idea of emotophobia (40), the fear of “excessive or irrational fear of negative feelings… these fears encompass anger, aggression, or hostility and the conflict and confrontation that arouse them.” Put in different terms, it presented as a problem and character flaw that the victim choses to avoid conflict that may lead to anger, aggression, and hostility, and that in avoiding these situations they are “avoid[ing] dealing with negative emotions” (41). It is astounding to me that a Ph.D. clinical psychologist and a woman is able to completely dismiss the power that anger, specifically male anger, holds in a patriarchal society. Avoiding anger and aggression in situations of manipulation is not a people-pleasing tendency, it is an attempt to avoid the very real potential of violence.
For women, male anger always has the potential to escalate. To live in a patriarchal society is to know that it is built on the foundation of female disempowerment and subjugation, and female empowerment is a threat to this system. The author even said it herself that “if you are empowered to any degree, this represents less power for [the manipulator]” (56). And yet she does not realize or acknowledge that the potential consequence of this shift in power dynamics, with respect to angry men, is violence. This is especially true of intimate partner relationships, so it is particularly disconcerting to see how Braiker tries to paint physically abusive relationships as completely detached from the manipulation she wishes to address in her book (xi). She fails to recognize that the steps that precede physical violence is emotional manipulation, and that the jump from emotional manipulation to physical violence happens when the manipulator feels there is shift in power dynamics and they want to re-establish their control. So even when a man has never previously been physically violent, women are acutely aware, consciously or subconsciously, that violence is always a possibility when they choose to empower themselves and push back against manipulation (i.e., countercontrol) in the face of angry men, therefore calling an avoidance of anger “emotophobia” is wildly ignorant.
Jumping off of this point, because this book took such a broad approach to manipulation, many of its messages have the potential to be interpreted as victim-blaming even if that was not the intention of the author. It is clear that the author is trying to get the reader to understand their own role in the manipulative dynamic as a means of building a foundation of awareness that will allow the victim to start shifting the manipulative dynamic. However, if the reader is stuck in an emotionally abusive intimate relationship (a type of relationship that the author labels as manipulation), being told that they should “stop participating as a compliant victim” (179) will only have an adverse effect. The only section of the book where the author acknowledges that certain manipulative relationships should be escaped is in the section titled “Extraction” (174). It constitutes one page of the entire book, where though valid points are made – such as remaining in these relationships means “losing sight of who you are and what you value, need, and believe” (175) – she offers no method for identifying if a relationship is worth staying or leaving, merely that it may take some “deliberation” (174). She underestimates the psychological power that manipulators have on a victim’s psyche and ability to comprehend that they are even in a manipulative relationship. So, to assume that it would be easy for victims to know when it is time to leave or resist is oversimplifying things (not to mention power dynamics involving money that have already been addressed).
In sum, this book lacked any and all nuance underlying power dynamics in manipulative relationships meaning much of her messages fell short and came off as ignorant. It would have been far more effective had Braiker limited her analysis of manipulation to specific contexts (e.g., workplace, families) or meaningfully engaged in analysis of the various types of manipulative relationships and the various unique solutions for each.