Dr Jess Taylor wrote a blog piece recently about grooming. I disagree with her on some very fundamental points. I hope I haven’t misrepresented anything she has said, and I have worked very hard to write in the spirit of collegiality. I have also done quite a lot of “steel manning” and have acknowledged where I believe she is correct in her views. However, I can’t agree in her characterisation of everybody as grooming everybody all time time, or in her characterisation of parenting, social work, counselling, love as all being like grooming because they involve elements of persuasion. I’ve set out why below, in case it isn’t as immediately obvious to you as it was to me. I hope it’s helpful.
This covers some of my own objections to Jess' essay, but I have some others!
I agree with her that all relationships of all types include some aspects of persuasion, even manipulation, of a sort. There's a certain amount of value in drawing an analogy to grooming for Jess' stated goal of revealing that there's nothing shameful about being groomed and that it is not altogether surprising that victims fall for it when the people who are supposed to be looking after them fall for it too.
But I think the analogy fails when it's stretched any further than that. This is largely for the reasons you point out, the key point being that grooming is about manipulating the tendency we all have to be persuaded; mimicking the signals we expect to see in ordinary relationships and systematically amplifying responses to them. It's not just that the goal of the groomer is malign, it's that - as you say - it's mimicry. It's similar to how cuckoo chicks manipulate their hosts; through using signals that hyperstimulate a response. In the case of the groomer, a victim is led into behaviour that is deeply harmful. A victim might seem to collaborate with their groomer in their own harm by agreeing to keep secrets, cutting ties with people who might be able to intervene and so on. This is because the groomer puts out signals that cause a hyperstimulated response in the victim, causing them to ignore danger signs and other red flags.
This is a gross simplification, but I'm just trying to get across the point that while grooming is a type of persuasion, it differs from the other types of persuasion Jess discusses *in character* as well as in intention. The character of grooming is about finding the right kind of stimulus. The character of persuasion in a normal personal relationship (or the other types Jess describes) are about communicating the sort of outcome desired and allowing the other person to decide how to react. They are about *giving* people choices, rather than taking choices away.
The other main disagreement I have with Jess is in her assessment of the ability of responsible adults to spot grooming behaviour. While I agree that it's difficult and we're all absolutely capable of being fooled, we're also capable of learning. This is especially true if we understand how grooming (and other types of persuasion) work to begin with. It helps if we understand what passes for motive in a predator or what is considered a reward. It's useful if we realise that a predator might apparently extend vast amounts of time and effort for what seems like negligible reward, as you've discussed before.
There should certainly be no shame in having been the victim of grooming and no great surprise if you find yourself a responsible adult who has been fooled by a groomer... But that doesn't mean that we can't all learn from the experience and build better toolkits to help us respond in future.
Coupled with that is the fact that our responses to potential grooming situations can be dynamic. We see a red flag, we make some decisions about how to proceed in the future. The amount of importance we place on various alternatives to make a decision are one of the main targets of the groomer. They artificially reduce the weight of the importance we place on certain factors so that we eventually don't recognise downright dodgy behaviour for what it is. We can train ourselves to keep certain weightings intact or to dramatically increase some weightings when we see certain red flags.
I'm not saying we can make ourselves immune to grooming or being an unwilling participant in the grooming process, but I'm sure we can train ourselves to be more aware of grooming behaviours as a fairly distinct class of persuasion in general and we can train ourselves to have more protective responses, even when we haven't actually identified that grooming is taking place.
Sorry that this is rather long and stream-of-consciousnessy. I will try to come back and leave a more considered comment when I have more time.
This covers some of my own objections to Jess' essay, but I have some others!
I agree with her that all relationships of all types include some aspects of persuasion, even manipulation, of a sort. There's a certain amount of value in drawing an analogy to grooming for Jess' stated goal of revealing that there's nothing shameful about being groomed and that it is not altogether surprising that victims fall for it when the people who are supposed to be looking after them fall for it too.
But I think the analogy fails when it's stretched any further than that. This is largely for the reasons you point out, the key point being that grooming is about manipulating the tendency we all have to be persuaded; mimicking the signals we expect to see in ordinary relationships and systematically amplifying responses to them. It's not just that the goal of the groomer is malign, it's that - as you say - it's mimicry. It's similar to how cuckoo chicks manipulate their hosts; through using signals that hyperstimulate a response. In the case of the groomer, a victim is led into behaviour that is deeply harmful. A victim might seem to collaborate with their groomer in their own harm by agreeing to keep secrets, cutting ties with people who might be able to intervene and so on. This is because the groomer puts out signals that cause a hyperstimulated response in the victim, causing them to ignore danger signs and other red flags.
This is a gross simplification, but I'm just trying to get across the point that while grooming is a type of persuasion, it differs from the other types of persuasion Jess discusses *in character* as well as in intention. The character of grooming is about finding the right kind of stimulus. The character of persuasion in a normal personal relationship (or the other types Jess describes) are about communicating the sort of outcome desired and allowing the other person to decide how to react. They are about *giving* people choices, rather than taking choices away.
The other main disagreement I have with Jess is in her assessment of the ability of responsible adults to spot grooming behaviour. While I agree that it's difficult and we're all absolutely capable of being fooled, we're also capable of learning. This is especially true if we understand how grooming (and other types of persuasion) work to begin with. It helps if we understand what passes for motive in a predator or what is considered a reward. It's useful if we realise that a predator might apparently extend vast amounts of time and effort for what seems like negligible reward, as you've discussed before.
There should certainly be no shame in having been the victim of grooming and no great surprise if you find yourself a responsible adult who has been fooled by a groomer... But that doesn't mean that we can't all learn from the experience and build better toolkits to help us respond in future.
Coupled with that is the fact that our responses to potential grooming situations can be dynamic. We see a red flag, we make some decisions about how to proceed in the future. The amount of importance we place on various alternatives to make a decision are one of the main targets of the groomer. They artificially reduce the weight of the importance we place on certain factors so that we eventually don't recognise downright dodgy behaviour for what it is. We can train ourselves to keep certain weightings intact or to dramatically increase some weightings when we see certain red flags.
I'm not saying we can make ourselves immune to grooming or being an unwilling participant in the grooming process, but I'm sure we can train ourselves to be more aware of grooming behaviours as a fairly distinct class of persuasion in general and we can train ourselves to have more protective responses, even when we haven't actually identified that grooming is taking place.
Sorry that this is rather long and stream-of-consciousnessy. I will try to come back and leave a more considered comment when I have more time.