🚀 go-pugleaf

[From Bill Powers (990503.1138 MDT)]

Kenny Kitzke (990503.1000 EDT)--

>Because I believe that coercion is a useful concept in PCT only if it
>describes an interaction between people, I feel there has to be two
>conditions simultaneously existing in order to describe the interaction as
>coercion:
>
>A.  The coercer must be able and intend to intervene with overwhelming force
>if the observable action(s) of the other person is/are not what the coercer
>wants, and

>B.  The coercee must be compelled by such threat of force (real or implied or
>imagined) against their own will to act as the coercer desires.

Ah. We agree. You put it so simply -- and I hope persuasively.

>It seems to me, people can be compelled to take actions against their desire
>even when they feel no real threat of force by another person.  That would
>not constitute coercion to me.

I take it you refer to such things as acting out of guilt or shame. It
seems to me that in such cases there must be an inner conflict. If the ONLY
desire is to do something, what could keep you from doing it, but a desire
not to do it, or to do something incompatible with it, or do avoid
experiencing some consequence of doing it? For example, you might want to
take the last piece of chocolate cake, but you might also feel that someone
else (perhaps a child who is asking for it) deserves it more, and give it
away. You're not exactly acting against your will; you're simply choosing
one desire over another conflicting one.
>
>It also seems to me that a person will sometimes do what another person
>requests rather than what they want even if the requester has no intent to
>use overwhelming force if the action suggested is not accepted and performed.
> That would not be coercion either.

I agree. But again I think this involves internal conflict.

>Because the intent of both the coercer and the coercee would have to
>considered to say an interaction was coercive (which is difficult or
>impossible to determine by a third party observer), about all an observer
>could do is guess that coercion is present in the interaction.

I think real coercion is easier to see than that. When you see a mother
dragging a screaming, struggling three-year-old out of the toy department,
I think you're pretty safe in guessing who is coercing whom. The
application of superior physical force is pretty hard to disguise. The
_threat_ of it, which includes a silent understand by the victim that it
will be used, can be harder to detect.

>I do agree with Rick that coercion is far more prevalent in our relationships
>than we would like to admit.  And, PCT suggests that coercion (whenever there
>are better ways of interaction: collaboration, cooperation and alignment for
>example) tends to build conflict between the parties.

I think you are right, and that the prevalence of coercion is what makes
some people cautious about how they define it -- they want to exclude their
own behavior from the category of coerciveness.

>I suggest that if either party changes their intentions from the definitions
>above, coercion will be eliminated.  While this is a hopeful thought, it
>often seems beyond the nature of man to do.  Observe the actions of Mr. Bill
>and Slobodan?  Ask them about their intentions.  The attempted actions have
>not yet produced coercion.  If and when Slobodan is finally compelled by Mr.
>Bill and NATO's overwhelming force to take the actions NATO demands, coercion
>will be an appropriate PCT term to describe the interaction that took place.
>And, not until then.

Well noted. We have yet to see what amounts to an _irresistible_
application of force in Yugoslavia -- except in the case of the dead.

>As with most coercion, whether between parent and child, teacher and student,
>big bully kid and a weaker kid, or President of NATO and President of
>Yugoslavia there will be people who consider the coercion appropriate (good)
>and others who will consider it inappropriate (bad).  And PCT won't help us
>with that tussle.

True. We are reduced to personal opinions that don't carry much weight.

>Only if the parties are willing to subjugate their own wants to those of
>others can a coercive interaction be avoided.  This is contrary to the carnal
>nature of man and will not happen very often, unless there is a change of
>heart.

What we need is to subjugate our private and immediate benefits to a system
concept under which benefiting others becomes an eventual but much greater
benefit to ourselves and those we love. Christianity, at least  in some
versions, is such a proposed system concept. There are others of equal
promise. I would be happy if more people subscribed seriously to _any_ of
them.

The carnal nature of man is to try to satisfy reference conditions by
acting on the world (which, sometimes unfortunately, contains other
people). This can't be changed without eliminating living systems. What
people need to learn is that _all_ people are like this, and they need to
learn what is really to their ultimate benefit, instead of seeing only the
short-term and local gain. I think this is the main idea that the people in
charge of education have to make sure is taught. But how can you teach
practical ethics, when parents are interested only in having children
taught _their_ values?

Best,

Bill P.