🚀 go-pugleaf

[From Kenny Kitzke (990503.1000 EDT)]

<Fred Nickols (990502.0655 EDT)>

<I would
be inclined to use a more personal, affective or feeling-oriented
definition, something like, "Coercion occurs when I feel compelled to do
something I don't want to do.">

I like your idea as far as it goes; but you have made coercion something only
in the eye of the coercee, just the opposite of Rick who wants to make
coercion something in the eye (perception) of only the coercer.

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.

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.

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.

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.  The way to
find out, if it was important, would be to ask questions in a way that
reveals the intentions of both parties as they interact.  And, I suspect even
then you simply could not be absolutely sure.

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 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.

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.

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.

Kenny