🚀 go-pugleaf

[From Kenny Kitzke (990505.1330EDT)]

Tim Carey (990504.2120)>

<OK call me a sucker but here I am replying again.>

Gotchya.

<I find it so weird to talk about coercion as an "inherent aspect" of systems
in a forum that discusses PCT.>

When organizations set rules for acceptable and unacceptable behavior for
members of the organization, they can be coercive to members.  These rules
don't have people's names next to them.  While some of these rules may be
unwritten, usually they go into some type of policies and procedures manual.

The organizational management system becomes faceless law.  If you complain
to a superior about these laws, it is frequently said, "Look, I didn't write
it and I can't change it; do what it says or we'll both get in trouble."
This is where the presence of coercion in a relationship would be manifested.

People who are in an organization have little power to change its rules.  It
usually requires a formal review process and authoritative sign off.

Many people refuse to be coerced by the words of the system.  They will wear
clothes that violate the dress code and wait to see if anyone enforces the
rules.  Others are coerced by the words and if they say no jeans allowed at
work or school; they comply even if they disagree.  Of course, if a person
had no jeans in their wardrobe, or don't think they should be worn there, I
would say they have not been coerced.  Rick would say they were coerced.

<Would it also be acceptable to discuss the "inherent rewarding properties"
of chocolate?>

I would most likely not use that terminology but I believe chocolate does
have inherent properties that are perceived as rewarding by chocoholics, like
my wife.  Why would it not be acceptable to discuss chocolate this way, other
than for being a bit clumsy?

Kenny