🚀 go-pugleaf

[From Bill Powers (990505.911 MDT)]

Martin Taylor 990504 23:30]

All your comments make sense. The problem is that we've somehow blown what
seems to be a simple subject up until it's now a one-semester course
(headed for a four-year curriculum).

Does anyone remember how this started? As I recall, it all began when Ed
Ford claimed that his RTP program was non-coercive, and I objected to that
because I could easily see where reliance on physical force played its
part. I also objected to the teachers' being taught to say "I see you've
chosen ..." when the choice of what the child would do was entirely the
teacher's, with ample force to call upon in the background if it wasn't
done. Ed Ford still hasn't forgiven me for saying that; I think he
considers me an enemy of RTP now.

When the highwayman with a gun says "Your money or your life," somehow I
can't see that as "giving me a choice." And if the highwayman then said,
"Ah, I see you've chosen to give me all your money, how nice of you" I
think I might take a chance with the gun, just out of fury at such dishonesty.

Coercion obviously involves a lot of possible arrangements. But to me, the
kernel of the idea is one person forcing another to do something, not
necessarily (but possibly) against the other's will, but _regardless_ of
the other's will. What I object to about being coerced is that the coercer
simply ignores my wishes; they are not of any importance to the coercer,
one way or the other. Needless to say, I have in mind a number of
experiences in which I was coerced and in which the coercer apparently
would have gone to any lengths to control my behavior (in one case, up to
the verge of drowning me).

You bring up the case where the coercer is trying to get the coercee to
behave in a certain way _as if voluntarily_. This, of course, is a great
power trip. But as you pointed out, it requires being able to threaten some
other action, like breaking the Ming vase, _which the coercee is powerless
to prevent_. And, I add, against which the coercee is even powerless to
retaliate later. However complex you make the interactions, eventually we
come back to the kernel: the coercee is unable to resist the coercer even
if there is a desire to do so. The coercer prevails not through reasoning,
persuading, or bargaining, but simply because the coercer is stronger and
has fewer scruples about using that strength.

You mention snatching a child from the street. Yes, that is coercion. It
teaches the child that there are bigger stronger people who can control the
child's body without consulting the child. That happens to be a truth, so
the lesson is not necessarily without benefits (beside the benefit of
saving the child's life). However, if the same method is used _whenever_
the child is doing something the parent considers undesirable or
inconvenient, the child will learn several unfortunate things: first that
the child's will is of no importance to the parent, and second that this is
how you can get your way with other people once you are big and strong
enough. So you have the child furious at being punished, saying "I'm going
to spank _you_ when _I'm_ big and _you're_ little!" (supposedly an actual
utterance).

In my approach to coercion, I look not just at the immediate situation, but
at what the coercee could do about it, now and in the long run. Coercion is
of no long-term importance if, for example, it involves a single episode
which the coercee could survive, so the coercee could come back another day
and retaliate or do something to show the coercer that the result is a net
loss. When the coercee seems to be cooperating, so the coercer no longer
has to use actual force, I ask what would happen if the coercee saw a need
to behave differently. If the (former) coercer would ask the reason and try
to help the coercee deal with the problem, then perhaps the coercion has
ceased. But if the coercer would immediately force the coercee back into
compliance regardless of the coercee's reasons for deviating, I would
conclude that the coercion never ended. You see, I don't think of coercion
just as pushing people around. I think of it as being _poised_ to push them
around should they ever deviate in the slightest from the behavior the
coercer wants to see (and here by behavior I mean either controlled
variables or the actions used to control them).

If one person claims not to be coercing another, I would ask that person,
"what would you do if the other person stopped behaving in the way you
want?" If some innocuous action were describe, I would go on to ask "And
what if that didn't work?" Eventually, the person would say either "Well,
I'd give up, because it's not that important for this behavior to exist (or
not exist)", or "I'd call the cops." If the person would not give up short
of calling reinforcements who can apply direct physical force, I say that
the process being maintained by the person is a coercive one. If it rests
on the use of superior force at _any_ point in time, I call it coercive. I
call it coercive because the victim is doomed to do what the coercer wants,
or suffer seriously for not doing it.

Of course this hard-nosed attitude toward coercion results in all sorts of
wailing and gnashing of teeth, because there's probably nobody who, looking
back, could deny having acted coercively (as I define it) toward someone
else in order to get that person to do or not do something. We've all done
it. And furthermore, given the same situation, we'd probably do it again,
because we don't know of anything better to do. If I saw a two-year-old
toddling out into the traffic today, I'd snatch that child out of the
street (in as non-scarey a way as possible) without thinking twice about
where the child might prefer to be. Who wouldn't?

That's easy enough, but what happens next is that some people want to play
Spin Doctor. Coercion is a Bad Word, right? Well, _I_ certainly won't admit
to doing anything bad, so what I did in snatching that child out of the
street couldn't have been coercion. Let's define coercion, then, so that
what I did was a Good Thing, like "rescuing" the child, or "teaching the
child to prefer safety," or anything else nice instead of "coercing the
hell out of that child." (Or, the other obvious choice, "Neglecting the
hell out of that child so it could toddle out into the traffic in the first
place.")

If you eliminate the question of whether _you_ might have done something
bad, seeing how irrelevant that is to the truth, then you can admit having
coerced others without needing to commit suidice to say you're sorry. And
you can accept a simple conception (mine) of what coercion is, and get on
with something more interesting.

Best,

Bill P.