|
Coercion is the practice of compelling a person to act by employing threat of force. Often, it involves the use of actual force in order to make the threat credible, but it is the threat of (further) force which brings about the cooperation of the person being coerced. The term usually has a pejorative connotation, implying that such threat or force is unethical.
Broader definitions of coercion are sometimes used, especially by libertarians. A common one is the act of preventing a person from having the willful use of her body or property by initiating physical force, the threat of such, or deception (fraud). This definition of coercion and others like it are intended, by libertarians, to encompass the antithesis of voluntary actions and transactions in regard to person and property.
Overview
It is important to be precise about the nature of coercion - it involves using the threat of force to compel a person to choose an action they would otherwise not have chosen. Coercion does not remove a person's ability to choose, it changes the nature and range of the options available.
"It is essential to coercion that one party successfully alters or affects another party’s choice of actions by communicating to the other a credible, conditional threat – by which is meant an announced conditional intention to degrade the latter’s prospects for acting." (Scott A. Anderson)
An oft-used example of coercion is "putting a gun to someone's head". Even in this situation, the person being coerced still has and must make use of free will. Even if it is known that the choice is between death and some alternative (eg handing over a wallet), this is still a choice, albeit Hobson's choice - one which will almost always be preferable to the other. In real world situations, there is usually also the possibility of rejecting the coercion, by calling the coercer's bluff or by fighting back. (Although the probability of a successful outcome from these choices may be low, they are still choices.)
As Michael Rhodes puts it, "A perceived-threat-avoidance-behavior is a necessary condition for coercion. In the absence of a perceived threat which motivates an agent’s choice to perform or not to perform an action, the action cannot be coerced." The perception element is important - the perceived threat may be quite different from the actual threat (a loaded gun vs an unloaded one), or a threat may be perceived where there is none. In such cases coercion may be unintentional; usually "coercion" is used to mean intentional coercion only.
Coercion vs exploitation
In some cases offers not otherwise associated with the threat of force may be made in a context of "background threats". These should be thought of as instances of exploitation rather than coercion. In cases of intentional exploitation, a background threat is deliberately used to raise the likelihood of an offer being accepted, because of the harm that would occur in the case of non-acceptance. This understanding of exploitation may be non-evaluative; some instances or degrees of exploitation may be considered morally acceptable.
The distinction between coercion and exploitation is often blurred by classical or contemporary liberals. Thus a landlord who offers over-priced, poor accommodation may be treated by some as responsible for the housing shortage which forces people to accept his offer; but this is actually a case of exploitation. Classical liberals tend to overlook the similarities between exploitative and coercive exchanges in the economic arena:
"Given the emphasis placed by advocates of the classical liberal doctrine upon the notion of uncoerced exchanges, the prevalence of exploitation is problematic. (...) Granting the legitimacy of the classical liberal faith in the beneficial and progressive consequences of free economic exchange, to eliminate coercion is not to eliminate all perceived-threat-avoidance-behaviors. The presence of background threats motivates many people into exchanges that are perceived threat-avoidance-behaviors. Such exchanges should not be expected to benefit the exploited agent any more than a coerced exchange would." (Rhodes 2000)
The classical liberal assumption is that individuals are willing to tolerate some state coercion, funded by taxation, in order to maintain a system in which the property and bodily rights of everyone are protected against those who would employ aggression and coercion against others. All reasonable persons, itis argued, would prefer to be free from thugs, who bring about perceived-threatavoidance-behaviors. Rhodes asks why reasonable persons should only wish to be protected from perceived threats initiating from other agents - a famine is just as deadly whether it is due to natural or man-made causes - and argues that reasonable persons might wish equally to be free from exploitation of background threats, such as (in the case of famine) hoarding. (Compare negative versus positive liberty.) This is the classical moral justification for the existence of government, including the necessary powers of taxation and law enforcement.
Exculpation
Coercion may be used as a legal or moral defence for acts committed under use or threat of force. However, the question arises of whether a "reasonable person" would have perceived a threat, and reacted in the same way. In attempting to justify, for example, arson, a threat of torture to one's family is treated differently from the threat of a pinprick.
State and coercion
The state generally has a monopoly of the legal use of force; coercion by others is generally illegal (excepting mild forms which may be subject to a de minimis exemption), and the subject of much of criminal law. This criminal law is ultimately backed up by the state's own powers, through the police, judiciary and prison system.
Because coercion is considered by many to be unethical, there is a debate whether governments should engage in employing threat of force to compel behavior of individuals. In any case, both states and individual state representatives may misuse their monopoly of the legal use of force. In such instances the distinction between "legal" and "legitimate" (proportional/appropriate/ethical) use of force becomes more important.
Usage
Some people speak of cultural coercion, where community opprobrium, the "threat of scandal," substitutes for physical violence. In this sense of "coercion", the fear of falling out with the group may coerce people into wearing a certain style of dress, publicly reciting a creed or a pledge of allegiance they find morally reprehensible, starting to smoke when they'd rather not, etc. See Peer pressure, Sociology of religion, Pledge of Allegiance.
Some people include deception in their definition of coercion. This is incorrect; coercion fundamentally involves the threat of force. Deception may be considered a type of exploitation (eg exploitation of someone's lack of knowledge or experience).
References
- Anderson, Scott A. (undated), "Towards a Better Theory of Coercion, and a Use for It", The University of Chicago [1] (http://ptw.uchicago.edu/Anderson02.pdf)
- Rhodes, Michael R. (2000), "The Nature of Coercion", Journal of Value Inquiry, 34 (2/3)
- Rothbard, Murray N. (1982), "F. A. Hayek and the Concept of Coercion", in The Ethics of Liberty, Humanities Press [2] (http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/twentyeight.asp)
|
