Coercion and other words of power

After my long discussion on coercion yesterday I sent mail to a friend in the CR field and asked him for his thoughts. What he said opened up a whole new area of exploration! Quite interesting actually because his connotation of the word coercion is a bit different than mine - he views it as a neutral word that describes such events as the solidarity movement in Poland, Gandhi's protests against British rule, and so on.

What this started me thinking about is this: Ultimately, the word you use to describe what's happening isn't the most important point. Words are important because they are a large part of how we communicate but they're not the most important. For example: Words and phrases such as coercion, persuasion, convince, "change your mind", and "see it my way" are all designed to do one thing - get the other person to think the way you do or at least understand your perspective. I realize that these words aren't precisely synonyms of each other but they connote similarly.

This idea led to a whole other area - the area of ethics and morality around conflict resolution. Gandhi did not believe that coercion has a place in conflict resolution strategies. However, he used a form of coercion to make his point. So when is it morally acceptable to use coercion? To most of us the results of the coercion he used are good. But does the end justify the means? Even if the means are nonviolent, who makes the decision that 'x' behavior is wrong and needs to be changed/fixed?

Does the idea of nonviolent coercion automatically mean that you have the moral high ground as long as your methods meet certain standards of nonviolence? How do we arrive at the decision to try and change someone else's mindset or behavior? Do we ever have the right to even attempt such a feat? We do it all the time and think nothing of it but that doesn't make it right.

Digression (but not really)

I'm going to make a bit of a digression for a moment and talk about the difference between power over and power with. I'm no philosophy scholar by *any* stretch of the definition but I do know that the vast majority of Western communication is based on Aristotole's ideas of speech and how it should be conducted. I once heard someone call this type of rehtoric verbal warfare and I believe it's an apt description. It's the idea of power over someone. Having your own agenda that you consider truth and finding ways to convince them that it's their truth also. To me, that type of communication is ALL about convincing the other person that you're right and they're wrong.

However, I've spent a fair amount of time talking to friends about this concept and we've come up with a different type of rhetoric - the rhetoric of discovery/experience/relation (can't decide on a name yet). In this type of discourse, there is no agenda, there is no point to prove, there is no one absolute truth. This type of interaction's sole purpose is to discover your own experience and find ways to communicate that experience to others. This type of interaction I would call power with. The goal is not to gain anything other than knowledge of the other person's experience, help them validate that experience and make some determination around whether or not their experience is useful to you. In this type of communication, power is shared and expanded by that sharing.

An interesting point I think needs to be made here is that men often use the verbal warfare type of comm. and women often use the experiential/relational type of comm. and it's impossible to come to agreement if you're coming from two such vastly different communicative experiences.

One of the reason I think feminism and women's studies have had such a difficult time being taken seriously is that the have to communicate concepts that only exist in the experiental/relational type of communication using the verbal warfare style. The ideas, language, and concepts that form the experiential/relational type of dialectic simply aren't available using verbal warfare language and mindset. Until we can shift the mindset (the rhetorical position that forms the basis of the majority of our communication) to better accommodate the experiential/relational style, the challenge is going to continue.

Returning to the subject

So how does all this tie into the idea of coercion and the ethical dilemma around when it's morally acceptable to find ways to change someone else's mind? I'm not entirely sure yet but I feel strongly it has to do with the the mindset that informs our communication. It's true that sometimes you have to resort to extreme measures when the other party simply isn't willing to participate. But how do we determine when it's appropriate to use those measures? How can you know that what you're trying to do is the *right* thing? How can you ever be sure that you're not damaging those others in your own quest for truth?

I believe the answer is - you just know. Sometimes, there is a greater truth that we tune in to and know is there but that we can't explain. It's like trying to explain why slavery is wrong. Yes - to those enslaved and to those who suffered because of the system of slavery, it's wrong. But to the people who willingly participated in the system of slavery, it was right - it was the system and it was the way things were. We can go back and find arguments to support each side but in the end - slavery and oppression of other living beings is wrong. It just is and I can find no other argument that's as compelling.

I suppose that's the fine line we walk when we're looking at any issue - when are we so attached to the way we think things ought to be versus when is something just wrong. When we allow ourselves to form an attachment to an idea that outlines how something ought to look or be, then that's when we need to consider carefully whether or not we are truly interested in resolving the conflict (no matter what the outcome might be) or whether we're carrying our own agenda and trying to persuade others to see things our way. This is a delicate discernment and it will be interesting to see how well I succeed in knowing my own motivations.

One last thought - why are we so interested in gaining power over others? Why has this been a driving force behind our communication? I realize that most people would not consider themselves as seeking power while they're interacting with others but I believe we all do it all the time, we just aren't aware of it. Could it be that we see ourselves as power deficient or power deprived and this is the only way we know to gain some of our power back? Another question - what type of power are we discussing?

When discussing conflict resolution, I believe these questions are vital. If you can address the area in which each group sees itself as deficient, perhaps you can reach a true resolution where each group feels all its needs are being met.