| Part of a series on |
| Behavioural influences |
|---|
 |
Coercion involves compelling a party to act in an involuntary manner through the use ofthreats, including threats to useforce against that party.[1][2][3] It involves a set of forceful actions which violate thefree will of an individual in order to induce a desired response. These actions may includeextortion,blackmail, or eventorture andsexual assault.Common-law systems codify the act of violating a law while under coercion as aduress crime.[citation needed]
Coercion used as leverage may force victims to act in a way contrary to theirown interests. Coercion can involve not only the infliction ofbodily harm, but alsopsychological abuse (the latter intended to enhance the perceivedcredibility of the threat). The threat of further harm may also lead to the acquiescence of the person being coerced. The concepts of coercion andpersuasion are similar, but various factors distinguish the two. These include the intent, the willingness to causeharm, the result of the interaction, and the options available to the coerced party.[4]: 126
Political authors such asJohn Rawls,Thomas Nagel, andRonald Dworkin contend whethergovernments are inherently coercive.[5]: 28 In 1919,Max Weber (1864–1920), building on the view ofIhering (1818–1892),[6] defined astate as "a human community that (successfully) claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force".[7][8] Morris argues that the state can operate through incentives rather than coercion.[5]: 42 Healthcare systems may useinformal coercion to make a patientadhere to a doctor's treatment plan. Under certain circumstances, medical staff may use physical coercion totreat a patient involuntarily.,[9] a practice which raises ethical concerns.[10] Such practices has also been shown to cause moral distress among healthcare staff, especially when staff attitudes toward coercive measures are negative.[11] To minimize the need for coercion in psychiatric care, various models such asSafewards[12] andSix Core Strategies have been implemented with promising results.[13]
The purpose of coercion is to substitute one's aims with weaker ones that the aggressor wants the victim to have. For this reason, many social philosophers have considered coercion as the polar opposite tofreedom.[14] Various forms of coercion are distinguished: first on the basis of thekind of injury threatened, second according to itsaims andscope, and finally according to itseffects, from which its legal, social, and ethical implications mostly depend.
Physical coercion is the most commonly considered form of coercion, where the content of the conditional threat is the use of force against a victim, their relatives or property. An often used example is "putting a gun to someone's head" (at gunpoint) or putting a "knife under the throat" (at knifepoint or cut-throat) to compel action under the threat that non-compliance may result in the attacker harming or even killing the victim. These are so common that they are also used asmetaphors for other forms of coercion.
Armed forces in many countries usefiring squads to maintaindiscipline and intimidate the masses, or opposition, into submission or silentcompliance. However, there also are nonphysical forms of coercion, where the threatened injury does not immediately imply the use of force. Byman and Waxman (2000) define coercion as "the use of threatened force, including the limited use of actual force to back up the threat, to induce an adversary to behave differently than it otherwise would."[15] Coercion does not in many cases amount todestruction of property or life since compliance is the goal.
the act, process, or power of coercing
'Coercion' means efforts to change the behavior of a state by manipulating costs and benefits.
The state, as Ihering defined it, is an association that is distinguished as a type of association by its claim of an exclusive right to exercise certain forms of coercion.
In the past, the most varied institutions – beginning with the sib – have known the use of physical force as quite normal. Today, however, we have to say that a state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.
In Max Weber's classic definition, the state is 'a human community that (successfully) claims themonopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a territory.'
Media related toCoercion at Wikimedia CommonsAuthority control databases: National |
|---|