The Ethical-Political Dimensions of the Concept of Coercion: An Alternative to Sidman’s (1989) Proposal

Abstract

Coercion has traditionally been treated as synonymous with aversive control; more specifically, negative reinforcement, positive punishment, and negative punishment. According to widely disseminated literature, the defining feature of coercive control lies in the undesirable side effects it produces, and it is thus to be avoided in all its forms. This paper argues, first, that such an understanding is conceptually and empirically fragile, due to the difficulty in distinguishing—based on processes and procedures—aversive control from positive reinforcement, since both forms of control can yield similar side effects. Second, it is argued that Sidman’s (1989) formulation have four significant ethical-political implications: (1) may minimize the role of power asymmetry between the oppressed and the oppressors; (2) may obscure the functional difference between the use of aversive control by members of these groups; (3) may foster uncritical opposition to legitimate uses of aversive control in the struggle against oppression; (4) may promote an uncritical stance toward the oppressive use of positive reinforcement as a means of social control. Given these issues, it is proposed that coercion be redefined as a form of human social control marked by stable power imbalances that benefit the group holding more power in the oppressor-oppressed relationship, both relying on and serving oppressive social structures. From this redefinition, a political taxonomy for the use of the term countercontrol is proposed, based on its effect on asymmetric power structures. When used in a conservative sense, the term refers either to behaviors of the oppressed that do not function to alter asymmetrical power relations (i.e., mere escape), or to behaviors of the oppressor that function to maintain and/or intensify such asymmetry—what is herein termed coercion intensification. In both cases, the asymmetry of power between oppressor and oppressed is preserved. When used in a reformist sense, the term refers to behaviors of the oppressed whose function is to mitigate the effects of power asymmetry through political reforms, within the prevailing structure of oppression, without seeking to threaten it at any level. Thus, it carries conservative potential. When used in a radical sense, countercontrol refers to behaviors of the oppressed that function to dismantle oppressive social structures. It therefore holds revolutionary potential. Finally, it is suggested that the use of the term countercontrol be restricted to practices whose function is to alter coercive structures, rather than to neglect and ultimately preserve them.