Coercive control: implications on society.

infin8fish

Coercive control is a recent attempt by lawmakers around the world to stop the domination of one person over another usually man over woman in a domestic environment.

Rather than address this law directly, I would like to examine it's implications in a larger context. Lawmakers are trying to stop one person from controlling another person. The methods of control are indirect and manipulative, using humiliation and intimidation to facilitate certain behaviours.

Could it be argued that society as a whole does the same thing? There are all sorts of behaviours that society finds distasteful or aberrant and tries to control through social norms rather than any concrete laws. One of the most obvious ones (but certainly not the only one) is the coercion to participate in the workforce. Work participation is used as an example of social coercion as it is such a part of our everyday life.

It would be very difficult to survive in society without participating in the workforce. You could live in the street as a homeless person but would be widely ostracized and often humiliated for your choice. You would also find it difficult to socialise or even just to exist. Most of the jobs of modern society have nothing to do with the day to day survival of the species. The only 'necessary' jobs would be those related to utilities, food, water and shelter. How many jobs today have nothing to do with these things and everything to do with contributing to an increase in the overall economic wealth of society? Yet the few that reject this participation will not have an easy life. Many just get on the work 'treadmill' because they feel they have no choice in the matter, they don't really want to but they certainly do not want be rejected by their friends and relatives or society as a whole.

With the introduction of a universal basic income this idea of coercive control both on an individual scale and a societal scale would be much reduced. But rather than focusing on a (possible) solution to the issue I would like to return back to original question:
If coercive control is recognised on an individual scale why not recognise it on a wider societal scale? The obvious answer is that society wants to continue controlling the minority with the same coercive behaviour and is implementing these laws in a way it deems will engender better behaviour on an individual level. But how long before this rejection of coercive control on an individual scale leeches into the collective consciousness and it is also rejected on a societal scale? Or can it be contained to the individual?

8livesleft

Is it still "coercive" if we can choose among a multitude of jobs or careers to work in? And if the whole city can't provide the individual with a good fitting job, that individual can choose to go to another city or even country to find suitable employment or possible opportunity.

infin8fish

What if the person in question has no interest in contributing to society? What if that society was seen as evil according to that person's moral code? That they saw what the majority described as opportunity as merely a form of control and manipulation?

Take the Amish in America as an example. They have found a place in society but only on the fringes. They certainly do not wish to contribute to mainstream American society as they view it as sinful. Fortunately for them, as an organised religion they have been given some leeway to maintain their beliefs within American society. Now let's say there are others on the fringes of society that are not organised in the same way as the Amish but still feel just as strongly that if they were to contribute to society they would be contributing to something that was evil?

No matter how free a society appears there is always an underlying pressure to conform to its conventions. When that pressure puts your existence at stake, say for things that keep you alive such as food and shelter, if that person feels compelled to contribute rather than choosing to, it would be viewed as coercive control by that person

People that do not conform to the norms of society are often sent to prison. What about all those others that do enough to conform to society's norms but only to survive within it rather than as a supporter of it? They have little choice but to work for their life. They can't suddenly just stop and decide that they want to write a symphony or sleep in and rest for a year instead. Society will demand and expect that they continue their work. If they don't conform their ability to financially support themselves is removed and they will be ridiculed and criticized by the majority until they do.

This new coercive control law may be a sign that society as a whole is starting to see control as a more nuanced concept. Rather than something as obvious as holding a gun to your head it can see control in many small manipulative actions. And this in turn may lead to a more nuanced view about coercion by society itself.

Tzeentch

Interesting discussion.

I think society, and especially governments, rely greatly on coercion to force individuals to behave in certain ways.

Consider that almost all our interactions with governments are involuntary, and our compliance based on fears of what may happen if we don't.

How many people would pay taxes if there were no consequences for not paying them? Very few, I estimate. What this implies is that all these people are being successfully coerced into paying taxes, under threat of violence, which is what imprisonment is.

Kenosha Kid

Could it be argued that society as a whole does the same thing? There are all sorts of behaviours that society finds distasteful or aberrant and tries to control through social norms rather than any concrete laws. — infin8fish

No. You can probably find social analogies, but coercive control is underhand destabilisation of someone's complete autonomy and individuality. It is essentially the covert reprogramming of people to subvert their identities in preference for total centring around the dominant individual. It is not comparable to the overt structure of having to labour for one's keep which is supposed to have more to do with providing a safety net, although it doesn't seem much like that now.

Coercive controllers employ many underhand tactics to get what they want, including but not limited to a very gradual increase in controlling behaviour, attempts to turn the victim's friends and families against them, putting the victim into a constant state of fear about what the next 'mistake' they might make will be, and often ends with total control over the victim's finances and actual domestic imprisonment.

Which is not much like having to get a job or obey laws about harming people. I've seen coercive control twice and I imagine it's far more common than I could know: it is akin to slavery, without even the respite slaves might have enjoyed.

No one would accept that kind of situation willingly, unlike a work environment. Like domestic violence and domestic rape, it is a situation that millions of women have nonetheless found themselves in because misogynistic society perceives male authority as total and women's suffering as negligible. Unlike those, it is not intrinsically gendered and in our still kinda-misogynistic but also kinda mid-feminist society, it does happen the other way around: one of the two cases I've witnessed was a woman coercively controlling a man. Interestingly when these laws were being debated in the UK, feminist opinion in our feminist media flagpole The Guardian was torn on the issue, with most feminists welcoming this logical extension of female liberty but a few decrying it as a patriarchal device to punish "nagging wives".

infin8fish

Coercive control on an individual versus individual level would be much more aggressive in nature compared to the sort of control a society would impose on an individual. The individual that is coercing another would be trying to isolate their victim as their behaviour is generally considered unacceptable by society.

A society imposing coercion would generally be "death by a thousand cuts" type approach. If surrounded by the majority that have been "brainwashed" by the current ideology of that society, that individual that is trying to rebel would be attacked on all sides by that society. A very obvious (if not exactly life threatening) example could be in a school setting where a rebel child may wear clothes that the group defines as unfashionable. Could the resulting confrontation be seen as a form of coercive control? The difference is that this is not a prolonged attack, but what if this rebel continued to wear unfashionable clothes? Until that rebel succumbed to the peer pressure it is likely that they would be continually attacked for their behaviour.

If you replace this frivolous example over fashion sense with say an anti capitalist stance in the USA or an anti government stance in China that individual would be continually corrected by the people around them until they either submitted or at least kept quiet about it.
The attack on all sides from the majority would be very isolating for the individual. But ironically rather than having to isolate their victim it would only strengthen their attack by making their victim mix with others as much as possible (a direct contrast to the coercion of an individual versus individual). The victim would lack of any form of support as their chosen rebellion would be against the majority.

This examination of the topic is in no way an attempt to reduce the importance of addressing coercive control on an individual versus individual level. Any abuse of power of one over another should be stopped. Hence the topic. Society often imposes its own beliefs on the individual, smothering any dissent. The problem is that some controls are necessary for people to live with one another. How do you stop the more harmful coercions of society over the individual? Maybe there is a possibility of creating laws that would protect the individual against this? The introduction of laws to protect one individual from another individual may open the door for this.

This would be exceedingly difficult as society generally favours its own values over the individual's, and seeing as society is the one that creates laws...

Coercive control: implications on society.

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions