Thursday, May 15, 2014
Can Coercive Power Be Overcome?
The question we are faced with is, “Can coercive power be overcome”. I think, the answer to this complex question is simple – no. As history has shown we are in a constant state of coercion. Whether it is through physical coercion or “soft” coercion, I think coercion is ever present in our world.
I believe one of the “roots” of coercion comes from the recognition of powers. A reason there is conflict between states and international actors in general is because each cannot recognize a power above it. Each of these actors believes they have the power to govern themselves and do not need to obey another power. This inability to recognize another power contributes to disputes between international actors and the eventual coercive actions.
There is constant coercion in our international realm. We see actual physical coercion with wars, disputes, but we also see soft coercion. We see and hear about threats, boycotts, alliances forming, and other forms of coercion. Though we may not realize it, even forming an alliance can be considered coercion. For example, if multiple states banned together in support of something though they haven’t physically coerced another nation to stand down or change its course of action, the threat of having not just one international player against them, but multiple is enough to re-direct their plans or even thoughts.
Though we can mitigate the amount of coercive action we see, or at least try to make it “fair” with international organizations such as the United Nations, I think coercion in one form or another is and will be a consistent presence.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I wonder the extent to which the coercion-rationality dichotomy is actually a false choice. While many consider them to be two sides of the same coin, might it be better to consider them on a continuum? Your discussion of soft coercion seems to indicate you view coercion in this context. Further, is some of what you consider coercion actually rational behavior? For example, boycotts are planned, purposive, goal-oriented acts. This seems inherently rational. Maybe the distinction between rationality and coercion is contextual (boycotters consider this action rational, but boycotted consider it coercive). If this is contextual, then how should scholars distinguish between the two?
ReplyDeleteTaking a stand, I like this! Still, could you *imagine* a community where there is no coercion? Surely, some relations at some points in time are absent of power relations. Remember, if you can imagine it, it is possible.
ReplyDelete