“In Taking Children Seriously, “coercion” refers specifically to the psychological state of enacting one theory (impulse) while a conflicting impulse is still active in the mind. It can exist without outward signs of distress.”
– Sarah Fitz-Claridge
From the archives: The original post was posted on 23rd January, 1997
[Note added later: I suggest reading the following posts before reading this one: “‘Coercion’ and what does ‘active’ mean if not ‘preferred’?”; “Is the purpose of taking children seriously to avoid the harm coercion would do?”; “What is the psychological impact of not taking children seriously?”
Despite my intention to clear up confusion, my wording in this post actually led to even more misunderstandings. Some readers got the impression that I was saying that coercion only happens when there is another person directly involved at the time. That is not the case. Self-coercion such as self-sacrifice happens all the time.
Secondly, by “harmful”, I did not mean will lead to harm, which is unknowable, I meant creative thinking is currently blocked in that area of the mind. And when I used the word “cause”, as in “likely to cause coercion (1)”, and “place”, as in “to place someone in a state of coercion (1)”, I inadvertently gave the impression that there is a direct and automatic effect, almost as if a would-be coercer can reach directly into a mind and put it in that state, or as if coercion could be directly poured in to a mind.
It certainly feels automatic and inescapable when someone else’s creativity is being devoted to creating a state of coercion in you, but entering a state of coercion actually happens inside your own mind, it is never directly created from outside the mind. As Karl Popper said,1 there is only “instruction from within—from within the [mind] itself. …[T]here is no such thing as instruction from without the [mind]”. However, it is absolutely not the case that the person in a state of coercion could simply choose not to be coerced. If it were possible simply to choose not to be coerced then taking children and others seriously would be a lot less important!]
In this post I want to try to clear up a couple of the strands of confusion about Taking Children Seriously.
What do we mean by “coercion” and if I coerce my child is that necessarily harmful?
By “coercion” I mean:
- the psychological state of enacting one theory while a rival theory is still active in one’s mind.
This leads to some subsidiary meanings:
- the action of intentionally or recklessly placing someone in a state of enacting one theory while a rival theory is still active in the person’s mind;
- behaviour that is intended, or likely, to do this.
Also “to coerce” means:
- Intentionally or recklessly to place someone in a state of coercion (1)
- or to behave in a way that is intended, or likely, to do this.
And “coercive” means:
- likely to place someone in a state of coercion (1)
It all hinges on definition (1). If coercion in sense (1) occurs for any reason, it is harmful. The others are either harmful or risk harm, depending on whether coercion in sense (1) actually happens or is merely risked.
The problem is that if one engages in behaviour intended to or likely to cause (1), that is risking harming the person. One cannot tell in advance that any particular action will definitely cause coercion (1), and indeed, coercion (1) can exist without outward signs of distress, so one cannot reliably know that a person is not in a state of coercion (1). What one can do, therefore, is to think about what actions might be likely to cause coercion (1). Therefore, what we do on Taking Children Seriously is to try to point out actions and behaviours which seem risky in this respect.
Having said all that, behaviours which are intended or likely to cause children to enact one theory while a rival theory is still active in their mind, very often succeed. That is why I argue strongly against many of the methods commonly used in conventional parenting.
A list of coercive behaviours was recently posted, and included the following items:
- exhibit fear when their three year old smiles winningly at them through a third floor window from the tree-branch outside,
- express disappointment that the children don’t complete a project they’ve started,
- keep a portfolio of their children’s work,
- are unwilling to buy a television,
I have not said that any of the things on this list necessarily cause (1). I have said, for example, that if a child wishes to have a television at home but his parent refuses to buy one, that is behaviour that is very likely to place the child in a state of enacting one theory while a rival theory is still active in his mind.
I have not said that keeping portfolios of children’s work is necessarily harmful, but that it may be. The important point is whether or not it puts the child into the psychological state of enacting one theory while a rival theory is still active in his mind. I was merely pointing out another possible danger, for those who are trying to make their interactions with their children noncoercive (i.e. consent-based). I was pointing out that the conflict between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation is coercion (1), so it is worth thinking about what things we are doing that might push a child into that conflict.
In any particular case, a child might have the creativity not to get into the psychological state of enacting one theory while a rival theory is still active in his mind, and thereby avoid harm, but the point is, the child may well not be able to avoid coercion (1) so it behoves us to try not to behave in ways likely to cause coercion (1).
For the benefit of those new to Taking Children Seriously, note that here, I am only mentioning the negative side of the argument—against coercion. The positive side—the argument for making one’s relationships consent-based instead of coercive and what that entails—is for another post. (Of course all I have done here is to explain how we use the words. I have not made the argument.)
Hope this helps to clear up some confusion.
From a followup post (Criticism of definitions, 1st February 1997 14:46:36 +0000) in which I attempted to clear up further confusion created by the above post:
I had said:
“By ‘coercion’ I mean (1) the psychological state of enacting one theory while a rival theory is still active in one’s mind.”
Someone replied:
“The above is a definition. Definitions are dogma.”
No, no. Definitions are empty. They assert nothing.
“The above definition is sound. Any arguments against THIS definition? Falsify it.”
Definitions can’t be criticised for being true or false; but they can be criticised for being useful/useless. They are useful if they specify a thing that you want to be able to refer to concisely. They are useless if, every time you use the defined term, you have to qualify it with many ifs and buts to say what you want to say.
This definition is the meaning of coercion that matters for Taking Children Seriously theory. Theories evolve in the light of criticism. This includes theories about words. But all I was doing in that post was attempting to clarify what the word “coercion” means in Taking Children Seriously theory. I did not mean to suggest that I had done any more than that. In particular, I did not mean to imply that I had made any argument for the idea that coercion impairs creativity. I am not interested in arguing about the word. If anyone has an argument against the usage above, please substitute a made-up word wherever you see the word “coercion” used in Taking Children Seriously theory. It is the meaning that matters, not the word. (“Falsify it” might be misconstrued as a request for empirical falsification, BTW.)
In that post I provided no argument for this idea, so I think readers can be forgiven for not being instantly convinced by that post that the thing we call “coercion” is harmful, or even that it is a useful thing to talk about. All I wanted to say was that it is the thing we talk about.
Notes
1. Karl R. Popper, 1994, The Myth of the Framework, Chapter 1: The Rationality Of Scientific Revolutions, IV
See also:
- Fallibilism is not self-contradictory
- Coercion impairs children’s ability to reason
- Coercion is irrational
Sarah Fitz-Claridge, 1997, ‘Defining “coercion”, “coercive”, “coerce”’, https://takingchildrenseriously.com/defining-coercion-coercive-coerce