Cultural Change

Solve problems using less coercion

At its most fundamental level, Trumpism is so scary because it dramatically increases coercion (deportations, criminalization, forced adherence to particular religious beliefs) and decreases the quality of options available to ordinary people (clean air and water, reproductive choices, government services, the climate as we know it).

On the one hand, this makes it easy to organize against; if there are two things people hate, it's being coerced and having good options taken away. Unfortunately, the United States also has a several hundred year history of people figuring out how to get away with some pretty awful stuff. European explorers and settlers in what is now the United States originally built highly theocratic and exploitative societies, ones that were hostile to individual liberty and intensely coercive (see here for more history).

Replacing this legacy with a world where everyone is free to thrive is an ongoing project. While it can be easy to see that past coercion was wrong (for example, slavery), spotting current myths that uphold coercion and exploitation can be much harder. There is no step-by-step guide for cultural change, but here are a few questions to get started.

Which bodies are being physically harmed?

Theocracy and economic exploitation both come up with elaborate justifications for why protecting people's bodies from physical harm is less important than cultural conformity or allowing a few people to make a lot of money. Cutting through the chatter to focus on which bodies are being physically harmed (whether by violence, poisoned air and water, starvation, etc.) helps ground justice work. Pay particular attention to bodies that are threatened with violence if them move in or out of certain spaces (e.g. arrest, incarceration, vigilante violence).

What stories justify violence?

The core mythology justifying violence in American society is that it is necessary to protect "innocent" people from "criminals." In addition to being an explicit justification for violently deporting immigrants, it is a routine justification for racism, gun violence, queer/transphobia, vigilantism, police violence, etc. It is a mainstay of whole genres of fiction, to the point where it is difficult to find American stories where the protagonist both faces danger and resolves it without either killing the bad guy (individual violence) or locking them up (state violence). The idea that it is possible to stay safe from danger without physically eliminating the potential threat is an imaginative leap that can be difficult for Americans to make.

Until we make this leap, however, we are all at risk. One of the things that scares so many people about a second Trump administration is the prospect that the list of activities that get someone treated as a criminal is about to dramatically expand (if it hasn't already): seeking an abortion, protesting government policies, running for certain offices, giving books to children, using the bathroom, etc. Comforting stories about how it's okay to treat criminals badly because "we" would never be criminals are being stripped away, leaving more and more people fearful that they will be treated the way the most marginalized members of our society have been treated for a long time.

What will keep us all safe long-term is not going back to the status quo. It is challenging the core assumption underlying mass incarceration, vigilante violence, and policing: That violence against "criminals" is the best way to keep us safe. The following resources are an excellent sources for challenging that assumption and beginning to reimagine what it looks like to use other tools to create a world that is truly safe:

Until We Reckon (breaks down myths about whether violence creates safety)
No More Police (a primer on the defund the police movement's approach to creating safety)
Healing Resistance (introduction to Kingian nonviolence)
Creative Interventions Toolkit (practical workbook on nonviolent interventions)
One Million Experiments (a podcast highlighting specific projects around the country)

How do I solve problems using less coercion?

Although violence has a big impact when it does occur, it is relatively rare as a percentage of total human interactions. This makes it hard to build the skills to nonviolently respond to violent situations; there simply aren't that many opportunities to practice.

The key is to realize that violence is one end of a spectrum of coercion. While violence is rare, coercion is omnipresent in schools, workplaces, parenting, calling the police on one's neighbors, passing local ordinances, etc. The situations in which we encounter coercion are all opportunities for cultural change that move us toward a less violent world.

Questions to ask:

What problem am I trying to solve?
Is there a less coercive way to solve this problem?
Can I persuade people by giving them better options instead of taking options away?
If I can't, is this a problem I should be trying to solve at all?

As always, staying in our social brain rather than our survival brain is crucial.

Back to other types of action

Back to the Main Menu

Diving deeper: Why focus on coercion?

Theocracy, exploitation, and authoritarianism all center coercion as a core tool and create a variety of justifications for it. Theocracies in the Christian tradition justify coercion by arguing that human beings are inherently sinful, needing to be coerced into submission to God's will. Exploitative systems use economic coercion (and sometimes other forms) to make workers so desperate that they feel they have no choice but to work dangerous and degrading jobs. Authoritarians use a mix of justifications, often hyping a perceived threat to safety, but rely heavily on coercion and violence to maintain power.

These traits are what make these systems so unpopular, and they are inimical to broader American values of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. However, American culture is absolutely pervaded by assumptions that coercion is necessary, that without it people won't work, won't learn, and won't behave themselves. Not only the government, but communities, families, and individuals all regularly engage in coercive activity to the point that American calls for "freedom" have frequently been calls for the freedom to coerce others.

On a broad level, there is significant evidence that many of these assumptions about the need for coercion are not true. Human beings volunteer, seek out learning, take care of their families, help their neighbors, make amends, and engage in an enormous number of activities that are not coerced. Research on motivation paints a much more complex picture of human beings that are motivated by opportunities for autonomy, mastery, and purpose. It's important to remember that U.S. attitudes toward coercion are heavily shaped by economic systems where a few people reap extraordinary profits by forcing others into dangerous and dehumanizing labor. In more just systems, a wider variety of social and individual motivators become more accessible.

Creating a world where everyone thrives means dramatically reducing our reliance on coercion. This is not to say that people should never experience (and learn from) unpleasant consequences due to their actions. On the contrary, needing to resign from a job or accept that a friendship is broken is a normal part of life. But in a just world, consequences have limits. Things like permanent injury, starvation, and death are not appropriate consequences for mistakes or misbehavior.

If you are interested in this topic and would like to explore it more, please reach out to me through my contact form. When not doing politics, I wrestle with these topics in my science fiction/fantasy writing and other essays.

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse