Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Another Open Letter
Dear conservative friends,
My last open letter appears to have aroused the ire of quite a few of you. Not only did you take issue with my characterization of the ALS ice bucket challenge, some of you have suggested that my criticism is ultimately harmful to the conservative cause and humanity generally. So please allow me to expand on my original letter.
First, I think it is wonderful that the ALS Association has been able to raise substantial sums toward research. While I question whether those sums will ultimately come at the expense of other, equally worthy causes, I am inclined to be optimistic that this fundraising campaign has enlarged the pie of total donations. Perhaps it will lead to greater ongoing giving too, which would also be wonderful. And although some participants are spending more on bagged ice than they would have given to ALS research, it’s good to see greater awareness of the disease. I’m inclined to be optimistic here, too: Perhaps this awareness will touch some people more permanently, and be more than a passing fad.
I also salute the marketers who invented this remarkable campaign. If other charities now need to step up their game, that is not in any way a black mark on the ALS Association. The world is changing, and charities need to adapt. The Association’s marketers were quite insightful in their effective use of the socially coercive power of social media.
Nonetheless, it is important to recognize that such a campaign is, in fact, coercive. Some of you have scoffed at my use of the word, equating coercion with force, but the two concepts are not identical. It’s an understandable mistake; on Ricochet, we commonly discuss the government’s monopoly on force, and the coercive power of its threat. But while physical force is the most blunt and fundamental form of coercion, there are other forms too. Financial pressure, emotional pressure, and social pressure can be applied to get people to do things they don’t otherwise want to. Guilt, shame, the threat of ostracism, and inducements to belong are tools of coercion rather than reason.
Certainly there are worse things to be coerced into than dumping ice water on your head or donating to a charity. And it is certainly an improvement to have such coercion come from society rather than government. At the same time, to favor less government intervention in society and markets is not to automatically endorse the outcomes that they produce. You can favor removing government strictures on prostitution, drug use, gambling, tobacco, profanity on television, or anything else without necessarily endorsing the activities themselves. Mozilla’s decision to fire Brendan Eich was not government coercion—it was the legitimate working of free markets in society. But I would still contend that Mozilla’s decision was bad for society generally. Brendan Eich was ultimately the victim of a social media mob.
Which brings me to the question of whether the conservative cause should embrace these kinds of viral campaigns. Community is a strong element of conservatism; but these campaigns don’t reinforce shared values so much as create bonding through shared adversity (in a sanitized form). Going along with what’s normative is also, historically, a conservative approach; but that’s because conservative thinking has been guided by a preference for the tried and true, not for the conformity of the mob. Independent reasoning and personal autonomy have been central principles of conservative thinking from Aristotle to America’s Founders to Ayn Rand. In the case of the ice bucket challenge, you may agree with the ends, but the means—ill-informed social pressure applied through social media—are the same as what lost Brendan Eich his job. Even if conservatives want to turn viral campaigns to their advantage, I doubt that they can. Using viral conformity to advance conservatism is self-contradictory.
So by all means, have fun making videos, and be generous to the ALS Association. But while you do, be aware that you may be undermining some of the values you cherish. And know that my original offer still stands: If you’d like to persuade me, on the merits, that I should donate to ALS research, I’m all ears.
Sincerely,
Son of Spengler
Published in General
Neither of these examples are coercion. They’re merely setting the terms of use for a second party desiring to use what you have. Neither one says: “do what I want or else I will do x which is injurious to you” (ie “force”); instead they say “don’t do what I want then I will refrain from doing what you want “. While not getting what you want may be painful, it is far different than somebody actively doing something injurious to you.
In the abstract, I suppose that there can be a level of shaming that would eventually count as injury. I don’t see how this case rises anywhere close to that.
I don’t think haggling over the definition of “coercion” advances this conversation much.
Every child in kindergarten is familiar with the type of peer pressure and public shaming at work with the ice bucket challenge. Arguing over whether or not this behavior is “coercive” simply muddles the facts we all know since childhood.
Unfortunately, I think this conversation hinges on the definition of coercion since SoS positions coercion as opposite to reason and uses such an expansive understanding of coercion.
I’m looking for a word that means: “Threatening tangential consequences (perhaps involving force, perhaps not) to induce someone to do something otherwise against his or her will.” As I understand it, the word I’m looking for is “coerce”. As I see it, my understanding is consistent with Wikipedia, your dictionary definitions, and common usage (including top news stories on Google). But I’m not wedded to that particular word, if you can suggest an alternative that expresses the meaning above.
Aggsuasion?
The friends I can handle, it’s the family I can’t shake!
While that may be ideal, it’s not really realistic. It denies the basically self-interested nature of human beings and all the distractions and natural deficiencies we all have when it comes to focusing and prioritizing our attentions. Cutting through obstacles often requires more than politely offered reasoning. We are imperfect and irrational beings, irrational and imperfect means are often required to guide us to do what is proper and in the long run best for us.
Rico. I haven’t gone further than your comment.
Incisive. Insightful. You nailed it. I had a vague sense of this ‘ricochetting’ around in my head . . . but you have lassoed and distilled the source of the edgy discomfort many of us have shared that undergirds the controversy. Thank you.
I agree. But do you really think a person’s Facebook feed should make the determination of “what is proper and in the long run best for us”?
Thank you, and feel free to elaborate. Or, continue reading the comments for a dissection of the word “coerce.”
I think the ultimate question at work here is what level of respect do we owe to the bonds of friendship and how do decide to limit the tests we put on those bonds. It’s a prudential question more than a question of principle as far as I’m concerned. Obviously there are causes that are bigger and more important than the individual friendships I have. I would sever a friendship with a friend who was a champion of the Ku Klux Klan, for example. I would not sever a friendship if someone chose not to take this challenge. However, I do think the cause of this challenge is sufficiently important enough to at least ask a friend, a good friend whom I think would be open to it, to take the challenge.
There are questions of degree and assessments about good vs. harm to be weighed when considering the issues around this campaign. I don’t believe one can reduce this down to a simple logically extrapolation of principle. That said, the degrees involved and the balance of the scales on this issue for me fall pretty obviously in favor, and I find it entirely consistent with conservatism.
Why not? A Facebook feed is just a channel of communication. It’s just appropriate for the message to come through FB as through a tv set, a telephone line, a text message or a church pulpit. If that’s where people’s eyes are, that’s where the messages about what is proper belong.
I don’t know about all this coercion business but this campaign is a symptom of a real problem – The Hooray For ME! problem.
Everyone who does this is going on record as being against disease. Hooray for ME! I’m a good person.
I am also pro-diversity. Hooray for ME!
I’m also for a clean environment. Hooray for ME!
You don’t want to dump water on your head? What are you? Some sort of disease-loving, racist, polluter?
Coercion? I dunno. But annoying.
Aside from what word represents this notion, I think it’s this notion that is the problem here.
I’d rather keep my money, but when the cook threatens to refrain from giving me a burrito if I don’t give him my money, is he doing something wrong? Because he’s certainly “Threatening tangential consequences [ie I won’t get a burrito] to induce someone [me] to do something otherwise against his or her will [part with my money].”
No, that’s direct consequences. It’s a voluntary, mutually beneficial exchange. Tangential consequences would be if he refused to serve you because of your position on SSM (or for that matter, if you boycotted his business because of his SSM views). He would be trying to exploit the commercial relationship to get you to change your SSM position (or keep quite about it) against your will.
Depends. Did You ask/demand for a burrito in the first place or not?
“If you don’t do this, then I won’t do that”. It’s all direct consequences. The second part is a direct consequence of the first part. It’s all mutually beneficial exchange in that each party gets what they want. It’s voluntary in that each party has a right to leverage their own resources by exchanging them for something they want, or not. If it’s a threat by the offeror, then the threat is only inaction.
“If you do this for me, then I will do that for you”. This is a slightly different construction; but it’s still an offer to exchange. It remains direct, mutually beneficial, and voluntary. If it’s a threat by the offeror, then the offeree has all the power to prevent it simply by rejecting the offer as rejection will result in inaction.
“I will do this to you, unless you do that for me”. This is different than the other two. It’s still direct, it could be mutually beneficial, but it’s not voluntary. Here, the offeror will take action that affects the offeree regardless of the offeree’s preference.
I don’t think it matters who initiates the offer. The cook is in the right to set the terms of exchange acceptable to him. No matter how much I want a burrito (and I want one very much right about now), no matter how unreasonable or unrelated I think his terms are.
If indeed you’re hurting the conservative cause (which I doubt), it’s by sounding pompous, priggish and callous all at the same time. I’m sure you’re a swell fella and nothing like that in person but that’s how it comes across. I’ll pass on the “persuade you on the merits” thing. If you can’t figure it out on your own there’s not much point in wasting any time on it.
I take that back, and I’ll give it a go. A friend of my father died from ALS. He was a tall, strong man. He serviced 50 cal guns in the Air Force, and it kept him totally fit. Seeing him wither so that he couldn’t even sit straight in a chair was horrible. He was a wonderful singer. A deep, powerful bass voice. He sang in his church, and in civic choirs. Hearing his voice destroyed until he could no longer talk… also horrible. He was a frequent dinner guest both before and after the onset of ALS. Seeing him drool in his plate… yep, horrible.
(continued)
(continued)
But you know what the worst part was? Seeing an intelligent, clever man starting to be treated as a mental retard. People would hear him talk “WOoo ohaah doooo woooo” (watch this to hear what it sounds like) and they would respond by talking slowly and simply so he could understand. I was sure I could see the pain and embarrassment in his eyes.
My own dear father bought him a radio to keep in the convalescence house, and carefully explained how to work the channel and volume dials. I think one of the greatest kindnesses I’ve ever done in my life was visiting with him and talking to him like I would before his ALS days.
I’m not sure how old he was when he died, maybe in his forties. He caught pneumonia, left a DNR order, and passed away in his sleep.
That’s what I think about when I think of ALS, and what you should too. I assume research helps… if not, then never mind.
I don’t really care if you donate, but typing this has reminded me of a good man I once knew, and for that I thank you.
Not saying yours is not a legitimate complaint, but an important additional point that needs to be made is that it used to be a thing, at least in a liberal (in the older sense) university education, but to some extent even in high schools, to be trained, and then expected, to marshal one’s reason to resist such influences and not use them against others, to remember that someone’s opinion of you may have nothing at all to do with the facts, with what’s right or wrong, to spot and dismantle logical fallacies. Schools used to teach people to think, to be less coercible and coercing by such treacherous tricks.
So, part of the answer to this is to start teaching more people how to think again, and to demand it of them.
I don’t get it. Can’t people just donate to ALS if they want to? Why the ice water? This is only one of the many good reasons I don’t do Facebook. I also don’t donate to disease/cure foundations as they seem to just gobble up money and grow themselves without producing anything.
Thank you too. The story was a moving testament. FWIW, I just made a donation after reading it.
Also FWIW, “pompous, priggish, and callous” is probably accurate all too often. Thanks for the constructive reminder.
A counterexample: If you don’t promise to give me your money, I won’t save you from drowning.
I just don’t think these categories hold up–or, to the extent they do, they presume that relationships are all a blank slate. But when you go to buy a burrito, there is a presumed relationship (vendor/customer). You have a presumed relationship with the firefighter, with your children, or with your boss. When there are consequences that naturally follow from that relationship, there’s no coercion. But when, e.g., the boss says, “If you don’t sleep with me, I won’t put you up for your (deserved) promotion,” that’s still coercion.
As suspected, a good and decent guy!
You bet… I only recognize the symptoms because I’m afraid they too often apply to myself! Now if you’ll excuse me I think there’s somebody on my lawn…
Well, Fellas. This is one of the most decent and productive exchanges I’ve encountered on Ricochet.
You’re both beautiful. And Mark. Thank you for that recounting of your experience with your friend. He was blessed to have you there. It, sadly ,brings back so many memories of my own father’s journey after his diagnosis with ALS. Dad had led a gun crew onto bloody Omaha. I imagine the horrors he witnessed that day . . tempered his approach toward his own death. His stoic, quiet acceptance still moves me to tears.
Presuming that one has a duty to attempt to save someone from drowning (I do so presume, btw), then that would be a threat to do something to the drowning person. Presuming that there is no duty to attempt to save someone from drowning, then this is merely an offer – callous, opportunistic, and psychotic, but still an offer. Anyway, though I may not be the cause of the force in this situation, I am certainly taking advantage of the imminence of force and the lack of choice on the part of the drowning man to persuade him to do what I want. If it doesn’t fit one of my categories then perhaps there’s an additional category to be added.
I suppose I’d agree that there are circumstances under which refraining from action could count as doing something to someone. My boss in your example, though, isn’t threatening mere inaction, she’s threatening income and power that I earned (if not exactly am owed). She’s threatening to do something to me.
SoS, taking your suggestiong about presumed relationships, isn’t social pressure to participate in good causes a natural consequence of friendship and family?