• stray@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    I think maybe a level of external intentional threat is necessary for it to be involuntary. Deferring to an expert because you want good results or because you feel more comfortable in a follower role seems distinct from being threatened with going to hell or losing your home.

    But even then I still wonder because what if the thing you’re threatened with losing is the other person’s companionship? It’s reasonable to not want to interact with someone uncooperative, but you are technically coercing them into compliance if they’re going to be removed from a project, relationship, etc.

    I also think there needs to be a word for what people mean when they say voluntary hierarchy if we’re going to assign it a strictly involuntary meaning. You can’t just subtract vocabulary and expect everyone to jump on board.

    • onoira [they/them]@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      but you are technically coercing them into compliance if they’re going to be removed from a project, relationship, etc.

      this is an ongoing discussion within anarchism.

      ideally, removing someone who wants to remain should be the last resort of a group. ideally, someone would not get to this point unless everyone else in the group (at some point) wanted them there.

      this is where relationship anarchy and restorative and transformative justice come into play:

      • avoiding situations where people feel trapped in a social situation, and
      • promoting confrontation, dialogue and active listening when people are uncomfortable.

      for disclosure: i’m not for relationship anarchy, but i’m not against it, either.