I don't think you can define coercion completely without regard to the coerced. Say I'm trying to rob the bank but this time I offer not a gun but an unopened packet of peanuts. Peanuts are not much of a threat - unless the person I'm trying to coerce has a peanut allergy. Is it still coercion if I'm stupid enough to try to rob an average bank with peanuts? Is this where you draw parallels with cognative's reference to intent? - it's coercion because the coercer intends to make the coerced obey his will through threat of something detrimental specifically to that person? But this has to do with the victim's state, too... because it may require knowledge of that person to determine what will be a useful threat.
I also don't think I get your sandwich example - in the sense that you haven't framed it as a demand from the person. I suppose one could look at hunger strikes as coercive, if one takes "unbathed activists wasting away on the Capitol steps" as detrimental to government people who make relevant decisions. I agree with you, though, that coercion is inherently social (which is part of why I objected to your first thought that the coercer's state is all that matters).
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-23 05:18 pm (UTC)I also don't think I get your sandwich example - in the sense that you haven't framed it as a demand from the person. I suppose one could look at hunger strikes as coercive, if one takes "unbathed activists wasting away on the Capitol steps" as detrimental to government people who make relevant decisions. I agree with you, though, that coercion is inherently social (which is part of why I objected to your first thought that the coercer's state is all that matters).