Interaction persists even where coercion appears total

Evidence

Within a relationship of subordination, the exclusion of all spontaneity whatever is actually rarer than is suggested by such widely used popular expressions as “coercion,” “having no choice,” “absolute necessity,” etc. … It exists even in those cases of superordination and subordination—and therefore makes even those cases societal forms—where according to popular notions the “coercion” by one party deprives the other of every spontaneity, and thus of every real “effect,” or contribution to the process of interaction. — Georg Simmel, on individuality and social forms_…, 323

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Illegitimate encounters proceed anyway when desire and fit outweigh convention; Co-presence can be unilateral, breaking presumed reciprocity between combatants; Co-presence between attacker and target need not be reciprocal (+2 more)

Related

• Illegitimate encounters proceed anyway when desire and fit outweigh convention (similarity 0.83)

Broader Connections

• Power operates through symbolic influence while coercion abandons symbolic generalization #qualifies (0.85)
• Legal obligation differs from mere coercion by threat of force #qualifies (0.60) — Ronald M. Dworkin, The Model of Rules, 40
• Co-presence between attacker and target need not be reciprocal #expands (0.55)
• Co-presence can be unilateral, breaking presumed reciprocity between combatants #expands (0.50)