Chapter 12 – The Protective Use of Force, page 185.
- When two disputing parties have each had the opportunity to fully express what they are observing, feeling, needing, and requesting, a resolution can usually be reached that meets the needs of both sides. At the very least, the two can agree, in goodwill, to disagree.
- In some situations, however, the opportunity for such dialogue may not exist, and the use of force may be necessary to protect life or individual rights.
The Thinking Behind the Use of Force
- The intention behind the protective use of force is to prevent injury or injustice.
- The intention behind the punitive use of force is to cause individuals to suffer for their perceived misdeeds.
- When we exercise the protective use of force, we are focusing on the life or rights we want to protect, without passing judgment on either the person or the behavior.
- The assumption behind the protective use of force is that people behave in ways injurious to themselves and others due to some form of ignorance.
- The corrective process is therefore one of education, not punishment.
- Ignorance includes:
- A lack of awareness of the consequences of our actions.
- An inability to see how our needs may be met without injury to others.
- The belief that we have the right to punish or hurt others because they “deserve” it.
- Delusional thinking that involves, for example, hearing a voice that instructs us to kill someone.
The Costs of Punishment
- When we submit to doing something solely to avoid punishment, our attention is distracted from the value of the action itself.
- Instead, we are focusing on the consequences, on what might happen if we fail to take that action.
- If a worker’s performance is prompted by fear or punishment, the job gets done, but morale suffers; sooner or later, productivity will decrease.
- Fear of punishment diminishes self-esteem and goodwill.
- The more we are seen as agents of punishment, the harder it is for others to respond compassionately to our needs.
Two Questions That Reveal the Limitations of Punishment
- Two questions help us see why we are unlikely to get what we want by using punishment to change people’s behavior:
- “What do I want this person to do that is different from what he or she is currently doing?”
- “What do I want this person’s reason to be for doing what I’m asking?”
- If we ask only the first question, punishment may seem effective.
- However, with the second question, it becomes evident that punishment isn’t likely to work.
- We seldom address the latter question, but when we do, we soon realize that punishment and reward interfere with people’s ability to do things motivated by the reasons we’d like them to have.
- I believe it is critical to be aware of the importance of people’s reasons for behaving as we request.
Summary
- In situations where there is no opportunity for communication, such as instances of imminent danger, we may need to resort to the protective use of force.
- The intention behind the protective use of force is to prevent injury or injustice, never to punish or to cause individuals to suffer, repent, or change.
- The punitive use of force tends to generate hostility and reinforce resistance to the very behavior we are seeking.
- Punishment damages goodwill and self-esteem and shifts our attention from the intrinsic value of an action to external consequences.
- Blaming and punishing fail to contribute to the motivations we would like to inspire in others.
