The Protective Use of Force - When the Use of Force is Unavoidable

When two disputing parties have each had an opportunity to fully express what they are observing, feeling, needing, and requesting - and each has empathized with the other - 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 needs. For instance, the other party may be unwilling to communicate, or imminent danger may not allow time for communication. In these situations, we may need to resort to force. If we do, our human nature requires us to differentiate between the protective and the punitive uses of force.

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 life-enriching education, not punishment.

Ignorance includes

(a) a lack of awareness of the consequences of our actions,

(b) an inability to see how our needs may be met without injury to others,

(c) the belief that we have the "right" to punish or hurt others because they "deserve" it, and

(d) delusional thinking that involves, for example, hearing a "voice" that instructs us to kill someone.

Punitive action, on the other hand, is based on the assumption that people commit offenses because they are bad or evil, and to correct the situation, they need to be made to repent. Their "correction" is undertaken through punitive action designed to make them

(1) suffer enough to see the error of their ways,

(2) repent, and

(3) change.

In practice, however, punitive action, rather than evoking repentance and learning, is just as likely to generate resentment and hostility and to reinforce resistance to the very behavior we are seeking.

In addition to the physical, other uses of force also qualify as punishment. One is the use of blame to discredit another person: for example, we may label another human being as "wrong," "selfish," or "immature" when another human being doesn't behave in a certain way. Another form of punitive force is the withholding of some means of gratification, such as curtailing of allowance or driving privileges. In this type of punishment, the withdrawal of caring or respect is one of the most powerful threats of all.

The Costs of Punishment

When we submit to doing something solely for the purpose of avoiding punishment, our attention is distracted from the value of the action itself. Instead, we are focusing upon the consequences of what might happen if we fail to take that action. If a worker's performance is prompted by fear of punishment, the job gets done, but morale suffers; sooner or later, productivity will decrease. Self-esteem is also diminished when punitive force is used. Furthermore, as we all know, punishment is costly in terms of goodwill. The more we are seen as agents of punishment, the harder it is for others to respond compassionately to our needs.

First comes empathizing with the human being who is behaving violently. For example, if one group of people attack another group after being physically or verbally shamed, we empathize, "We are sensing that you're feeling angry because you'd like to be treated with more respect." If we guessed correctly, and the group acknowledges this to be true, we would then continue by expressing our own feelings, needs, and requests in this situation without insinuating blame: "We are feeling sad because we want us to find ways to get respect that don't turn people into enemies. We would like you to tell us if you'd be willing to explore with us some other ways to get the respect you're wanting."

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. The first question is: What do we want this group to do that's different from what they are currently doing? If we ask only this first question, punishment may seem effective because the threat or exercise of punitive force may well influence the person's behavior. However, with the second question, it becomes evident that punishment isn't likely to work: What do we want this group's reasons to be for doing what we are asking?

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. We believe it is critical to be aware of the importance of people's reasons for behaving as we request. For example, blaming or punishing would obviously not be effective strategies if we want our enemies to stop firing missiles on our territory out of either a desire for contributing to our well-being or a desire to contribute to our enjoyment of safety and security. Often enemies stop firing missiles motivated by obedience to authority, avoidance of punishment, or fear of upsetting or being rejected by their allies. Compassion based on a mutual giving from the heart, however, fosters a level of moral development based on autonomy and interdependence, whereby we acknowledge responsibility for our own actions and are aware that our own well-being and that of others are one and the same.

Summary

When there is no opportunity for communication, such as in 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 to 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 ignite in others.

[edited, updated, after the 2000 edition by the Rosenberg Family]