Crisis rhetoric: Coercion vs. force

Abstract
Conceiving coercion as a rhetorical strategy requires that it be distinguished from force and identified instead as symbolic action having a persuasive function. Coercion then can be distinguished from noncoercive strategies in its aim, to induce “reasonable” compliance on “unreasonable” grounds chiefly by means of virtual experience of impending disaster. Theories that equate coercion with force implicitly confuse symbols with signals, ignoring the symbolic and creative source of its power and its limitations.

This publication has 2 references indexed in Scilit: