Conflict Resolution in a Society which lacks Compulsion

(wHdc) Is conflict resolution possible in a society which lacks compulsion ?


Written 2010 by Will Johnson
Email me at
or post your comments for public view far below.
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License
Follow Will Johnson on Twitter!
or subscribe using my Knol Public activity feed
or see Wjhonson's Fifty Most Recent Knols
Please rate this article by answering the questions at the right ----------------->>>

This Knol should be cited as:
"Conflict Resolution in a Society which lacks Compulsion" by Will Johnson on
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License

Directory Project

 English Knol Project
  • Government Portal
    • Conflict Resolution in a Society which lacks Compulsion (you are here)

    All modern societies have some type of compulsion i.e. force.  That is, there will be times, when you must do something, even though you do not want to do it, either through direct compulsion or the fear of compulsion.  Direct compulsion would be the actual application of force to compel obedience to some mandate.

    Do people obey the law, because they are afraid of the result of breaking the law?  If this is the situation, then would removing the compulsion, create a society of criminals?  Is compulsion a necessary part of the law?

    When people are either in harmony, or non-interfering, there are no disputes.  However, in any society there are also items in common, over which disputes may arise.  All societies need dispute resolution methods.  Is compulsion a necessary part of the dispute resolution process?

    In a society which lacks compulsion, it is necessary that the mediator or arbitrator, be one who is mutually acceptable to both parties.  The person is viewed as fair and impartial.  This most likely implies that the person is actually known to both parties.  Obviously with a mobile society, this would not always be the case.

    During the course of deciding disputes, mediators and arbitrators, can suggest alternative solutions which may not yet have been brought forward.
      In the case, where the outcome is still unacceptable to one or both parties, there must, as well, be a system, by which the outcome can be re-examined by a new third party.  Obviously this process cannot continue to infinity. If for example, a case were examined three times, by three impartial, and unrelated persons, and the same decision were made in each case, that would seem sufficient to decide the case.

    There may be situations where a party, decided against, refuses to abide by the decision.  Societies which lack compulsion, have the use of tools such as boycott, and ostracism.  Ostracism is not ejection from the community, but it is rather, avoiding the person, not dealing with the person.  Not buying or selling to the person.  Not speaking with them.  Persons ostracized will either eventually submit to the decision, or leave the community.


    Wjhonson's Knols - Total Pageviews - Independent Counter joomla stats