I watched a little drama unfold outside the kitchen window
this morning. We have some of the usual
farmyard animals at Stoneybrook Farm: a watchdog, a bossy barn cat, calves, and
chickens, but we also have peacocks.
Years ago two old cocks showed up and decided to make this their home,
so we got some females to keep them company and the rest is history. Peafowl, not unlike people, have distinct
social rituals. They also have a degree
of family loyalty that depends on the time of year. In the spring the cocks fight, it is part of
their routine; it’s like gardeners digging out the seed catalogues come
January. They don’t fight to kill they
fight to embarrass. They go for the tail
or the topknot and knock each other out of trees, but the rest of the year
they’re friends. When the hens fight
though, it gets dirty.
This was
the drama I witnessed this morning. The
seven chicks, offspring of the two hens in question, were lined up in a worried
little arc. The third hen was watching in
a disinterested sort of way, and the alpha cock was trying to be the peacemaker. The hens would jump at each other, feet
first, knocking each other on their backs.
So the cock did it too, aiming at one hen or another, jumping right into
the middle. It didn’t “keep the peace”
by the way; they just went somewhere else to “fight in peace.” No amount of coercion makes the fighting
stop; even a thorough dousing from a garden hose just moves the fight out of
reach. When the matter is settled they
go their way; the two families together, scratching at their routine places at
precisely the “right” time of day.
This scene
brought up a question for me; an involved question, and a hard one. When is coercion “okay”? Does the end really justify the means? Can violence
quash violence? Can coercion stop
conflict – especially someone else’s conflict?
Just as we
begin think that this question doesn’t apply to our daily lives I want to
remind you that coercion covers a multitude of actions. Coercion includes speech like “should,” “have
to,” and “ought to.” It also covers passive
aggressive behavior or physical force that isn’t even violent. Coercion is apparent whenever we inflict a
punishment for not doing what we say or offer a reward for doing what we want.
I’m not
advocating bedlam and anarchy; in fact I notice that violence to stop violence
only exacerbates the problem and coercion only moves the conflict to another
time or place. Poor Shadow, the alpha peacock, can’t reason out a different way
to deal with the conflict in his family, but we can. Though it doesn’t have an easy answer, this
hard question seems worth thinking about. Does force really bring about the outcome we
seek?
