Flecha Ramon, Tomás Gema, Vidu Ana
Department of Sociology, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
School of Law, University of Deusto, Bilbao, Spain.
Front Psychol. 2020 Feb 19;11:92. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00092. eCollection 2020.
Psychology related to areas such as gender, language, education and violence has provided scientific knowledge that contributes to reducing coercive social relationships, and to expanding freedom in sexual-affective relationships. Nonetheless, today there are new challenges that require additional developments. In the area of consent, professionals from different fields, such as law, gender, and education, are in need of evidence differentiating human communication that produces consent, and those conditions that coerce. Up to now, consent has been focused on verbal language, for example, "no means no," or "anything less than yes is no." Despite the fact that focusing consent on verbal language is a very important part of the problem, it does not solve most of the issues currently raised, like the famous case of "La Manada" in Spain. This article presents the most recent results of a new line of research, which places the problem and the solution in communicative acts, not only in speech acts. Even though there might be a "yes" in a sexual-affective relationship, there might not be consent, and it is indeed a coercive relationship if that "yes" has been given in a relationship determined by institutional power or by interactive power. Institutional power may occur if whoever made the proposal for the relationship is a person in charge of the process of selecting personnel in a company, and one of the candidates is the person who receives the proposal. Interactive power may occur if whoever makes the proposal is situated in an equal or inferior position in the company to the person receiving it, but the former threatens sextortion the latter. The potential social impact of this research has been already shown in the cases analyzed for this study.
与性别、语言、教育和暴力等领域相关的心理学提供了科学知识，有助于减少强制性的社会关系，并扩大性情感关系中的自由。尽管如此，如今仍有新的挑战需要进一步发展。在同意这一领域，来自法律、性别和教育等不同领域的专业人士需要证据来区分产生同意的人际沟通与那些具有强制性的条件。到目前为止，同意一直集中在口头语言上，例如，“不就是不”，或者“少于肯定答复就是否定”。尽管将同意聚焦于口头语言是问题的一个非常重要的部分，但它并不能解决目前提出的大多数问题，比如西班牙著名的“狼女案”。本文介绍了一项新研究系列的最新成果，该研究将问题及解决方案置于交际行为中，而不仅仅是言语行为中。即使在性情感关系中可能有“同意”，但可能并没有真正的同意，如果这种“同意”是在由制度权力或互动权力决定的关系中给出的，那么这实际上就是一种强制性关系。如果提出关系提议的人是公司人事选拔过程的负责人，而候选人之一是接受提议的人，就可能出现制度权力。如果提出提议的人在公司中的地位与接受提议的人平等或更低，但前者威胁后者进行性敲诈，就可能出现互动权力。这项研究的潜在社会影响已在本研究分析的案例中得到体现。
