When Inequality Fails: Power, Group Dominance, and Societal Change

Abstract

Social dominance theory was developed to account for why societies producing surplus take and maintain the form of group-based dominance hierarchies, in which at least one socially-constructed group has more power than another, and in which men are more powerful than women and adults more powerful than children. Although the theory has always allowed for societies to differ in their severity of group-based dominance and how it is implemented, it has predicted that alternative forms of societal organization will occur rarely and not last. This paper revisits aspects of the theory that allow for the possibility of societal alternatives and change. We also consider boundary conditions for the theory, and whether its current theoretical apparatus can account for societal change. By expanding the typical three-level dynamic system to describe societies (micro-meso-macro) into four levels (including meta) to consider how societies relate to one another, we identify political tensions that are unstable power structures rather than stable hierarchies. In research on institutions, we identify smaller-scale alternative forms of social organization. We identify logical, empirical, and theoretical shortcomings in social dominance theory's account of stability and change, consider alternative forms of social organization, and suggest fruitful avenues for theoretical extension.

Myths of the future and scenario archetypes

“…See Section 7 'Worldview about society' in Appendix A. 3) Four items from the short-form Social Dominance Orientation (Pratto et al, 2013) (Section 8) 4) Six items from the short-form Right-Wing Authoritarianism measure (Heaven and Bucci, 2001) (Section 9).…”

Policing Diversity: Examining Police Resistance to Training Reforms for Transgender People in Australia

“…The social structure of most Western societies upholds the notion that a dominant group (such as the police) has the potential to enforce its value systems and ideologies upon minor groups for its own purpose. (Pratto, Stewart & Zeineddine, 2013;Sidanius, Pratto, van Laar & Levin, 2004). The dominant group (in this instance the police) has the discretionary power to deliver policing techniques upon transgender people that are influenced by the police officer's own value system and ideology (Dai, Frank & Sun, 2011;Hogg & Abrams, 1988;Reiner, 2010).…”

Policies and Processes for Social Inclusion: Using EquiFrame and EquIPP for Policy Dialogue Comment on "Are Sexual and Reproductive Health Policies Designed for All? Vulnerable Groups in Policy Documents of Four European Countries and Their Involvement in Policy Development"

“…Our treatment of these issues is grounded in the United Nations (UN) declarations and resolutions; as well as an international evidence-base; however, it would be naïve to assume that such ideas were not in themselves a reflection of the dominance of some socio-political positions and paradigms over others. 13 However, EquiFrame is essentially a systematic methodology for analyzing the content of policy documents; and both our group and others have used subsets of EquiFrame Core Concepts and Vulnerable Groups; as well as adding additional Core Concepts and Vulnerable Groups, for bespoke analysis. While such modifications may detract from the ability to compare internationally with other similar analyses using EquiFrame, they can nonetheless be justified by compelling contextual and cultural situations that require modifications to enhance the validity and utility of such analyses.…”