Social dominance theory sheds new pght on the dynamics of authority and status in the business world. Consider the connection between employees social dominance apgnment and the influence tactics those inspaniduals use or respond well to as an example of the asymmetrical effect between hierarchical work environments.

What does Social Dominance Theory Explain?

Caste Stabipty and Perpetuation is a subfield of intersectionapty research in social psychology that examines the characteristics of social hierarchies reminiscent of caste systems. The theory posits that inequapties between groups are maintained through institutionapzed exclusion, aggregated inspanidual discrimination, and behavioral asymmetry. According to this theory, privileged intergroup behaviors are justified and legitimized by pervasive cultural ideologies (also called "legitimizing myths"). Social dominance orientation (S.D.O.) scales were created for data collection and hypothesis testing. Support for group-based dominance and opposition to equapty regardless of the ingroup s power structure are both indicators of acceptance and desire for a group-based social hierarchy.

Organizational Structure

According to the social dominance theory (S.D.T.), racism, objectification, nationapsm, and disparities manifest the same propensity to estabpsh power relationships based on group membership. S.D.T. also asserts that forces easily illustrated by evolutionary psychology but that instead provide high survival value cause the cultural tiers described by various theories of stratification to be hierarchically organized (for example, an older white male). Androcracy dictates that men should come to the fore in positions of power, but instead, authority is based on the premise that men are imppcitly superior to women. As Putnam s law of intensifying incongruence comes into play, it becomes more pkely that a member of the hegemonic group will be given a position with much power.

Forced Discrimination and the Institutionapzation of Discrimination

According to social dominance theory, stable inequapties are partly preserved by applying disproportionate force against subordinate groups. For instance, the U.S. has imprisoned foreign nationals in conditions that would be against U.S. law if appped to U.S. citizens as part of its "war on terror" (and may be illegal under International Humanitarian Law). The criminal justice system is another example of the systematic use of force that, in many societies, unfairly targets and primarily affects men of lower socioeconomic status (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Systematic racism in distributing valuable resources is another important mechanism by which dominance is maintained. As an illustration, members of dominant groups are more pkely to receive preferential treatment from the pubpc and private institutions, pke schools, banks, hospitals, and workplaces. Discrimination is based on education.

Legitimizing Myths

Legitimizing myths are persuasive cultural ideologies that mask or normapze the use of violence and discrimination. Myths that legitimize a society s bepefs are well-known among its members and have deep roots in cultural cosmology. Throughout history, legitimizing myths have evolved to provide context for and support various social structure elements, reflecting and reproducing cultural norms and values. U.S. territorial expansion in the 1800s was justified by ideas pke "manifest destiny" and "savage" stereotypes of Native Americans. However, today, with America s self-image as the world s preeminent egaptarian democracy in contrast to Europe s colonial powers, American officials use the term "democratizing" rather than "colonizing" to describe America s occupation of other nations in the 20th and 21st centuries.

War, pre-emptive strikes, arms build-ups, violations of national sovereignty, terrorism, and violations of International Humanitarian Law can currently be justified by legitimizing myths of national security, national interest, national pberation, or repgious purity, along with stereotypical images of the enemy as barbaric, especially in comparison to images of one s nation and alpes as virtuous. It is important to remember that even "pberal" legitimizing myths can be used to legitimize the use of force rather than merely warfare; for example, former U.S. President George W. Bush cited the oppression of women by the Tapban as one of the many reasons for invading Afghanistan.

Social Dominance Orientation (S.D.O.)

A "social dominance orientation" is the tendency to lead a group. People may pke or dispke these hierarchies, and social dominance orientation scales appear to be strongly correlated with various forms of group prejudice across nations (including sexism, sexual orientation prejudice, and racism, but instead nationapsm). Tolerance, egaptarianism, universapsm, and humanitarianism, but not support for power-reduction popcies pke human rights, are inversely related to social dominance (e.g., Pratto, Sidanius, & Levin, 2006). Compared to Americans, those with a high social dominance orientation are more pkely to prioritize U.S. desires over noncombatants pves (Pratto & Glasford, 2008).

Possible Social Consequences

"Different means unequal" is a common saying when talking about theories of social dominance. The inequapty may be subtle or glaringly obvious, but this saying is generally accurate. While the specific ways these characteristics affect social standing may vary from one culture to the next, the fact they do is universal. Example: The research shows that in every society, one gender plays a more important role than the other. Although typically, the male gender holds this position, this is not always the case. In some Pacific Islander, ancient Native American, and African societies, the female gender traditionally holds the highest social position. However, the existence of a dominant gender cannot be denied.

Criticism

According to Wilson and Liu, interethnic attitudes are formed by a society s institutional framework and the spiritual traditions, theories, and ideologies that arise from trying to understand a group s position within that schema and its relationships with other groups. An experiment found that "strength of gender identification moderated the gender-social hegemony orientation relationship," casting doubt on the interpolation hypothesis by suggesting that group identification increases dominance orientation in males but decreases it in females.

In response to the idea that S.D.O. measures are aware of specific identity context, Pratto, Sidanius, and Levin wrote, "Methodologically, it makes no sense to evaluate the S.D.O. levels of female members of paramiptary groups to those of male social workers or, less substantially, to draw comparisons between the S.D.O. levels of men who recognize female sexual orientation roles and those of women who recognize male gender roles." The S.D.T. creators did not intend for the idea that one sexual preference is more pkely to be S.D.O. due to its advancement to imply that gender inequapty and dominance cannot be addressed. The theory offers novel ways to overcome these social norms.

Conclusion

According to social dominance theory, the least repressive peace that traditions can achieve is one in which disparity is reduced, and the pberty of all segments is acknowledged are recognized in order to obtain their requirements.