Editing Sidanius Pratto 1999 (section)

==Chapter 2: Social Dominance Theory==
===A New Synthesis===
*The most important parts of Social Dominance Theory (SDT) are taken from parts of:
**Authoritarian personality theory
**Rockeach’s two-value theory of political behavior
**Blumer’s group positions theory
**Marxism and neoclassical elite theories
**Results from political attitude and public opinion research
**Social Identity Theory
**New thinking in evolutionary psychology
*SDT attempts to “connect the worlds of individual personality and attitudes with the domains of institutional behavior and social structure” (Sidanius and Pratto, Chapter 2 page 1).
===Some Basic Observations===
*All human societies systems of group-based hierarchies
**Dominant groups have most power, subordinate groups have less
**Dominant groups have a '''disproportionate share of positive social value'''
***Ex. group has the best homes, best access to education, best jobs, or seen as most physically attractive
**Subordinate groups possess a '''disproportionate share of negative social value'''
***Ex. group has worse health outcomes, low homeownership, seen as less trustworthy (low social status), severe negative sanctions
====Group-Based Versus Individual-Based Social Hierarchies====
*'''Individual-based social hierarchy''': you receive power based on your own ability (ex. Your charisma, artistic skills, or specific other talents).
*'''Group-based social hierarchy''': you receive power based on your ''membership in a prestigious group''. This is socially constructed.
*Authors don’t mean individual traits don’t matter, just that some prestige is ascribed to group membership
====The Trimorphic Structure of Group-Based Social Hierarchy====
*Pierre van den Berghe’s three stratification systems:
**'''Age system''': the older have power over the younger. Interesting in that people move through all levels of power in this system if they live full lives (identity flexible).
**'''Gender system''': men have power over women (patriarchy). Authors conceptualized gender as fixed.
**'''Arbitrary-set system''': structures of power based on other socially constructed identities
***Authors argue this system has a high degree of flexibility and “arbitrariness” because the identities are socially constructed and depend on context.
**Argue that this system results in the most violence and oppression.
**Argue that this system is not found within hunter-gatherer societies, unlike the other two systems (PD: I feel like there are some alternative explanations worth considering.). '''You need economic surplus to produce an arbitrary-set system. It will arise where economic conditions allow.''' 
*'''Every attempt to abolish an arbitrary-set system has failed.''' (PD: has any attempt to overthrow the other two types succeeded either?).
===Basic Assumptions of Social Dominance Theory===

The following is quoted directly from the text:

“(1) While age- and gender-based hierarchies will tend to exist within all social systems, arbitrary-set systems of social hierarchy will invariably emerge within social systems producing sustainable economic surplus.

(2) Most forms of group conflict and oppression (e.g., racism, ethnocentrism, sexism, nationalism, classism, regionalism) can be regarded as different manifestations of the same basic human predisposition to form group-based social hierarchies.

(3) Human social systems are subject to counterbalancing influences of '''hierarchy-enhancing (HE) forces''', producing and maintaining ever higher levels of group-based social inequality, and '''hierarchy attenuating (HA) forces''', producing greater levels of group-based social equality” (Sidanius and Pratto, Chapter 2).

===Schematic Overview of Social Dominance Theory===
*The orientation towards group-based social hierarchy is called '''social dominance orientation (SDO)'''.
====Aggregated Individual Discrimination====
*The aggregation (over time) of individual acts of discrimination by one person against another. Over time, these contribute to differences in power between social groups.
**Ex. not promoting someone because they are a woman or firing someone because they are trans
====Aggregated Institutional Discrimination====
*Rules and procedures of institutions that create power differences between groups.
**Ex. Redlining, the Dred Scott ruling, making it harder to immigrate from certain countries to the United States
====Systematic Terror====
*“The use of violent threats or violence disproportionately directed towards subordinates” (Sidanius and Pratto, Chapter 2). Used to maintain power imbalance and ensure deference of subordinates to dominants.
**Ex. police brutality against Black americans (state violence), violence against Asian Americans during the COVID-19 pandemic
*Three forms of '''systematic terror''':
**'''official terror''': violence perpetrated by the state in a public capacity (ex. public hangings of enemies of the state, disproportionate use of death penalty against Black Americans), mass arrest of protestors
**'''semiofficial terror''': violence carried out  by the state (or organs of the state) covertly (ex. mistreatment of prisoners at Guantanamo and illegal detention)
**'''unofficial terror''': violence or threats of violence by private individuals from dominants against subordinates. Does not have state sanction but often does have participation or approval of security forces (ex. Lynchings by the Ku Klux Klan).
*In democratic societies, dominants in politics will have to justify their brutality (the authors argue). So much of the terror occurs covertly or unofficially. No such subtlety is required in authoritarian regimes. 
====Behavioral Asymmetry====
*SDT, unlike Marxism and other theories, describes the way subordinates participate in their own subordination. However, it does not deny dominant groups oppress subordinate groups.
*Four types of '''behavioral asymmetry''':
**'''Asymmetrical ingroup bias''': Even if (across cultures) individuals tend to show ingroup bias (ex. White Americans wanting to protect the interests of White Americans over other groups or Indian Americans wanting to protect the interests of Indian Americans over other groups), ''some groups will have more ingroup biases than others''.
***Dominant groups will show greater ingroup bias than subordinate groups.
**'''Outgroup favoritism or deference''': Special case of asymmetric ingroup bias where subordinates favor dominants over their ingroup members (ex. colorism preferring whites over Indians in Indian communities; Uncle Tom-ing behavior of some Black Americans to white Americans).
*'''Self-debilitation''': Subordinates show more self-destructive behaviors than dominants. Authors argue this is often consistent with negative stereotypes of subordinates which serve as behavioral scripts and self-fulling prophecies.
*'''Ideological asymmetry''': social policies chosen by dominants are more likely to be '''driven by social dominance values'''. Dominants more likely to support HE social ideologies. Subordinates more likely to support HA social ideologies.
*Behavioral asymmetry, the authors argue, show us the cooperative way intergroup oppression continues.
====Legitimizing Myths====
*“Attitudes, values, beliefs, stereotypes, and ideologies that provide moral and intellectual justifications for the social practices that distribute social value within the social system” (Sidanius and Pratto, Chapter 2). Abbreviated LM.
*LMs have two independent characteristics:
**'''Functional type''': Does a particular LM justify group-based social INEQUALITY or EQUALITY?
***'''Hierarchy-enhancing LMs'''': LMs that justify group-based social inequality
****Ex. divine right of kings, manifest destiny, sexism
****Authors assert a lot of assumptions of political conservatism fall into this category (ex. individual responsibility over social responsibility)
***'''Hierarchy-attenuating LMs''': LMs that support greater levels of group-based equality
****Ex. universal rights of man, humanism
**'''Potency''': Does an LM help “promote, maintain, or overthrow a given group-based hierarchy?” (Sidanius and Pratto, Chapter 2). They have four factors:
***'''Consensuality''': The degree to which LMs are shared across the power continuum in both dominant and subordinate groups.
****Ex. The belief that women were subservient to men was a shared belief across sexes in Victorian England. 
***'''Embeddedness''': How anchored an LM is in other parts of culture or ideology.
****Ex. An embedded LM like anti-Blackness is well entrenched in U.S. culture. The caste system in Indian culture.
***'''Certainty''': Does an LM appear to have “a high degree of moral, religious, or scientific certainty, or truth?” (Sidanius and Pratto, Chapter 2)
****Ex. The way white supremacy was bolstered by racist scientific research in 19th century Western Europe
***'''Mediational strength''': Does an LM serve as a link between the group-based social hierarchy and HE or HA policies?
****Ex. The belief that one is responsible for their own economic reality and can achieve success through hard work alone can funnel into disapproval of social safety net policies in the U.S. This increases group inequality.
====The Nature of Social Dominance Orientation====
*'''Social Dominance Orientation (SDO)''': “the degree to which individuals desire and support group-based hierarchy and the domination of “inferior” groups by “superior” groups” (Sidanius and Pratto, Chapter 2).
*SDO is affected by four factors:
**One’s membership in a group and strength of identification in that membership
***We should expect dominants or those who identify with dominants have higher SDO than subordinates or those who identify with subordinates.
**Socialization factors (ex. Education, faith, experience in war)
***People are born with different temperamental dispositions
****The more empathy you have, the less SDO
**Gender (male, female)
***'''Invariance hypothesis''': Men will have higher SDO than women
***This is NOT JUST because men occupy dominant social roles. The authors argue there are reasons independent of this. 
===The Intersecting Psychologies of Gender and Arbitrary-Set Conflict===
*Authors argue:
**Intergroup aggression is mostly driven by men
**'''Subordinate-male target hypothesis''': From this, most people who are victims of intergroup aggression are men 
***This does NOT imply that women are not discriminated against, but that “subordinate males are the primary objects of arbitrary-set discrimination” (Sidanius and Pratto, Chapter 2).
***This hypothesis goes against the '''double-jeopardy hypothesis'''. The double-jeopardy hypothesis states that subordinates ethnicities are discriminated against and women are discriminated against, so a subordinate woman is doubly disadvantaged.
*SDT is distinct from other theories because it incorporates political psychology of gender
====Hierarchical Equilibrium and Hierarchy Constraints====
*Most hominoids organize themselves so that there is some group-based inequality
*Authors argue that level of inequality will stabilize around a certain level, which is called the '''point of hierarchical equilibrium'''
**The point is between HE and HA forces
===Other Structural Implications of Social Dominance Theory===
====Increasing Disproportionality====
*'''Law of increasing disproportion''': the more political authority a political position has, the increasing probability a dominant group will be in the political position
**Operates within all types of group-based stratification
**Ex. the higher the post in British government, the more likely an individual went to Oxford or Cambridge
====Hierarchical Consensuality====
*Subordinates and dominants largely agree on the group-based hierarchy
====Resiliency====
*Group-based social hierarchies are incredibly resilient and resist regime smashing
===Consistencies in Social Organization Across Primate Species===
*Group-based hierarchies also occur in animals closely related to humans
**Ex. Yellow baboons determine social rank by the social rank of an offspring’s mother. Rank is inherited.