Domination

Conceptual Overview

Among the manifold types of domination that have been put forward over the last century, that of Wrong in 1979 provides the broadest scope of forms of domination. Wrong highlights five types, depending on the particular mechanisms induced: the coercive, the induced, the competent, the personal, and the legitimate types. Coercive domination implies the exercise of a threat of force, deprivation, or sanction. Threat enables the power holders to stabilize domination without actually resorting to any kind of violence (apart from the symbolic violence of threat). Induced domination is based on rewarded compliance, which is close to Etzioni's “remunerative” power. Legitimate domination is the other word for authority. Consent is produced by the conviction among subordinates that incumbent leaders have the right to command. Competent domination is more a specific form of power based on the possession of institutionalized knowledge and expertise. Obedience comes from the recognition of the social and economic importance of expertise. It is more a type of legitimate domination than a specific type of domination, which also applies to personal domination—a concept that is close to the logic of Weberian conceptions of charisma.

As we suggest, these types are partially overlapping and in an effort to clarify and simplify a complicated concept, we suggest the following diagram combining two different criteria (Figure 1): the degree of personalization of the domination, which we derive from Simmel [Page 402]in 1950, and the degree of “softness” or “manipulative” dimension, which we derive from Lukes' third view of power from 2005 and from the Parsonian distinction between coercion and inducement in 1963.

Figure 1 Four Types of Domination

All of these types are related to the definition of domination, put forward by Lukes in 2005, as “the ability to constrain the choices of others, coercing them or securing their compliance, by impeding them from living as their own nature and judgment dictate.” But domination works differently in the four abovementioned types and does not secure compliance along the same lines.

In cell 1, authoritarian domination refers to the fact that, in the context of official forms of stratification, being “above” entails obedience and subordination from the lower strata without discussion. This type excludes per se the possibility that any contestation might develop, as it would go against the commonly accepted structure of power. Domination is here a social mechanism aimed at suppressing resistance.

...