Social Dominance Theory

[Page 613]Social dominance theory emerged in the 1990s through the work of two social psychologists, Jim Sidanius and Felicia Pratto. It has proved to be a somewhat controversial theory both politically, in what some of its opponents have taken to be its social implications, and scientifically, in terms of how different social dominance theory is from other theories of society. While it is at base a social-psychological theory, important aspects of it rely upon structural or environmental effects and evolutionary thinking. This entry discusses social dominance orientation, social evolution, and criticisms of social dominance theory.

Social dominance theory begins with the recognition that all surplus-producing human societies over history have been hierarchically organized. Moreover, these hierarchies tend to be group-based and involve dominance of one group over another. Men have tended to dominate women; certain kin elites dominate other kin elites; some castes dominate others, and so on. Even in modern societies that profess equality of opportunity, hierarchies of domination exist through professional qualifications, social positions, and the like, which might be justified on meritocratic grounds but perpetuate dominant hierarchical organization. Social dominance theory then tries to explain the perpetuation of this general form—hierarchy and dominance—through structural, evolutionary, and social-psychological factors.

Social dominance theory suggests that group-based oppression is driven by systematic institutional and individual bias. On the one hand, the social organization of society, through schools, religions, firms, and other institutions, disproportionately allocates desired goods—wealth, prestige, status, power, health care, and so on—to members of the dominant groups. Other groups receive the more dangerous or less desirable jobs, lower pay, disdain, and worse health care. Such institutional discrimination is perpetuated, according to the theory, not simply because dominant groups are dominant and powerful and have set up institutions to work to their benefit to extract the greater resources for themselves against the wishes of the dominated, but because they operate with the acquiescence of the underprivileged, who accept the mores and ideology of their society that justify the specific distribution engendered. Hence, in some societies the importance of noble birth, caste, or role status is accepted. In modern societies, the position of some is justified by the claim that their high status and high-paying roles are merited by their achievements.

This aspect of social dominance theory demarcates it from other theories. In social dominance theory, the degree of acceptance of one's position in society is termed social dominance orientation (SDO). The structural-institutional factors and the sociopsychological factors in this account operate together to create stable societies of dominance hierarchy. The account by social dominance theory of how they operate together to form such stable hierarchies is a social-evolutionary one.