Social Dominance Theory USE OF FORCE AND INSTITUTIONAL

DISCRIMINATION
FELICIA PRATTO AND ANDREW L. STEWART
Social dominance theory states that stable
Social dominance theory is a multi-level inequality among groups is maintained in
theory of how societies maintain group- part through the use of disproportionate
based dominance. Nearly all stable societies force against subordinate groups. For
can be considered group-based dominance example, as part of its “war on terror,” the
hierarchies, in which one social group – United States has subjected foreign nationals
often an ethnic, religious, national, or racial to conditions of imprisonment that would
one – holds disproportionate power and be illegal under American law if they were
enjoys special privileges, and at least one used against US citizens (and may be illegal
other group has relatively little political under International Humanitarian Law).
power or ease in its way of life. As examples, Systematic force is also used by the criminal
consider the relationship between contem- justice system, which in many societies dis-
porary Western European nations and their proportionately punishes members of sub-
immigrant groups and Roma, between the ordinate groups, particularly men (Sidanius
ruling elites of South America and their & Pratto, 1999). Another major way in which
indigenous peoples, or between Jewish dominance is maintained is through institu-
Israelis and Palestinians. In all cases, the eco- tional discrimination in the allocation of
nomic, educational, and health outcomes desirable resources. For example, public and
are superior for members of the dominant private institutions typically provide better
groups from what they are for members of education, financial services, healthcare, and
the subordinate groups. Moreover, societies jobs for members of dominant groups rather
recognize the legal rights of dominants and than for members of subordinate groups
portray their ways of living as virtuous and (see ibid. for a review). In contrast to the
characteristic of the whole society, whereas thesis that oppression is maintained mainly
subordinates receive little social recognition by force and threat, as would be illustrated
and are even stigmatized. Group dominance by police states such as Chile under Pinochet,
societies also feature an intersecting kind the USSR under Stalin, and Germany under
of group oppression, namely sexism, Hitler, social dominance theory claims that
men holding disproportionate power and even democracies can function as group-
freedoms compared with women, and based hierarchies. In fact, because forceful
heterosexism being privileged over other oppression sometimes gives rise to nationa-
kinds of sexuality. Social dominance theory list liberation movements (e.g. the Soviet
describes how processes at different levels of occupation of Chechnya and Afghanistan;
social organization, from cultural ideologies see Harff & Gurr, 2004) and can turn the
and institutional discrimination to gender public against acts of oppression performed
roles and the psychology of prejudice, work in its name (e.g. the French colonization
together to produce stable group-based of Algeria, or US racism against Blacks),
inequality. social dominance theory emphasizes the

The Encyclopedia of Peace Psychology, First Edition. Edited by Daniel J. Christie.

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2012 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
2 social dominance theory

important role of legitimizing myths both for “egalitarian” revolutionary movements,

disguising and for legitimizing oppressive from the Russian revolution to Peru’s
actions and institutional discrimination. Sendero Luminoso [“Shining Path”], have
employed massive and brutal violence. (See
system justification theory.)
LEGITIMIZING MYTHS Recognizing that the content and func-
tions of legitimizing myths are not equiva-
Uses of force and discrimination can be dis- lent, social dominance theory identifies two
guised or made acceptable by compelling broad functional types of legitimizing
cultural ideologies, called legitimizing myths. myths. Hierarchy-enhancing legitimizing
Legitimizing myths are widely known myths help maintain or increase group-
within a society and are linked to the basic based inequality, and hierarchy-attenuating
cultural cosmology in ways that make them legitimizing myths decrease group-based
seem self-apparently true. Reflecting and inequality and promote egalitarian relations
reproducing culture, legitimizing myths among social groups. Legitimizing myths
change over historical time, in order to have a direct relationship with issues of
frame and legitimize different aspects of human rights and social justice: the way
social structure. For example, the doctrine people understand what they deserve and
of manifest destiny and stereotypes promot- how they and others should be treated.
ing the idea that Native Americans were Legitimizing myths that promote human
“savages” were used to legitimize US expan- rights (e.g. the universal rights of man, the
sion of its territory through the 1800s; but, democratic dogma of inalienable rights) are
since the United States now views itself as hierarchy attenuating because they suggest
the world’s premier egalitarian democracy, that all people should be granted certain
in contrast to the colonial powers of Europe, rights and freedoms regardless of their
government officials describe US twentieth- group membership. By offering these rights
century and twenty-first-century occupation to all people, these legitimizing myths argue
of other nations as “democratizing” rather for a reduction of the disparities that exist
than “colonizing.” At present, legitimizing between social groups in their access to
myths of national security, national interest, resources, power, and legitimacy. Other
national liberation, or religious purity, legitimizing myths suggest that some rights
together with stereotypic images of the and privileges are reserved only for certain
enemy as barbaric, especially in contrast to groups, and these help to increase group-
images of one’s own nation and allies as vir- based inequality and social hierarchy. Such
tuous, can justify war, pre-emptive strikes, hierarchy-enhancing legitimizing myths
arms build-ups, violations of national sover- may achieve this result by directly specifying
eignty, terrorism, and violations of the who is entitled to rights and privileges (e.g.
International Humanitarian Law. It should the divine right of kings, racism, national-
not be forgotten that even “liberal” legiti- ism), or by implying who can be excluded
mizing myths can be used to justify the use from rights and privileges. Examples of the
of force or warfare; for example, among the latter form include the Protestant work
many reasons that former US President ethics, which disadvantages people who
George W. Bush offered for invading do not have the opportunities to be fairly
Afghanistan was the oppression of women compensated for their hard work (e.g.
by the Taliban. Likewise, Israeli journalists undocumented workers, homemakers)
excuse Israeli violence against Palestinians and “First-Worldism” – the implicit view
by touting Israeli democracy and restraint that “people” are middle-class members
(Dor, 2005), and several Marxist and of the “first world,” so that their lives,
 social dominance theory 3

rights, and concerns come first, perhaps group-based dominance. Generally people
even to the exclusion of the “second” and may prefer and endorse such hierarchies or
“third” worlds. Hierarchy-enhancing and reject them, and scales measuring social
hierarchy-attenuating legitimizing myths, dominance orientation correlate robustly
which appeal to different kinds of people, as across countries with a variety of kinds of
we will see below, counterbalance each group prejudices (including sexism, sexual
other to stabilize social hierarchy. Social orientation prejudice, racism, nationalism)
dominance theory does hold, however, that and with hierarchy-enhancing policies.
the more hierarchy-attenuating legitimizing Social dominance orientation correlates
myths are promoted, including those that negatively with tolerance, egalitarianism,
advocate for allowing subordinate groups universalism, humanitarianism, and support
access to political power and resources, the for hierarchy-attenuating policies such as
less oppression and more peace can be human rights (e.g. Pratto, Sidanius, & Levin,
attained. 2006). Compared with Americans who are
There is no specified content to legitimiz- low on social dominance orientation, those
ing myths. In theory, any ideas that refer to who are high on social dominance orienta-
a culture’s cosmology and seem to make tion are more likely to make decisions that
sense and to justify practices and policies can protect US material interests than decisions
serve as legitimizing myths. For example, in that protect the lives of noncombatants
the United States, a wide variety of anti- (Pratto & Glasford, 2008). A number of
Black racist ideologies function as legiti- independent scholars have found that, in the
mizing myths, in that they help to justify United States, people high on SDO sup-
continuing racist policies and are invoked ported the 1991 US invasion of Iraq and
against enacting anti-racist policies such as the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, spending on
affirmative action and non-discrimination the military and on a variety of weapons
laws. Part of the reason why social domi- systems, whereas people low on SDO
nance theory fits a variety of cultures is that endorsed the use of the military for humani-
legitimizing myths are specific to the systems tarian ends in the Yugoslavian civil war,
of meaning and to the practices of each Afghanistan, and Iraq. In contrast, Lebanese
culture (Pratto et al., 2000). Social domi- who are low on SDO oppose US counter-
nance theory does have an empirical stand- terrorism policies because they view them
ard for testing the legitimizing function of as a way to continue American world domi-
legitimizing myths: if endorsement can be nance (Henry, Sidanius, Levin, & Pratto,
shown to increase support for hierarchy- 2005).
enhancing (versus hierarchy-attenuating) Another important idea in social domi-
policies, or if endorsement of the ideology nance theory is that the confluence of the
mediates such support and the general various processes that maintain dominance
propensity for prejudice known as social societies helps to stabilize them (e.g. Pratto
dominance orientation, then its status as et al., 2006). For example, societies that
hierarchy-enhancing or as hierarchy- promote militarism posture dominance
attenuating is established. towards external nations and towards subor-
dinated peoples within their nations; but
militarism also reinforces sexism. Men are
SOCIAL DOMINANCE disproportionately employed and promoted
ORIENTATION (SDO) in the military (sometimes even to the exclu-
sion of women), so militaristic policies
Social dominance orientation is defined as provide economic advantages domestically
an individual’s psychological orientation to to men, and reinforce the cultural stereotype
4 social dominance theory

that leaders are men (rather than women). devolve into extremely violent civil warfare,
In this way, military practices that are osten- as the recent examples of the Somalian and
sibly intended to promote “national secu- Yugoslavian civil wars show. However, social
rity” for all may in fact be creating hierarchies dominance theory also points out that stable
among men and between men and women, oppression is systematically violent against
as well as between the militarizing nation subordinates. By implication, relatively non-
and its neighbors or enemies. violent peace may also involve a struggle to
Another important kind of confluence balance the power. On the whole, social
concerns the assortment of people dominance theory argues that the least
into hierarchy-enhancing and hierarchy- oppressive kind of peace that societies can
attenuating social institutions and roles. realize would result from reducing social
Generally men are higher on social domi- inequality and from recognizing the rights
nance orientation than women are; they are of all groups to be empowered to obtain
strongly over-represented in hierarchy- what they need.
enhancing roles (military, law, finance),
whereas women are over-represented in SEE ALSO: System Justification Theory.
hierarchy-attenuating roles (social work,
charity work). Experimental and correla-
tional evidence shows that this happens REFERENCES
due to several processes: (a) self-selection;
(b) institutional discrimination in hiring; (c) Dor, D. (2005). The suppression of guilt. London,
on-the-job ideological socialization; and (d) UK: Pluto Press.
Harff, B., & Gurr, T. R. (2004). Ethnic conflict
differential feedback and attrition. Similar
in world politics. Boulder, CO: Westview
assortment processes put into hierarchy- Press.
enhancing roles members of dominant Henry, P. J., Sidanius, J., Levin, S., & Pratto, F.
groups, who are also higher on social domi- (2005). Support for intergroup violence
nance orientation and hold on to hierarchy- between the Middle East and America.
enhancing legitimizing myths more than Political Psychology, 26, 569–583.
members of subordinate groups do. The Pratto, F., & Glasford, D. E. (2008). Prospect
redundancy among different social processes theory, ethnocentrism, and the value of a
helps to stabilize the functioning of the human life. Journal of Personality and Social
social system. Psychology, 95, 1141–1428.
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., & Levin, S. (2006). Social
dominance theory and the dynamics of
SUMMARY intergroup relations: taking stock and
looking forward. In W. Stroebe &
Social dominance theory implies that M. Hewstone (Eds.), European Review of
dynamic ideological and political struggles Social Psychology, 17, 271–320.
occur even in fairly stable societies, and it Pratto, F., Liu, J., Levin, S., Sidanius, J., Shih,
M., Bachrach, H., & Hegarty, P. (2000). Social
also points out that normative institutional
dominance orientation and the legitimization
discrimination and cultural ideologies play of inequality across cultures. Journal of
as important a role in group oppression as Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 369–409.
force does. Social dominance theory does Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance:
echo elite theories stating that, without a An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and
culturally normative and institutionalized oppression. New York, NY: Cambridge
control of power, social instability can University Press.