Abstract
Social Dominance Theory, as forwarded by Sidanius and Pratto (Social dominance: an intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression, 1999) and as elaborated upon in continuing research by themselves and others, claims to offer a way of exploring the structuring of social systems along the lines of group-based hierarchies. In this article I endeavour to highlight the manner in which this mode of theorizing and of approaching the study of social “realities” might have deleterious social effects, via its potentially self-fulfilling claims. I present an alternative way of approaching (co)-inquiries into the social worlds of which we are part––based on an examination of some qualities of retroductive thinking/imagining, which I interpret and extend in order to take more fully into account the impact of our knowing processes on the social worlds being addressed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Sidanius and Pratto make the observation that while age and gender systems of stratification appear to be completely universal, arbitrary-set hierarchy seems to be “restricted to those societies producing economic surplus” (1999, p. 36). Their claim is that in societies which generate economic surplus this hierarchy can be considered as ubiquitous, although it can take different forms.
Over the years this construct has been refined through the questions that have been used to measure it via questionnaires. Some of the questions, where people are asked to rate their agreement or disagreement with statements, are as follows: “Some groups of people are simply inferior to other groups”; “In getting what you want, it is sometimes necessary to use force against other groups”; “It’s OK if some groups have more of a chance in life than others”; “To get ahead in life, it is sometimes necessary to step on other groups”; “If certain groups stayed in their place, we would have fewer problems”; “It’s probably a good thing that certain groups are at the top and other groups are at the bottom”; “Inferior groups should stay in their place; “Sometimes other groups must be kept in their place”; “It would be good if groups could be equal”; “Group equality should be our ideal”; “All groups should be given an equal chance in life”; “We should do what we can to equalize conditions for different groups”; “Increased social equality is beneficial to society”; “We would have fewer problems if we treated people more equally”; “We should strive to make incomes as equal as possible”; “No group should dominate in society”.
In 2011, Pratto and Stewart summarize (again) that SDT is “a multi-level theory of how societies maintain group-based dominance”. Here they state that: “Nearly all stable societies can be considered group-based dominance hierarchies, in which one social group––often an ethnic, religious, national, or racial one––holds disproportionate power and enjoys special privileges, and at least one other group has relatively little political power or ease in its way of life” (2011, p. 1).
This ties in with Layder’s argument (1993) in relation to his critique of “middle range theorizing” as an approach to scientific inquiry. Layder’s suggestion is that besides testing specific hypotheses about relationships between variables, space should be made for theory-constructing approaches that go beyond looking for such relationships (1993, p. 31). Theorizing should also not, however, be confined to the emergent theorizing suggested by certain more qualitatively oriented researchers––because, he argues, the attendant view of structure still does not allow us to assign analytic weight to structures beyond the “immediate environment of actors” (1993, p. 56). Layder refers in particular to those following Strauss’s grounded theorizing approach, which shies away from making claims about the way in which structural conditions necessarily become relevant to the “interactional/processual phenomena under study” (Strauss 1987, p. 80, as cited in Layder 1993, p. 56). As I explained in my book on New Racism (2010, Chapter 5), Essed (1991, 2001) has developed an approach that incorporates analytic induction with structural deliberation, as a way of moving beyond what Layder would criticize as “middle range”.
Interestingly, they note (1999, p. 46) that one of the hierarchy-enhancing beliefs that is pervasive in “contemporary U.S. and Western cultures” is the belief that “configurations of the hierarchical social system are fair, legitimate, natural, and perhaps even inevitable”. I would suggest that ironically, their own theorizing can be said to tap into this kind of belief system, due to its implications that group-based hierarchies are “here to stay”––albeit that their form and degree of severity may alter.
Pratto and Stewart (2011), turn their attention to prospects for non-violent peace to be effected where, in the absence of balances of power, possibilities exist for “extremely violent civil warfare”. They suggest that “the least oppressive kind of peace that societies can realize would result from reducing social inequality and from recognizing the rights of all groups to be empowered to obtain what they need” (2011, p. 4). However, the problem with this conclusion of theirs is that it seems not to tally with SDT’s theoretical statements about the apparent inevitability of certain groups not being afforded “what they need” (as they state on page 1 of their article). Hence I have suggested that a re-orientation of SDT theorizing as such, where provision is made for re-considering the status of any claims about “social dominance” is called for.
In trying to locate the origins of action research as an orientation to inquiry, Reason (2006) indicates that these
are broad–they lie in the work of Lewin (for example, 1946) and other social science researchers around at the end of World War II; in the liberationist perspective that can be exemplified in Paulo Freire (1970); philosophically in liberal humanism, pragmatism, phenomenology and critical theory; and practically in the work of scholar-practitioners in many professions… . (Reason 2006, pp. 187–188)
In this article the approach forwarded can be considered as a pragmatic critical-theoretical one, thus falling under the banner of Reason’s (2006) understanding of action research.
See McKay and Romm (2008) for an account of the qualities of “active research” as we see it.
References
Antony N, Sopova J (2011) Universal thought: Tagore, Neruda, Césaire. Unesco Cour (April–June, 2011)
Christakis AN, Bausch KC (2006) Co-laboratories of Democracy: how people harness their collective wisdom and power to construct the future. Information Age, Greenwich
Churchman CW (1979) The systems approach and its enemies. Basic Books, New York
Collins PH (1998) Fighting words: black women and the search for justice. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis
Essed Ph (1991) Understanding everyday racism: an interdisciplinary theory. Sage, London
Essed Ph (2001) Toward a methodology to identify continuing forms of everyday discrimination. www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/csw/essed45.htm. Accessed 7 Sept 2012
Fang CY, Sidanius J, Pratto F (1998) Romance across the social status continuum: interracial marriage and the ideological asymmetry effect. J Cross Cult Psychol 29:290–305
Flanagan T (2008) Scripting a collaborative narrative: an approach for spanning boundaries. Des Manag Rev 19(3):80–86
Flood RL (2001) The relationship of “systems thinking” to action research. In: Reason P, Bradbury H (eds) Handbook of action research: participative inquiry and practice. Sage, London, pp 133–144
Freire P (1970) Pedagogy of the oppressed. Herder & Herder, New York
Hanson NR (1958) Patterns of discovery: an inquiry into the Conceptual Foundations of Science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Harris LD, Wasilewski J (2004) Indigeneity, an alternative worldview: four R’s (relationship, responsibility, reciprocity, redistribution) vs 2 P’s (power and profit). Sharing the journey toward conscious evolution. Syst Res Behav Sci 21:489–503
Hartshorne C, Weiss P, Burks A (eds) (1958) Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (8 volumes). Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Hooks B (2001) All about love: new visions. Perennial, New York
Jervis R (1997) System effects: complexity in political and social life. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Joseph J, Kennedy S (2000) The structure of the social. Philos Soc Sci 30:508–527
Ladson-Billings G (2003) Racialized discourses and ethnic epistemologies. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds) The landscape of qualitative research: theories and issues. Sage, London, pp 398–432
Layder D (1993) New strategies in social research. Polity Press, Cambridge
Lewin K (1946) Action research and minority problems. J Soc Issues 2:34–46
Marx K (1965) Capital. Lawrence and Wishart, London
McIntyre-Mills JJ (2003) Critical systemic praxis for social and environmental justice: participatory policy design and governance for a global age. Kluwer/Plenum, New York
McIntyre-Mills JJ (2006) Systemic governance and accountability: working and re-working the conceptual and spatial boundaries. Springer, New York
McIntyre-Mills JJ, De Vries D (2011) Identity, democracy and sustainability: facing up to convergent social, economic and environmental challenges. ISCE Publishing, Litchfield Park
McKay VI, Romm NRA (2008) Active research toward the addressal of HIV/AIDS in the informal economy in Zambia: recognition of complicity in unfolding situations. Action Res 6(2):149–170
Michinov N, Dambrun M, Guimond S (2005) Social dominance orientation, prejudice, and discrimination: a new computer-based method of studying discriminatory behaviours. Behav Res Methods 37:91–98
Midgley G (2000) Systemic intervention: philosophy, methodology and practice. Kluwer/Plenum, New York
Mugabushaka JB (2012) Governance, democracy and development challenges in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Unpublished doctoral thesis. University of Flinders, Adelaide
Overbeck JR, Jost JT, Mosso CO, Flizik A (2004) Resistant versus acquiescent responses to ingroup inferiority as a function of social dominance orientation in the USA and Italy. Gr Process Intergr Relat 7:35–54
Parker L, Lynn M (2002) What’s race got to do with it? Critical race theory’s conflicts with and connections to qualitative research methodology and epistemology. Qual Inq 8(1):7–22
Parks GS (2007) Critical race realism: toward an integrative model of critical race theory, empirical social science, and public policy. Cornell Law School working paper series, Paper 23: Cornell University. http://lsr.nellco.org/cornell/clsops/papers/23. Accessed 7 Sept 2012
Peirce CS (1989) Cambridge lcctures on reasoning and the logic of things. Commens Peirce Dictionary (Retroduction). http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/terms/retroduction.html. Accessed 7 Sept 2012
Pratto F (1999) The puzzle of continuing group inequality: piecing together psychological, social, and cultural forces in social dominance theory. In: Zanna MP (ed) Advances in experimental social psychology, 31. Academic Press, New York, pp 191–263
Pratto F, Stewart AL (2011) Social dominance theory. In: DJ Christie (ed) The Encyclopedia of peace psychology, Published Online: 15 Dec. 2011. Retrieved at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9780470672532.wbepp253/pdf. Accessed 7 Sept 2012
Pratto F, Sidanius J, Levin S (2006) Social dominance theory and the dynamics of intergroup relations: taking stock and looking forward. Eur Rev Soc Psychol 17:271–320
Reason P (2006) Choice and quality in action research practice. J Manag Inq 15(2):187–203
Romm NRA (1995) Knowing as intervention. Syst Pract 8:137–167
Romm NRA (1996) Inquiry-and-intervention in systems planning: probing methodological rationalities. World Futur 47:25–36
Romm NRA (2001) Accountability in social research: issues and debates. Kluwer/Plenum, New York
Romm NRA (2002) A trusting constructivist approach to systemic inquiry: exploring accountability. Syst Res Behav Sci 19(5):455–467
Romm NRA (2010) New racism: revisiting researcher accountabilities. Springer, New York
Sayer D (1979) Science as critique: Marx versus Althusser. In: Mepham J, Ruben D-H (eds) Issues in Marxist philosophy, vol 3. Harvester Press, Brighton, pp 27–54
Sayer D (1983) Marx’s method: ideology, science and critique in “Capital”. Harvester Press, Brighton
Sidanius J (1993) The psychology of group conflict and the dynamics of oppression: a social dominance perspective. In: Iyengar S, McGuire W (eds) Explorations in political psychology. Duke University Press, Durham, pp 183–219
Sidanius J, Pratto F (1999) Social dominance: an intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge University Press, New York
Sidanius J, Pratto F, Mitchell M (1994) Group identity, social dominance orientation, and intergroup discrimination: Some implications of social dominance theory. J Soc Psychol 134:151–167
Sidanius J, Levin S, Liu J, Pratto F (2000) Social dominance orientation, antiegalitarianism, and the political psychology of gender: an extension and cross-cultural replication. Eur J Soc Psychol 30:41–67
Sidanius J, Pratto F, van Laar C, Levin S (2004) Social dominance theory: its agenda and method. Political Psychol 25:845–880
Tungen B (2010) Toward a comprehensive socio-psychological perspective: a critique of social dominance theory. J Eur Psychol Stud (JEPS), 2. http://jeps.efpsa.org/index.php/jeps/article/viewArticle/23/38. Accessed 7 Sept 2012
Wilkinson R, Pickett K (2010) The spirit level: why equality is better for everyone. Penguin, London
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Romm, N.R.A. Revisiting Social Dominance Theory: Invoking a More Retroductively-Oriented Approach to Systemic Theorizing. Syst Pract Action Res 26, 111–129 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-012-9245-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-012-9245-9