 | This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages)
|
Power and dominance-submission are two key dimensions of relationships, especially close relationships in which parties rely on one another to achieve their goals[1] and as such it is important to be able to identify indicators of dominance.[2]
Power is the ability to influence behavior[3] and may not be fully assessable until it is challenged with equal force.[4] Unlike power, which can be latent, dominance is a manifest condition characterized by individual,[5] situational and relationship patterns in which attempts to control another party or parties may or may not be accepted.[6] Moskowitz, Suh, and Desaulniers (1994) describe two similar ways that people can relate to society as parties to interpersonal relationships: agency and communion. Agency includes status and is on a continuum from assertiveness-dominance to passive-submissiveness; it can be measured by subtracting submissiveness from dominance. Communion includes love and falls on a continuum from warm-agreeable to cold-hostile-quarrelsome. Those with the greatest and least power typically do not assert dominance while those with more equal relationships make more control attempts.[1]
Power and dominance are closely related concepts that greatly impact relationships. In order to understand how dominance captures relationships one must understand the influence of gender and social roles while watching for verbal and nonverbal indicators of dominance.
Individuals may dominate through strategies that is a modifier of the function of others in the group, modifying the on-going social dynamics: 1. Restrict or have preferential treatment to what amounts one can access the food, potential and actual mates, territory, resting and sleeping areas, and the locations for that group that's most protected from predators; 2. The movements of others; or 3. How the attention of others can be utilized, an idea put forth by Michael Chance and Ray Larsen.[7][8] Through the generations, allotted hierarchy legitimizing theories are spread by the power structure, which suggest what beliefs and attitudes are permissible. Those theories determine who deserves its status and for what reasons, which, in turn, results in the dominant groups imposing the status quo on the subordinate groups. Actions, attitudes and beliefs are what give a dominant group its position, rather than mere tradition.[9]
- ^ a b Dunbar and Burgoon, 2005
- ^ (as cited in Dunbar and Burgoon, 2005) describes, "the fundamental concept in social science is power, in the same way that energy is the fundamental concept in physics"
- ^ (Bachrach and Lawler; Berger; Burgoon et al.; Foa and Foa; French and Raven; Gray-Little and Burks; Henley; Olson and Cromwell; Rollins and Bahr, as cited in Dunbar and Burgoon, 2005)
- ^ (Huston, as cited in Dunbar and Burgoon, 2005)
- ^ Komter, as cited in Dunbar and Burgoon, 2005)
- ^ (Rogers-Millar and Millar, as cited in Dunbar and Burgoon, 2005)
- ^ Chance, Larsen, Michael R. a., Ray R. (1976). The Social Structure of Attention. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0471015734.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Bernstein, Irwin S. (September 1981). "Dominance: The baby and the bathwater". Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 4 (3): 419–429. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00009614. S2CID 145497247.
- ^ Quist, Resendez., R. M., M. G. (2002). "Social dominance threat: Examining Social Dominance Theory's explanation of prejudice as legitimizing myths". Basic & Applied Social Psychology. 24 (4): 290. doi:10.1207/S15324834BASP2404_4. S2CID 144306430.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)