Content area
Full Text
Schmitt, Branscombe and Kappen (2003) and Wilson and Lui (2003) present a persuasive series of studies which raise major problems for the conceptualization of social dominance orientation in social dominance theory. Building on these and other data in the literature, this commentary summarizes six fundamental criticisms which can be made of the theory. We conclude that social dominance theory is flawed by conceptual inconsistencies and has been disconfirmed empirically in relation to its key hypothesis of behavioural asymmetry. The reaction of subordinate groups to the social hierarchy is better explained by social identity theory.
Social dominance theory (SDT) paints a bleak picture of human nature and human social organization. It argues that there is in human nature, derived from our evolutionary past, a ubiquitous drive or predisposition to form 'group-based social hierarchies', authoritarian, essentially fascist social systems (Altemeyer, 1998) in which groups with power dominate and oppress subordinate groups. This drive, being 'biological', operates irrespective of the in-group's social position so that low-status groups also work to maintain the hierarchies which oppress them ('behavioural asymmetry', BA). This theory not only makes futile any effort to liberate humanity from oppression, domination and divisive hatreds, it also asserts that social systems built on perpetual coercion, domination and conflict are 'adaptive'; they are good for us.
Fortunately, any serious look at the theory reveals significant conceptual inconsistencies and that research data already disconfirm its one distinctive empirical hypothesis of BA (that irrespective of their own interests low-status groups show out-group favouritism, whereas high-status groups show in-group favouritism, to maintain the social hierarchy). In order to deal with these problems SDT has begun borrowing heavily from social identity theory (SIT), whilst misrepresenting the latter to maintain the claim that SDT is different.
There are numerous criticisms to be made of SDT but we think the six most important are: (1) that the supposed evolutionary basis of the social dominance drive is largely fantasy; (2) that the social and psychological substance of the theory does not follow from and indeed is at odds with the so-called 'ubiquitous drive'; (3) the meaning and role of 'social dominance orientation' (SDO), the trait variable that dominates the research, are rendered problematic by a growing amount of evidence (see Schmitt, Branscombe, & Kappen,...