The social dominance theory can affect all walks of life, not just individuals of different ethnicity or low socioeconomic conditions. I am a survivor of such a hypothesis.
Attending a private high school did have its advantages, but on the downside, challenges regarding status and competitions were fierce. Instructors, faculty, and coaches had a group bias mentally when it came to choosing students for certain sports, activities, and positions. The group-based hierarchies included students who came from very affluent families, some with political ties and others with professional parents. These students were looked upon as “special,” the in-group, while the others, like myself, were considered the out-group.
Having friends and other students who fell into the same status level as I, created a support system within our group. We did not allow the dominance of the wealthy and professional families hurt our ego or challenge our efforts to strive, or resort to legitimizing beliefs. The social dominance theory demonstrates how subordinate groups will struggle to keep things at a status quo as opposed to joining a dominant group. This is where the concept of legitimizing myths come into play (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). The social hierarchies can force a person to desire high power and status. This social dominance motivates individuals to keep themselves in those hierarchies (Pratto et al, 2006).
Regarding the social value of group members of the dominance theory, favoritism and comfort zones are important for the in-group. People who are surrounded by wealth and prestige remain in a circle to retain their power and status. Others, the subordinate group, like myself and others who did not fall in that category felt the impact but did not allow themselves to become devastated or defeated. Social dominance theory is a prejudicial determinant marker that can be positive, or, in some cases, it can have a negative effect. Parameters can be altered through human behavior to allow groups to have shared goals and equal situations. Individuals must cognitively draw on the abstract reasoning involved that needs to be regrouped to establish goals for breaking down the barriers (Piaget, 1930, 1952).
I feel that this type of segregation of power and status is not only found in the private school settings that I attended, but it is found in many other types of industries and businesses. There are always struggles for status, power, and wealth. Society should become more vigilant about its reasoning and implications in conjunction with its sources, effects and boundaries. If this type of theory was kept in check, there would much less political stress factors, bias attitudes, and unfair competition in businesses and society. People should learn to engage in the practice of intermingling with others more. If individuals utilize the foundations of the intergroup relations that include the contact hypothesis theory and social identity theory, the more prejudicial issues and struggles for powers could be minimized. Rich, poor, professionals, and laborers should work together in committee programs, social meetings, campaigns, and neighborhood funding in an effort to understand that the wedge created through society’s group-based hierarchies can be narrowed. Life would be made easier for everyone involved, and more than likely, the in-group and the out-group would become happier.
References
Piaget, J. (1930). The child’s conception of causality. New York: Harcourt Brace & Company.
Piaget, J. (1952) The origins of intelligence in children. New York: International Universities Press.
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., & Levin, S. (2006). Social dominance theory and the dynamics of intergroup relations: Taking stock and looking forward. European Review of Social Psychology, 17, 271-320.