Social dominance theory and white privilege both can play a role with each other. SDT is studies of how someone comes to hold social dominance and what characteristics come with that. Then privilege is someone who is more at an advantage to get what they want and desire while other struggles to get what they want. They both play a role with each other because privilege is how someone get social dominance a lot of the time and someone’s race can often play a role in that.
To define privilege, “Privilege exists when one group has something of value that is denied to others simply because of group membership and not based on what a person or group has done or failed to do (Johnson, 2006). For those who routinely benefit from privilege, the challenge is to not quickly deny its existence. It is important to recognize that privilege is a part of the reality that helps some while it impedes others’ experiences” (Baldwin, 2016). Being privileged is an advantage, your skin color and gender can put you farther ahead and get you the things that you want while other struggle to go get the things that they want.
To define social dominance theory, “SDT is a theory of social and intergroup relations that focuses on how people develop hierarchy supporting belief structures as a support for institutional dominance. It involves studies of who is likely to hold such attitudes, how they come to do so, and what are the ramifications for thought and action” (Islam, 2014). Males today tend to hold a lot more higher positions of power than women and have more social dominance than others.
In conclusion, most of the time white men are more likely to have social dominance and that’s because of their privilege playing a role in that. In general men still have more privilege than women but people races do play a role in how privileged they are too. There are people out there advocating for people of color and fighting for racial and gender equality still. Social dominance and privilege play major roles in how people acquire jobs and how people get the things that they want.
References
Baldwin, J. (2016). Understanding race and privilege. National Association of School Psychologists (NASP). Retrieved February 15, 2023, from https://www.nasponline.org/resources-and-publications/resources-and-podcasts/diversity-and-social-justice/social-justice/understanding-race-and-privilege
Islam, G. (2014). Social Dominance Theory. In: Teo, T. (eds) Encyclopedia of Critical Psychology. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5583-7_288
Believe that privilege can expand beyond groups and that the definition be expanded.
Privilege can also occur on the individual level and be perpetuated by the systems and environments we live in. As noted by Gruman and colleagues, blatant discrimination seldomly occurs however, discrimination and bias continue to exist in more subtle, convoluted, and tactful ways (Gruman et al., 2017). As such systems and axioms perpetuated by the culture we live in can further aid in the continuation of social dominance and privilege. How can we combat that?
If the society we live in continues to award those with privilege and social dominance, is there even a chance for those in the minority to circumvent that? Research suggests that individuals who are oriented towards social dominance are less likely to be accepting of women or minorities in positions of power (Pratto et al., 2013). As such, combating the idea of privilege by challenging the idea of social dominance and normalizing having minority groups in positions of power.
References:
Gruman, J. A., Schneider, F. W., and Coutts, L. M. (Eds.) (2017). Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. ISBN 978-1-4833-6973-0
Pratto, F., Çidam, A., Stewart, A. L., Zeineddine, F. B., Aranda, M., Aiello, A., & Henkel, K. E. (2013). Social dominance in context and in individuals: Contextual moderation of robust effects of social dominance orientation in 15 languages and 20 countries. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4(5), 587-599. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550612473663