Social dominance theory describes how processes at different levels of social organization, from ideologies to institutionalized discrimination work together to form and maintain a group based dominance. One common example of social dominance theory in the United States is the use of large institutionalized religion, such as Christianity to maintain power over smaller groups. We see this happen in a few different ways in our society.
Social dominance theory also describes that all individuals that belong to a group benefit from the resources that the group can provide for them. So in turn, the individual is motivated to protect the group (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). One large group within the United States that you can see Social Dominance Theory at work is Christianity. Christianity is the most popular religion in the U.S. and about 74% of adults in the U.S. identify as Christian (Pew Research, 2022). Religious institutions such as churches, are not required to pay taxes and can accumulate wealth quickly from tithes and charitable donations. This can result in wealthy individuals who then prioritize their own group and its desires. The money that these individuals gain is frequently used to lobby for policies that align with their beliefs. These policies can oppress and or take resources away from other groups.
Two policies that have been hotly debated in the news lately are the abortion ban and gay rights. These policies are heavily influenced by religion. Many people are anit-abortion and anit-gay marriage because of what pastors are preaching. Mega church pastors such as Kenneth Copeland, who has a home that is worth 7 million dollars, use social dominance to advance their position as much as possible. This allows other members of the clergy to advance their positions as much as possible as well.
Social Dominance theory can be witnessed in many areas of life. However, it can be easily seen through large religions such as Christianity. We need to be aware of social dominance theory and recognize how it can oppress others so that we may be able to advocate for those who are oppressed.
References:
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Gruman, J. A., Schneider, F. W., & Coutts, L. M. (Eds.). (2016). Applied social psychology : Understanding and addressing social and practical problems. SAGE Publications, Incorporated.
Pew Research Center. (2022, June 13). Religious landscape study. Pew Research Center’s Religion & Public Life Project. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/
The older I get the more I move away from organized religion. When I was young, I was forced to go to church, and to religious schools. While I believe this was with good intention, it had the alternative effect and just pushed me away from it. The thing that I most disliked about it was the expectation to conform to all beliefs and theories. To your point, being anti-gay or anti-abortion. It feels more and more like those that are religious pick and choose the way they want to interpret God’s word and twist it to fit their agenda. One side of their mouths speaks to love everyone, but the other side is spewing out all of the caveats of that phrase. I had a co-worker once that was totally against gays because the “Bible said so” but she herself had been divorced which the Bible if also in opposition of. Again, because it fit her lifestyle, she made it work. My parents were devout Christians and did a lot of (free) work for the church as my dad was a construction worker. They also often contributed donations to the church and gave their church tithings like clockwork every week. The pastor of the church drove a brand-new Mercedes, had a boat, went on vacations, and wore designer suits. It left such a bad taste in my mouth as it seemed like he was using this just to gain on capital as opposed to offering it to those in need.
Even the DSM recognizes forced religion as a diagnosis as “Religious or Spiritual Problems” (V62.89 (Z65.8)). The DSM does classify religious issues under “Problems Related to Other Psychosocial, Personal, and Environmental Circumstances”. The V/Z code reflects that, “This category can be used when the focus of clinical attention is a religious or spiritual problem.” (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Forced religions creates issues related to the pressure to conform to a religion and a specific belief system. Restoration Counseling adds layers to this diagnosis and recognizes “Religious Trauma Syndrome”. This diagnosis cannot be found in the DSM-5 but is a common experience for those that have been a victim of painful experiences with religion. Called “Spiritual Abuse” which includes but it not limited to feeling silenced for challenging or disagreeing about religion, the forcing to attend religious gatherings against your will, and the use of scripture to justify behaviors. (Kingdon, 2022). Social Dominance is very significantly used in consideration of religion, and it is disheartening. It gives cultlike vibes and feelings of inadequacy if you don’t conform. In my opinion, that is the antithesis of what the Bible attempts to convey.
References:
American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 5th ed. Washington D.C.: 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596.Introduction. Accessed November 1, 2018.
Kingdon, M. (2022). Religious Trauma Syndrome and Faith Transitions. Restoration Counseling. Retrieved from https://www.restorationcounselingseattle.com/religious-trauma-transitions
With regard to the relationship you mentioned between social dominance theory and gay rights, I was thinking about the impact of social dominance theory on gender stereotypes. According to the social identity theory, in order to actively maintain self-esteem, individuals will give a more positive evaluation of their own social group classification and a more negative evaluation of the out-group classification (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). This theory also assumes that in-group members think that in-group members have more individual differences when they prefer in-group members, and that out-group members have remarkable similarities when they do not (Rubin & Badea, 2007). Kurz and Lyons (2009) found that in-group communication of out-group stories retold more consistent stereotype information, while in-group communication of in-group stories retold more inconsistent stereotype information.
The theory of social domination proposed by Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, and Malle(1994) holds that any society has stratification based on gender, race, age, and other ways, and there are high and low levels of stratification. People of high social class tend to increase class differences to maintain their dominance. People of lower social classes tend to reduce class differences in order to make society more equal. In most societies, men belong to high social groups and women to low social groups. Moreover, men are more elevated in Social Dominance Orientation, while women are lower in social dominance orientation. There is broad cross-cultural consistency for this gender difference in social dominance (Dambrun et al, 2009). For example, men tend to choose occupations that increase class differences, and women tend to choose occupations that reduce class differences. Lower-class women are more likely than men to believe that society is unfair, more unfair, and more likely to want to change the status quo. The social dominance of an individual is negatively correlated with the change of stereotype. The higher the social dominance of an individual, the harder it is to identify with inconsistent stereotype information (Tausch & Hewstone, 2010). However, no one has tested whether social dominance theory can explain the characteristics of interpersonal stereotype information transmission in social situations.
Reference
Dambrun, M., Duarte, S., & Guimod, S. (2004). Why are men more likely to
support group-based dominance than women? The mediating role of gender
identification. British Journal of Social Psychology, 43(2), 287-297.
Kurz, T., & Lyons, A. (2009). Intergroup influences on the stereotype consistency
bias in communication: Does it matter who we are communicating about and
to whom we are communicating? Social Cognition, 27(6), 893-904.
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance
orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 741-763
Rubin, M., & Badea, C. (2007). Why do people perceive ingroup homogeneity on
ingroup traits and outgroup homogeneity on outgroup traits? Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(1), 31-42.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W.
G. Austin, & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations.
Monterey, CA: Brooks Cole.
Tausch, N., & Hewstone, M. (2010). Social dominance orientation attenuates
stereotype change in the face of disconfirming information. Social Psychology,
41(3), 169-176