In reading Miller’s article about domination and subordination a few interesting concepts/ tensions came to mind. When discussing the relationship that exists between a dominating and subordinating person in a temporary inequality, Miller noted that the focus should be on bringing the lesser up to the same status as the dominating person. The superior is expected to teach the lesser such that a teacher is expected to teach their students or a parent is expected to teach their child. Unfortunately, this ideal has been changed over time so that the lesser is not the focus. Instead of being able to rise to the level of the superior, the lesser becomes complacent and learns to adapt to being a good lesser- one that follows instructions, is not problematic and serves as a good mentee–nothing more. Although this relationship is only temporary it can have negative effects on the student, or child, (the lesser) because they never grow to balance the relationship. By this, what is supposed to be a situation of temporary inequality becomes extended.
In continuing to read Miller’s article I was able to connect the problem of the lesser to that of subordinates in permanent inequality positions. Miller defined permanent inequality as those who are seen as unequal from birth. Some key characteristics such as race, class, sex and other identifiers put people in an inferior category. This labeling is often internalized and prevents subordinates from reaching beyond the capabilities they are told to possess. This is evident, as Miller mentioned, through women in WWII who took over the “male jobs” once they were drafted. But also exemplified through many slave rebellions which only happened because the inferiors, the slaves, learned their strength, their power and their status as the majority population. This connects to the lesser adapting to their position because it is also a psychological understanding. Once they feel comfortable in their position as lesser and think that is their rightful place, it becomes more permanent than temporary.
Cheney and Lair’s readings focused on dissent and its place in fear-based culture. Through this reading, I came to understand there are two views of dissent: as part of the normalized culture or as threatening to existing norms. Once group solidarity is lost that dissent can be seen as irrelevant or as threatening. I’m just not sure what/who distinguishes when we believe that dissent is one or the other.
Be First to Comment