In Miller’s reading, she described what domination and subornation were and how they are important. She talks about the “superior” party and a “lesser” party in a society. I found this section interesting because I never looked at it in the way Miller did. She uses parents and children as an example and I think she is correct. In the text, she says, “The ‘superior’ party presumably has more of some ability or valuable quality, which she/he is supposed to impart to the ‘lesser’ person.” I do agree with her statement because when I look at it from the perspective of a parent and child this fits.
Miller also says that we have not found a good way to carry out central tasks. The central task of movement from unequal to equal. She then goes on to say, “Officially, we say we want to do things, but we often fail.” I found this very interesting but correct. It is just like she said earlier, we have not found a way to carry out certain tasks and sometimes if we try, we fail.
I think while it is true that parents do possess a greater amount of knowledge than young children, that is only in the circumstance of a smaller child. It is important to be careful when assessing this ‘valuable’ quality in terms of a general dominant/subordinate relationship because besides this parental example, it doesn’t apply.
I agree with the point that children should listen to their knowledgeable parents who are “smarter” than their children, until they become a certain age. Then it is the kids job to take what their parents taught them and do with it that they will and at that point their actions will speak for themselves and the parents can then restrict however much they need to.
I also agree with the fact that it is important for children to listen to their parents until they come of age to demonstrate what they have learned from their parents throughout their childhood.
i also found it highly interesting to consider that there is two “levels” when it comes to Inequality, the “lesser” being the child and adult one, and the greater being the inequalities we see on a large social standing. this shows how people deal with inequality every day some may just be more important than others.
The parent-child relationship was helpful for me as well in defining the aspect of temporary inequality. My hope is that we can shift the model of permanent inequality closer to a temporary one and move away from perpetual prejudice.
I agree with your point that often times we say we’re going to do something, but fall short. Sometimes it is because of a lack of effort, and other times, the specific task is simply outside of one’s skillset. This is definitely why the expression “actions speak louder than words” exists.
I agree with the points that looking at the parent to child relationship supports the superior and lesser party idea. Some people in the comments said that they believed that this only applies if the children are young. While I do think it applies here, at least in my case, it still applies. I still go to my parents for help and advise all the time. I think that even post-grad, I will chose to pull on their knowledge of how to handle new situations.
I agree that Miller’s point about people wanting to things to close the inequality gap but failing is telling of our society on a whole. Of course we do not want people living in homelessness or struggling to put food on the table for their families but when it comes time to lift the subordinates, the dominants do not want to put in the hard work. The inequality in our society has lasted hundreds of years so it is going to take hard work to change it. Without hard work of course it is going to fail.