Month: October 2019

These two articles were really interesting to read together. While Miller discussed in vague terms what the dominant/subordinate relationship can look like in various social aspects (in two specific forms), Cheney & Lair got into the nitty-gritty of American politics among various administrations and assigned “dissent” to certain movements before getting into our “culture of fear.” While there is a lot to unpack among the two of these articles, there is one connection that popped out to me. “It is not surprising then that a subordinate group resorts to disguised and indirect ways of acting and reacting,” Miller wrote this on page 228. And on page 203, in the epilogue of Cheney and Lair’s article, they discuss the relationship between the constant fear surrounding the US’s borders and position in the world with the day-to-day lives of citizens: “Taken together, these fears hinder the full expression of democracy itself, inasmuch as dissenting opinions are suppressed or are not even considered.” I couldn’t help but think about social media when I put these two things together. All the memes about nuclear war, global warming, school shootings, police brutality–they’re really funny, and they’re funny because they’re real and on people’s minds. These are jokes made out of genuine concerns–laughter is the best medicine, after all. There’s a lot of violence in the world and there’s a lot of violence in the States that people don’t want to acknowledge, but the prevalence of these popular, dark-humor kind of jokes shows that the Dominant group (whatever group may be, depending on the issue) is not ignorant of the underlying issue. This kind of humor communicates the issue, but also creates a sort of mental distance between the reader/watcher and the actual situation.

5 Comments

The Miller reading really made it clear to me how much we are all missing out on by having these systems of domination and subordination. In this system the dominant group misses out on anything the subordinate group could teach them. Anything that the subordinate group does differently, thought they might be doing it better, is considered outside the norm and never accepted. This seems like such a detriment to people, especially in a country like the U.S. that is considered “a melting pot” with such a wide variety of people and cultures to learn from. Miller also mentioned that the subordinate group misses out on learning about themselves because they are always working on learning about the people dominating them in order to please them. This system is doing a disservice to both the subordinated and the dominate.

When Miller was talking about temporary inequality I was thinking a lot about how useful the power that comes along with the abilities of the superior if they are unable to effectively teach this ability to another person. Yes, they might technically have the upper hand in this relationship, but they likely gain little respect from the people that are supposedly inferior to them. The example I was thinking about was if I had a teacher that was just terrible at communicating the material they were supposed to. In my experience they gain little respect from the class and are generally looked down upon because they are unable to do their job, the thing they are supposed to be good at. Though, in this instance students cannot overtly do anything to challenge the teacher there are smaller acts of resistance that undermine their power. In this situation I think the lesser people do have a little more power than they may typically be given credit for because they have the ability to undermine the power of the superior and that can really reduce their effectiveness.

2 Comments

An aspect of the dynamics between dominant groups and subordinate groups which stood out to me is the tendencies for some members to imitate the dominants. This imitation could mean subordinates imitating the poor treatment demonstrated by the dominants or potentially adopting positive behaviors/qualities that they have witnessed from the dominants. It is interesting that depending on the group, this imitation can be very negative or very positive.

This idea reminded me a lot of the Stanford Prison Experiment; “prisoners” and “guards” imitated what they expect a dominant group to act like vs. what they expect a subordinate group to act like. This led to the notorious corruptness of the “guards” and maltreatment of the “prisoners.” Additionally, some “prisoners” took it upon themselves to be destructive or mean towards other “prisoners;” imitating the dominant group’s behavior of the “prisoner” class as a whole. It is very intriguing to think about how groups act when interacting with other groups and how quickly behaviors are to transfer between groups, most commonly in terms of subordinate groups learning from their dominants.

6 Comments

Miller presents a very compelling argument surrounding the role and place of a “superior” party and a “lesser” party in society. I found the section about temporary inequality, generally in reference to age, particularly intriguing. I never really looked at the inequality in the relationship between a child and their parents, though Miller is absolutely correct, I just never saw it in this way up until this point. Permanent inequality is definitely a lingering problem in this world that continues to not be resolved, and in comparison to temporary inequality, I think permanent inequality is much larger of an issue. I liker the way Miller says, “Power exists and it has to be taken into account, not denied”. This very adequately demonstrates that power is inevitable, so we just have to learn how to deal with it better, which is something I think the study of leadership focuses a lot on.

The reading about dissent provided some interesting points regarding the subject. Dissent can come from any side of the political spectrum, the left, the right, and even the middle according to the reading. They then go into discussing dissent in the workplace, where I think it will be most applicable to many of us in the future. Some of the information they present surrounding the cause for dissent could be particularly useful to employers as well. I do think that the ability to express dissent in this country is what makes it one of the best countries in the world, and it is also something that keeps us, as citizens, involved with politics and government without necessarily being a part of it. Dissent causes change and change inspires innovation which allows our nation to persevere through difficult times. And though dissent usually comes as a result of failed leadership, I believe it has the ability to, in turn, create success.

 

3 Comments

The first article is broken down into four categories of temporary inequality, permanent inequality, dominants, and subordinates. Temporary examples of inequality are those between parents and children and students and teachers. This inequality is not explicitly stated but it is implied in the relationship structure of these two groups. The superior person has the ability to positively impact the lesser person in the relationship in a positive way. In a sense, it is their duty to do so as well. This type of relationship has the most amount of gray area in it because people are unsure how much power they are to give to the “lesser” person as well as their ability to express themselves openly. The article next discusses the topic of permanent inequality which mostly consists of your sex, nationality, religion, and other factors you are born with that you do not have control over. The goal in this is to not end the inequality but rather keep the inequality and have the superior take advantage of the lesser. Relating to dominants the dominants define a group as inferior they are known to be defective or dumb. The dominant tend to talk down to the inferiors and try to knock them down rather than build them up. Whereas subordinates have to focus solely on basic survival. Their main goal is to please their superiors. 

 

The topic on dominants made me reflect back upon what I learned in my Leadership 102 class relating to implicit biases. The examples used were that of African American men, white women, African American women, and white men relating to car salesman. They discovered that more minority groups and women that a significant price increase was placed upon the price of the car. Black men were offered the second-highest prices, and black women were offered the highest prices because there is this implicit bias around them that they lack intelligence. I also took an implicit bias test relating to my preference for skinny vs. obese people. What I discovered is that I had an implicit bias against obese people. The reason being that they are seen as unintelligent and lazy due to their weight.    

1 Comment

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.

Leave a Comment

Both of the new ideas introduced in the readings, domination/subordination and dissent, echo similar themes we discussed in class regarding groupthink. Miller talks about how in situations of inequality we often “speak in abstractions” which “permits us to accept what we might not admit to on a personal level” (p. 223). This concept reminded me of how we discussed that groupthink creates an environment where the individual suppresses their own opinions in favor of the assumed group opinion. Furthermore, similarly to the invulnerability symptom groupthink has, Miller states that dominants experience a similar false confidence in the fact that “the way things are is right and good” for them and their subordinates (p. 227). These ideas of the oppression of individual opinion and the assumption that the situation is right or good parallel groupthink symptoms and dominate/subordinate relationships that Miller discusses.

Cheney and Lair define dissent “as ‘the rejection of the views most people hold’” (p. 184). As we discussed in class, dissent is a major concept rejected in groupthink. Dissent would mean going against the group and thus is highly unpopular as we saw in the case of the Bay of Pugs and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Towards the end of the essay, the authors state that “as long as the glamor of [war] is sufficiently represented in popular culture… it is difficult to mount credible opposition” (p. 198). Because society accepts war and its consequences, it is hard to oppose it publicly. Dissent in the case of the Iraqi or Vietnam war and other global situations with negative outcomes, in my opinion, is like groupthink on a societal level.

Leave a Comment

In Miller’s article, she talks about the difference between temporary and permanent inequality. Temporary inequality exists in relationships where one person has qualities that they are expected to teach the other, and this gives them authority over the other person. One example of a relationship with temporary inequality is the relationship between a parent and a child. Miller seems to think that temporary inequality is somewhat acceptable because even though one person is in a position of authority over the other, they are also supposed to be serving the subordinate, and I agree. For example, parents make decisions that children are not mature enough to make for themselves. When children become adults, they continue to have a relationship with their parents, but it is no longer a dominant/subordinate dynamic.Permanent inequality is inequality that exists on a much larger scale and is based on characteristics that we cannot control such as race, class, or gender.

The second article about dissent reminded our class discussion on Thursday about groupthink. Cheney and Lair argue that there is “a great deal of fear about entertaining views outside whatever functions as, or is defined as, the mainstream set of positions at the time.” This is happening not only on a societal level about significant political issues, but also on a smaller scale in workplaces and communities. This also made me think about the expectations created by dominant groups that Miller discusses in her article. Subordinates are discouraged from expressing any dissenting opinions about the structure of society. I liked how Cheney and Lair laid out concrete strategies for encouraging dissent at the end of the article, both on a large scale and in our daily lives.

 

2 Comments

In this article, Miller describes the permanent and temporary inequalities, and explains some of the relationship dynamics between subordinates and their dominants. Miller explained how often since the very survival of the subordinate depends on the decision making of the dominants, those inferior will become acutely aware to the tendencies and character of those above them. By excluding them from positions of power and delegating them the work that nobody else wants to do, the dominants take away any semblance of feedback from their subordinates. They keep the subordinates in these positions and offer them no agency, molding them to fit the stereotypes they wish to enforce. The dominants do not understand their inferiors, but the inferiors understand the dominants, but not themselves.

An example of this conundrum is vividly explained in Richard Wright’s Native Son, a book I read in my FYS last year. As an impoverished, young black teenager living in Chicago, Bigger Thomas is frustrated that his girlfriend and his mother do not fight back against the system in the same violent manner that he does, but his is blind to his own reality since he begins to fit a sterotype that the white politicians and media of Chicago assign to young black men. Author Richard Wright described Bigger as living behind a veil- he could see the powers that exploited his family, but these powers could not see or understand him. Wright built these ideas off of famous African American scholar WEB Du Bois, who wrote about the double consciousness of black Americans.

2 Comments

Miller’s piece discussed relationships and how dominance and subordination exists in some form of them. She says this stems from there being some sort of difference between the two, which could include age, gender, or even race. She describes temporary inequality as a relationship that is made to be ended, one that has a purpose to better the subordinate. A permanent inequality is one where groups of are put down because of who they are.

Miller questions how much diversity do we actually like before there is some sort of trouble in the relationship. I think that this can be seen as groups expand. People tend to gravity to what they know, and then with that create a hierarchy within that. Thus, with bigger groups there would be more likely for this division to occur.

When considering racial inequality I think her statements are very interesting, especially as dominance is no longer meaning majority. I don’t think it is as true (although it has some truth) that the dominants are guiding society. Today, especially in America, I think there is so much diversity in ideas and cultures, however, the dominants still majorly affect social beliefs. In all, I think racially we are shifting away from many of her ideas of dominance, although the rooted belief systems still affect us today.

 

2 Comments

On Friday, October 18th, I attended the Bonner Center for Civic Engagement’s Weekly Brown Bag Discussion that was titled “RVAIDS: The AIDS Impact in Richmond” from 12:30-1:30 PM. It was led by panelists Dr. Patricia Herrera, Dr. Laura Browder, Lindsay Bryant, and Dr. Eric King. Dr. Herrera and Dr. Browder teach a class that has started a project called RVAIDS with the mission to share the voices of those suffering from “Richmond’s hidden epidemic” of HIV and AIDS. HIV/AIDS positivity disproportionately impacts people of color, immigrants, young people, and LGBTQ+ folks. The virus infects the African American community– specifically black women– due to disparities in healthcare and education. We talked about in Thursday’s class how healthcare access and research are so unequal because research has largely been done on white men. HIV/AIDS was only thought to infect gay white men, but in actuality, women of color are the largest group living with the virus. 

 

While this talk may not have explicitly related to leadership itself, the speakers highlighted the discrepancies in healthcare policy that are embedded in racism and sexism as well as ways to become an advocate for the cause. Dr. Eric King was diagnosed with HIV/AIDS in 1985 at the age of 36, and he has lived with the virus ever since; his personal perspective on the issue brings to light the hardships of living with such a stigmatized virus. Additionally, the panelists added a segment on what it means to be an advocate for a cause and how to become a leader on a micro or macro scale. Specifically to HIV/AIDS due to the stigma against it, the first step to bringing rates down is to talk about it– about safe sex, about HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases, and about the stigma. It is impossible to be a leader for a cause or to attempt to bring awareness to an issue without talking about it and serving the community to make a change. I would say that Lindsay Bryant, the program coordinator of Nia, Inc. through her church, is a servant leader because she is putting the needs of victims of HIV/AIDS first to evoke change in the community. She utilizes “education, love, empowerment, and compassion” to serve as a leader with the goal to end to the HIV/AIDS epidemic through support groups (building community), expertise on the issue (awareness), and providing her service to others (stewardship).

 

Anna Marston

Leave a Comment

In the presentation given by Kite Hafner in the Jepson Leadership Forum under the series Digital Dystopias, was very insightful in the pros the internet has in society. She explained how Algor created the High-Performance Computing Act. Which let the internet superhighway, that the then-president, George Bush, predicted that the internet would allow for major advancements not only in science but in global trade. To be able to convey her ideas of the internet, the speaker analyzes the myths that are often associated with the internet. One of those myths that The other myth the speaker talks about is that Tim Burners Lee did not invent the internet, but the web. Which I learned are two different things. The second myth she addresses is the ARPANET and how its goal was to be able to survive a nuclear attack.

What she made sure to point out, and help the audience understand is that unlike all the dark stories that will be proceeding in the series about the internet, is that it wasn’t all that bad. She emphasized that as the internet developed, and email became a thing, the “wars” that were being had, was how long a header should be, called the “Header Wars.” What she also talked about was what exactly was the internet and how international data is transmitted. She stated that about 99% of the data was transmitted by wires at the bottom of the ocean, submarine communications cables.  And travel thousands of miles in length, and as deep as mountains.

All in all, the question she was addressing who created the internet, and how each person who helped develop it claims to have created it.

Leave a Comment

I went to the environmental activism presentation earlier today and it was very interesting and concerning at the same time. In the first part of the presentation, various facts and statistics were presented about what the current trend of climate change is producing and the increasingly detrimental outcomes that will come further on. One of the most concerning points was about the massive increase in heat that we have seen. Since 2001, 18 of the 19 years have been the hottest years ever recorded, with the hottest of them all being the previous 5. This is extremely concerning because heatwaves, like the one in Paris this past summer, are more likely to cause deaths in older and younger populations, and there is no effective way to stop a heatwave from coming.

One thing that I found surprising was the amount of implementation that renewable energy has already had. In Europe, almost all of the energy comes from windfarms or solar. However, in the US, over 50% of our energy is still reliant on natural gas. It was encouraging to hear that the University is working to become carbon neutral by 2050 by constructing a solar farm.

All of the solutions I heard related to renewable energy were related to decreasing or offsetting the amount of CO² that was released. While being carbon neutral is advantageous, and certainly better than current practices, I would also like to see renewable ways that CO² can be removed from the atmosphere.

Leave a Comment

In the first article, “Domination/Subordination” Miller discusses two types of inequality and dominants and subordinates. The first type of inequality is Temporary Inequality. The “lesser” person is socially defined as unequal and the “superior” is supposed to help them rise in society. The second type is Permanent Inequality in which the “lesser” person is born unequal and the “superiors” never help them rise in society. Although temporary inequality has a harsh definition, it is definitely the better option between the two because at least there is a willingness to help.

In the second article Cheney and Lair discussed dissent. It is defined as the rejection of the views that most people hold. In work and politics it is frowned upon because it is seen as disruptive, anti-progress, and an inappropriate response to seemingly new situations. However, dissent is actually needed because if the dissenter is right they can help prevent something bad from happening. This reminded me of the mind guard in groupthink because it is their job to make sure groupthink does not occur and a dissenter is supposed to step into a group and make them realize that maybe they aren’t making the best decision.

Leave a Comment

Domination and Subordination Response

Susan Nevin

For this class, I read one article discussing dissent and another discussing domination and subordination. The ladder article, “Domination/Subordination,” by Jean B. Miller, discusses how people treat others who are different to them, and how people cope with the idea of these differences. Miller concludes that when there is some type of inequality among people, there becomes a dominant person or personality, and then by default there is a group of subordinates. The dominants then take over the group, and even when the subordinates develop positive traits like intelligence or charisma, the dominates overpower them and leave no room for their to be movement or success on the subordinates side, something they even go as far as blocking their growth, even when it’s unintentional. However, dominates, while they are overpowering, don’t like conflict, and will try to hide or suppress conflict at all costs. Because of this, subordinates are good at reacting and showing their emotion in hidden ways. 

In the first article, “Elevating dissent and transcending fear-based culture at war and at work,” George Cheny and Daniel J. Lair discuss how the use of media has created a very reachable social sphere, and how our work life is now interrelated with our political and public sphere. Dissent is the idea that there is a “voice that goes against the popular opinion.” This article claims that this can create problems because of access to social media, while others argue that this is the reason we have democracy. Altogether, there are positives and negatives to this freedom, and it does come down to how this concept in being used in relation to the general public.  

1 Comment

In Miller’s article, I was able to see the two types of inequality, once they were clearly drawn out, in examples in my life. I see temporary inequality in how a parent deals with an unruly child and in how a teacher prides himself in their degree and how he deals with his students. However, I don’t really ever see temporary inequality really ever playing out to attain the supposed goal of ending the relationship of inequality. I feel like the dominant group in this type doesn’t want to give up their power or keep the lesser group down. I can see the second type, permanent inequality, more in history and the nation’s history of racism. The way that birth and skin color didn’t allow for blacks to gain citizenship, how blacks weren’t allowed to partake in free labor, and how white people were destructive of their political, social, and cultural freedom clearly demonstrates the ideas of permanent inequality.

While reading about permanent inequality, I noticed that it uses the idea of sociologist Howard Becker’s labeling theory, which states that if someone is labeled as one thing, they will begin to act according to that label. Permanent inequality contains the idea of the dominant group assigning roles and labels to the subordinates, to keep them down and maintain power. I feel like that concept of labeling and then the labeled beginning to act according to their new label has a more powerful effect than the dominant group straight up destroying the subordinates. Once inside the subordinate’s head, they have complete control; the lesser group won’t have full and honest control over their actions because they will believe they have to act in a certain, inferior way.

2 Comments

Appropriate was a comedy and drama theatre performance put on in the Cousins theatre here at Richmond. I did not go into the show with high expectations because I did not know what level college theatre was at. However, I was very impressed with all aspects of the show. I thought that the actors did a great job. They made everything that they said seem believable and were very into what they were doing. I also did not think that I’d like the performance because I did not really get the concept of the blackbox theatre. In a blackbox theatre the stage designers can put the audience and stage wherever they want. In addition, they are small so the audience is very close to the actors. I actually ended up thinking that being close to the actors was pretty cool and it made the audience seem like more of a unified group.

The only part of the show that I did not like was the beginning and end. To start the show there was a long period of darkness and cicada noises were going on and off. I found it unnecessary and thought that it was dragged on too long. At the end of the show, the lights were going on and off and when the lights came on we would see the “house” being destroyed by nature and decaying. I understood the point of this, but again thought it was unnecessary and took too long.

Leave a Comment