In Domination/Subordination, I agree with many aspects of the author’s argument around the dominants, but not as much for the section regarding subordinates. Miller paints the subordinates as almost helpless victims, who have to resort to unorthodox methods in order to react to the prejudice they endure. The indirect methods are mentioned when Miller writes of actions that, “…contain hidden defiance and put ons” (Miller, 228). This may have been true in a more historical sense, where there were much stricter societal norms and laws to limit subordinates such as women and people of color, but I believe that cannot be applied in today’s society. I believe that there is more opportunity for subordinates to be direct with their dissatisfaction towards their dominant counterparts. This does not mean that they won’t experience the backlash and danger that Miller mentioned, but much of those consequences can be used as a rallying cry for the subordinates in today’s society.
While I believe that Miller limits the potential of subordinates in this day and age, her description of dominants was accurate and insightful. Miller emphasizes one key point that I believe is very applicable to those dominants who are not striving for temporary inequality: the need to suppress the subordinates. The dominants, “…prefer to avoid conflict – open conflict that might call into question the whole situation” (Miller, 227). By avoiding conflict, the dominants make an unhealthy societal norm that looks down upon addressing the existing inequalities. I feel like this can be very applicable to many situations of permanent inequality, such as between men and women. I did not consider this idea of avoiding conflict when I thought of inequalities, but Miller’s article made me realize the dangers about societal limitations on open dialogue. While I believe that there is more opportunity to speak out about issues today compared to the past, there still is work to be done to establish truly free and open conversations around inequality.
I completely agree with you. The section on subordinate groups was very problematic for me. Miller painted the groups to be objects that exist only in the presence of dominant groups, like they lacked an identity outside of their oppressed situation. Not all tactics of revolt were direct. That statement to me, in and of itself, plays into the stereotypes of submissiveness.
I completely agree that Miller paints the subordinates to be helpless victims. There are still dangers that the subordinates can face but it is definitely better now than the past. I also agree that there is still ton of work to be done about inequality.
I agree with your ideas about the subordinate group and how Miller paints them as being helpless victims. While minorities are still underrepresented today and face many obstacles, things have bettered from what they were before. Even though we are more open to difficult conversations now, they are still not had very often.
I agree that Miller’s point about the dominant’s need to suppress subordinates is applicable to the greater description of the subordinate-dominant relationship. The permanent inequality that arises from this need is telling of the many inequalities in out society that all stem from one thing: money.
Do you think that the dominants avoid conflict in order to stay in power and have no questions asked or do you think they have good intentions?