Social Dominance Orientation

Discussion

Benjamin David Steele:

"It’s important to make a distinction between right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO). RWAs aren’t inherently inegalitarian, per se; that is to say not necessarily pro-inequality, in some ways quite the opposite. But that is the case among SDOs, specifically SDO-Es on the SDO-7 subscale. RWAs just want everyone within a given population to conform to the same norms and so in a sense equalize everyone, if inconsistent and hypocritical in practice; whereas SDOs don’t want people to conform at all but, rather, to be kept in their place. In studies, it’s demonstrated that SDOs seek out inequality and, when it’s lacking, will strive to create it. SDOs love rigid hierarchy where power is elevated, concentrated, and centralized within an elite; and hence the subordination and subjugation, suppression and silencing of the masses, the denial of autonomy and agency (i.e., democratic self-governance).

The US has the highest inequality in the world, at a time of the highest inequality in world history. It’s an social dominance utopia, which means a dystopia for the rest of us. Most Americans don’t accept this, even as they are largely ignorant of how bad it is. In surveys, most Americans severely underestimate how vast is inequality. Yet actual inequality is so far above what most Americans, when asked, state is tolerable. Imagine the populist outrage once Americans realize the full extent of the propaganda, indoctrination, and disinfo used to keep them in the dark. And place that in context of the American majority’s ignorance about being a left-liberal majority that is manipulatively divided, another truth that is slowly trickling out into public knowledge, though not yet forming as a shared public identity. If not fully informed, most Americans do get the gist of it. They grok the basic problem and support the policies that would solve it, such as greater democracy, universal healthcare, higher taxes on the rich, stronger corporate regulations, etc. Americans have repeatedly demanded this, as seen with Bernie Sanders having been the most popular candidate in 2016, whereas both Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump were the least popular since data was kept, but the elite repeatedly won’t allow majority leftist opinion to be heard or genuine populism to take hold, much less to gain entry into power.

Here is an important point of confusion. The thing is SDO is divided into two facets, that measure distinct and so can be separate in any given individual. Besides SDO-E (inegalitarianism), there is also SDO-D (dominance proper). The latter is about old school bigotry and oppression, with caste systems, ghettos, sundown towns, redlining, apartheid, a permanent underclass, class war, and such; but old school social dominance is politically incorrect at this point and less of a direct threat, though far from gone. So, authoritarians may or may not have high levels of SDO-D dominance tendencies, whether or not they’re high in SDO-E inegalitarianism. For example, when researched, authoritarians overall don’t perceive immigrants and foreigners as a threat, as long as they are portrayed as assimilating. But to SDOs, assimilation of the foreign is to be feared because it undermines the established hierarchical boundaries of division. So, while conservative Republican partisans indeed have higher rates of authoritarianism, it is primarily SDOs, if with the help of authoritarians, that rule the two-party state, which of course includes the corruption of the transpartisan and cross-administration deep state (CIA, FBI, Homeland Security, etc). This is how occasional token minorities and poor individuals can become politicians, presidents, administration figures, Supreme Court judges, intelligence agents, etc; while oppression of the masses remains, actual meritocracy is neutralized, and the banana republic goes on.

Populism, at its heart, is the simple insistence that it doesn’t have to be this way, that something better is possible, must be possible. Now whether populism takes beneficial or harmful form is dependent on how much pushback the elite give it, and dependent on which counter-elites, reformers and revolutionaries or demagogues and reactionaries, will put their support behind it. It’s a powerful force, but disgruntled populists can get lost down dark paths, just as optimistic populists can lead us toward a brighter future. What determines the outcome is not only what the public demands but also what the elite allows, and as well what the rest of us choose, either for or against the public good. To attack populists as mere right-wing reactionaries and useful idiots would only be to harm ourselves, would be to deny that we too are of the people and that we too share the same fate. Never doubt populism is always a movement of hope. Let us maintain that. Populism is a movement of the populace, of the people. And we, all of us, are the people. It’s for us to decide what becomes of it, what becomes of the possibility for freedom and betterment."

(https://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com/2023/05/12/populism-continues-to-grow-across-party-lines/)