Methods Of Domination Essay, Research Paper

Methods of Domination

Power and domination are the drive forces in society. Throughout history, there have ever been those in power and those that are dominated. Many tactics have been used to maintain this rhythm of domination in tact. Two of these tactics are described in Erika Apfelbaum? s Relations of Domination and Movements for Liberation: An Analysis of Power between Groups. Through the descriptions of these methods of domination, the correlativity between the methods of domination and the consequence it makes on the subordinated is shown.

One method described in Apfelbaum? s analysis is that of grouping. In grouping persons together, the dominator separates himself from those he wants to rule by some physical property, existent or fanciful to separate itself. ? ? power can be maximally exercised when there exists two disparate groups that have been differentiated to the point of a clear differentiation between? us? and? them? . ? ( Apfelbaum 197 ) In happening a difference the ruling group can tag the subsidiaries as lower because they possess the said? defect. ? An illustration of this is shown in Ronald Takaki? s Iron Cages. The enslaved inkinesss were grouped together by their dark skin colors. One American, Dr. Benjamin Rush, farther distinguished inkinesss as non merely savage in their life styles but came to the decision that inkinesss suffered from a signifier of Hansen’s disease. ? ? Dr. Rush offered? observations? intended to? turn out? that the? colour? and? figure? of Negroes were derived from a? alteration? of leprosy. ? ( Takaki 30 ) The traits found in inkinesss such as the? large lip, ? ? level olfactory organ, ? and? woolly? hair were all a portion of his? diagnosing? for their difference from that of their white? higher-ups. ?

After 100s of old ages of domination, inkinesss found a manner to antagonize the negative impact of white subjection. As stated by Bell Hooks in Black Looks Race and Representation. , inkinesss need to larn to care for their inkiness, and their other distinguishing figures. ? Cone calls upon Whites, inkinesss and all other non-black groups to stand against white domination by taking to value, so to love, blackness. ? ( Hooks11 ) By encompassing their difference and tasting in it, inkinesss can seek to over turn the barbarous rhythm of domination. One illustration of encompassing? inkiness? is that during the sixtiess and 1970s or even during the Reconstruction period, ? black pride? took the topographic point of black or self -hatred. By repossessing their positions about their ain beauty, inkinesss began the acrimonious battle to derive triumph over subjugation.

Another maneuver of domination is degrouping. Apfelbaum describes degrouping as depriving the? grouped? subsidiaries of their individuality and anything else that provided some kind of nexus to one another.

? the to-be-subordinated group is loots of its self-identity and becomes less and less able to carry through, for the single member, the of import function of supplying? the land on which he stands, which gives or denies him so

cial position, gives or denies him security and assist? ? Paradoxically, so, the pronounced jointly, at the same clip that it is going an excluded group, is holding its group kernel destroyed-that is, it is in the procedure of being degrouped. ? ( Apfelbaum198 )

By destructing the common bonds shared by the subsidiary groups, the dominators keep the dominated offprint from one another, therefore impeding any rebellions that would take to a break of the rhythm of domination. Another manner to? degroup? a group is by insulating each member from another. Apfelbaum provinces? ? an increasing isolation of members of the group from one another, as if dividers had come between them, barricading more and more of those communications relevant to, and functional for, the group? s independent life. ? ( Apfelbaum200 ) By estranging the members, the ruling group disposes of the mutuality within the group, go forthing the subsidiaries to depend on their higher-ups.

One illustration of a group that has been? degrouped? as a signifier of domination is that of adult females. Apfelbaum states that? ? adult females would represent a collectivity that is wholly degrouped. ? ( Apfelbaum200 ) Women have been alienated from each other for 100s of old ages. Audre Lorde shows in her piece, The Master? s Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master? s House, how adult females are degrouped. ? ? there was no scrutiny of mutualness between adult females, no systems of shared support, no mutuality? ? ( Lorde 98 ) Equally long as adult females have no connexions with each other, they can non alter their low-level function.

As adult females, we have been taught to either disregard our differences or to see them as causes for separation and intuition instead than as forces for alteration. Without community, there is no release, merely the most vulnerable and impermanent cease-fire between an person and her subjugation. ( Lorde 99 )

Old ages of domination have destroyed the bonds that adult females portion therefore degrouping them.

In an attempt to rectify this unfairness, adult females besides need to reorganize. ? It is larning how to take our differences and do them strengths? ( Lorde 99 ) Alternatively of allowing differences split them, adult females need to accept them, and utilize these differences to get the better of their oppressors. ? Divide and conquer, in our universe, must go define and empower. ? ( Lorde 99 ) By fall ining together and utilizing their differences as an advantage and non a drawback, adult females can get down to authorise themselves and get down to change by reversal the horrors of domination.

As shown there are several ways to rule and remain dominant over a group. Whether it be by? grouping? or? degrouping, ? subjugation is easy carried out one time the initial seeds are planted. Domination is a barbarous rhythm that in the yesteryear has non seen any gloss of halting. However in the instances mentioned, it appears that there is a simple reply: do non let differences to attest into entire isolation from one another. Once the subsidiary groups realize that differences can heighten and non destruct, they begin the dislocation of domination.