George Simmel: Domination

How is domination a form of interaction? An often unacknowledged aspect of domination is that of “voluntary-ness”. To be dominated is not compulsory – if you are being dominated, you are allowing it. Thus, domination is an interaction between the dominator (superordinate) and the submissive (subordinate). Domination as a “sociating” process (96-7) It is part of the interaction between superordinate and subordinate. This is consistent with is his view of society – society based on interactions. Domination is not sociating when “the other is absolutely indifferent and a mere means for the purposes that lie beyond him” (97).

The Personal “Freedom” in Domination

The personal freedom of the subordinate is never completely removed – expect in the case of physical domination. Since domination is an interaction, actions come from personal origins, even if those origins are not completely evident.

Authority and Prestige

The authority of an individual comes about 2 different ways:

• “A person of superior significance or strength may acquire … an overwhelming weight of his opinions, a faith, or a confidence which have the character of objectivity” (98).
  Get quality help now

  

  writer-Charlotte

  Verified writer

  Proficient in: Philosophical Theories

  4.7 (348)

  “ Amazing as always, gave her a week to finish a big assignment and came through way ahead of time. ”

  

  +84 relevant experts are online

  Hire writer

• “A super-individual power – church, state, school, family or military – clothes a person with a reputation, a dignity, a power of ultimate decision, which would never flow from his individuality” (99)

In this case, when the person changes into one of authority, the voluntary faith of the dominated party comes into play.

Both parties must cooperate for authority to be recognized. The autonomy of the dominated is presupposed and never wholly eliminated (99).

Prestige(another aspect of superiority)

Different from authority in that it lacks the identity with an objective power or norm.

“Prestige leadership stems from pure personality” (99) & “strikes a more voluntary homage to the person. ” Prestige, unlike authority has the power to “push” individuals & masses to be followers of them. Thus, the freedom of the subject is less than what it would be under authority.

Unification of the Group – Subordination under and individual, group (higher tribunal and a plurality), or subjective force (principle, object, and conscious) When subordination occurs under a single individual, this results in a decisive unification of the group. The subordination under one ruler is the cause of a commonness not obtained otherwise. Unification does not always occur. If there are resentments among the groups being dominated, then the domination can irritate and intensify differences. In addition, suffering may make apparent the innate differences among the suffering. Both impede unification.

When subordination occurs under a the higher tribunal: Higher tribunal is a group whose “interference once accepts because it is felt to be legitimate” and is typically on the side of intellectuality (107). Unification is brought about here by either transforming the situation for the subordinate groups so that it permits harmony (if they were at odds) or acknowledgement (if they were alien to each other), or causing the groups to acquire new qualities that allow them to unify (107). State forming and religion are used here as examples. Subordination under a plurality: Plurality refers to a social collectivity, similar to a court system or factory management. The subordinate benefits when the plurality is larger because it is often associated with objectivity. For example, federal criminal laws are often less harsh that state criminal or county criminal laws (i. e. , Texas). ? Objectivity removes the personal from the domination and creates impartiality. It is designed to “soothe the conscience” and eliminate individual feelings from the dominating group’s decisions (110). Subordination under subjective forces (i. . , a principle, norm): “The individual who is subordinate to an objective law feels himself determined by it, while he, in turn, in no way determines the law, and has no possibility of reacting to it in a manner which could influence it” (113). There is a loss of freedom here – inability to effect any change. Subordination under objects (i. e. , social system): for example, patriarchy This is a humiliating and harsh type of domination. Since man is subordinate by ownership, man himself psychologically sinks into the category of object (117). Subordination under the conscience, or the “psychological crystallization of power” (117): While the power the subordinates us comes from outside ourselves, it is ourselves that subject us to it (i. e. , we represent society to ourselves). Thus, morality arrives from the “singular reality of individual life” (119). “The three powers which fill historical life – society, individual, and objectivity – become norm-giving, in this order” (120). Thus, each of them represents the will and necessities of society. (120).

Dualism in “Domination”

Dualism in subordination for man/group: Few men cannot exist without being dominated – people need leadership and guidance to protect them from both themselves and the outside world. Opposition to the domination allows for unification not otherwise there, and places the acceptance of and an opposition to authority in the right places of those engaged individuals lives. Duality in domination under a plurality – both the dominated group and the plurality experience a loss on individual differences. The dominators gain objectivity (eliminating the individual conscious) and the dominated loose “face” (lack a face to human suffering). Domination here is not as bad as what could be done under a single individual not acting in a group. Yet, a plurality gives the individual in the dominating group the impulsivity and senselessness needed to commit acts beyond them individually. Thus, the subordinate may not necessarily be put in a more favorable position. Georg Simmel: Subordination and Personal Fulfillment (Chapter 21, pg. 340-348) Here, Simmel addresses socialism; socialism is so closely associated with abolishing inequalities that it appears synonymous with it. “If some kind of social organization could avoid these psychological consequences of social inequality, social inequality could continue to exist without difficulties” (340).

Super-Ordination without Degradation

He is directly addressing Marx’s ideas of labor and alienation. If, in the future, work could become separated from personality, then the domination and obedience expected from work could no longer attack the “personality-value” and “life-feeling” (341). This is the removal of alienation. “Simultaneous superordination and subordination is one of the most powerful forms of interaction. In its correct distribution over numerous fields, it can constitute a very strong bond over individuals” (343).

Coercion

Coercion is useful in that it keeps things together that would not be otherwise (i. e. , marriages where the participants feel bond to the morals behind it). Thus, coercion, once accepted in the individual, allows the unavoidable in life to become bearable. Similar to domination, coercion is a necessarily for guidance and support. Lastly, coercion allows for the “deeper currents” of life to become conscious (via subjugation).

The Inevitably Disproportionate Distribution of Qualifications and Positions

There are always more qualified people than there are positions.  Incompetence in leadership/superordinates is highly visible because there are plenty of subordinates, potentially better qualified for the duties, viewing the behavior. Often times, people become superordinates because of their ability to be a team-player. Thus, “all social formations involve this contradiction between the just claim to a superordinate position and the technical impossibility of satisfying that claim” (347). Society is thus ordered in a form of a pyramid, there by limiting the number of people “qualified” for superordinate positions. Individuals are prejudged.

Questions: Prestige sounds similar to Weber’s charismatic authority – how are these two ideas similar and/or different? Is the subordination under a subjective force or the subordination under objects different? Is Simmel challenging Weber in subordination to the conscious (118)?