Kisibhi ratrya ko adhipatya ka antrgat kin vishyo pr niyantran hota h
Answers
Explanation:
Domination
First published Thu Nov 8, 2018
Theories of domination are primarily attempts to understand the value of justice, freedom, and equality by examining cases where they are absent. Such theories seek to clarify and systematize our judgments about what it is to be weak against uncontrolled strength, i.e., about what it is to be vulnerable, degraded, and defenseless against unrestrained power.
1. Domination: The Basic Idea
2. Who, or What, Can Dominate?
2.1 Domination by Agents, Group Agents, and Groups
2.2 Can Non-Agents Dominate?
3. Does Domination Require the Exercise of Power?
3.1 Domination as a Power Structure
3.2 Does Character Matter after All?
3.3 Over-Generalization Problems for Structure-Based Accounts
4. What Kind of Power Is Domination?
4.1 Non-Moralized, Norm-Independent Theories
4.2 Moralized, Norm-Independent Theories
4.3 Non-Moralized, Norm-Dependent Theories
4.4 Moralized, Norm-Dependent Theories
5. Domination and Applied Ethics
6. Conclusion
Bibliography
Academic Tools
Other Internet Resources
Related Entries
1. Domination: The Basic Idea
There is, of course, considerable disagreement about what domination really is. Even so, theorists of domination tend to agree about this much: domination is a kind of unconstrained, unjust imbalance of power that enables agents or systems to control other agents or the conditions of their actions. We can call this “the basic idea” of domination. The basic idea has the following components:
Domination is a kind of power, and usually social power—that is, power over other people.
Domination involves imbalances or asymmetries in power. The English domination comes from the Latin dominus. A dominus is a master, and mastery represents an extreme of social power. Masters usually have all but complete control over how their slaves will act or over the conditions in which they act. As a result, the master/slave relation is often treated as the most obvious case of domination.
Domination has many forms. Traditional Roman republicanism recognized a distinction between imperium and dominium—domination by the state contrasted with domination by private parties (Pettit 1997; 31; 2001: 152ff). The power a master has over a slave may be the clearest case of domination, but it is not necessary to have a literal dominus in order to be dominated. For example, tyrants over their subjects and men over women in patriarchal societies are also common examples of domination. Combined with the master/slave, these examples are so common in the literature that we can refer to them together simply as the Paradigms. Failure to explain why the Paradigms count as domination is sometimes considered reason enough to reject a theory of domination (see Lovett 2010, Blunt 2015, and McCammon 2015). Other examples may not manifest the extremes of power we see in the Paradigms; but it is generally agreed that domination comes in degrees, and that someone may be dominated even if nobody has total power over them.