Navigating Power Hierarchies: Social Dominance Theory in Indigenous Professionals’ Workplace Experiences

Introduction:

In the pursuit of understanding workplace dynamics and the systemic challenges faced by marginalized groups, social dominance theory offers a compelling framework. Originally proposed by Sidanius and Pratto (1999), social dominance theory posits that societies are structured by group-based hierarchies, with dominant groups oppressing and receiving disproportionate resources compared to subordinated groups (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Within this framework, the concept of social dominance orientation (SDO) emerges, describing the extent to which individuals endorse these hierarchical relationships and the degree to which they support the maintenance and establishment of such hierarchies (Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994).

The application of social dominance theory is particularly salient in the context of settler colonial workplaces, where Indigenous professionals navigate a myriad of challenges. Settler colonialism is a distinct type of colonization that involves the replacement of Indigenous populations with an invasive settler society that, over time, establishes a distinct institutional and cultural system dominative in nature (Wolfe, 2006). The legacy and ongoing reality of these systems impose unique barriers for Indigenous individuals, influencing their experiences within professional settings.

The settler colonial narrative is marked by dispossession, assimilation policies, and marginalization (Smith, 2012), all of which continue to play out in workplace environments, subtly embedded within the organizational culture, practices, and interpersonal interactions. Indigenous professionals often face a complex interplay of discrimination, underrepresentation, and culturally insensitive practices (Smith, 2012), which are not merely remnants of the past but active components of their work life.

Understanding Social Dominance Theory:

The Basics of Social Dominance Theory

Social dominance theory (SDT) is a theoretical framework that seeks to understand and explain the maintenance and stability of group-based social hierarchies (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). At its core, the theory posits that societies are organized around hierarchy-enhancing structures that privilege certain groups over others, typically along lines of race, gender, class, and ethnicity, among other distinctions (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). A fundamental tenet of SDT is the existence of a dominant or ‘high-status’ group and one or more subordinate or ‘low-status’ groups, with the former holding a disproportionate share of positive social value, including wealth, power, and prestige.

Hierarchies and Group-Based Inequalities

Institutions and societal systems act as mechanisms for reinforcing and perpetuating group-based hierarchies, often disadvantaging subordinate groups while maintaining the dominant group’s advantage (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). This systemic inequality is evident in a range of outcomes, from disparities in income and educational opportunities to variances in legal treatment and healthcare access. According to SDT, these unequal outcomes are not only systematic but also pervasive, influencing myriad aspects of social life and contributing to a stable, self-perpetuating cycle of dominance and subordination (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999).

Legitimizing Myths and Discriminatory Behavior

Legitimizing myths, as defined within SDT, are attitudes, values, beliefs, and ideologies that justify and support the existing social order (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). These myths serve to rationalize the superiority of the dominant group and the inferiority of the subordinate groups, legitimizing discriminatory behavior and institutional practices. The perpetuation of these myths often occurs through cultural transmission, education, media, and other societal institutions (Jost & Banaji, 1994). Legitimizing myths can range from explicit racial or gender stereotypes to more subtle narratives about meritocracy and individual responsibility, which mask the structural and systemic factors contributing to inequality (Jost & Banaji, 1994).

In applying SDT to the workplace, especially those within settler colonial societies, it is crucial to consider how these hierarchies and beliefs may be ingrained and perpetuated, influencing the experiences and opportunities available to Indigenous professionals.

In the context of legitimizing myths and discriminatory behavior, here are several examples that illustrate these concepts:

1. Meritocracy and Earned Privilege:

   A common myth is that all individuals have equal opportunities to succeed, and that hard work will inevitably lead to success, regardless of one’s background. This narrative overlooks structural inequalities and serves to justify the status and privileges of the dominant group (McNamee & Miller, 2009).

2. Colorblind Ideology:

   The belief that treating everyone “equally” by ignoring racial differences is fair, which in reality ignores the lived realities and systemic disparities faced by racialized individuals. This myth perpetuates discrimination by failing to address and rectify inequitable conditions (Neville et al., 2000).

3. Cultural Deficit Model:

   The idea that the challenges faced by minority groups are due to deficiencies in their culture, rather than recognizing the impact of historical and ongoing systemic oppression. This legitimizes discriminatory practices on the basis of perceived cultural superiority (Valencia, 2010).

4. Gendered Stereotypes in Professional Settings:

   Legitimizing myths around gender roles and abilities contribute to discriminatory behavior in the workplace, with assumptions that men are naturally suited to leadership roles, while women are better suited to supportive roles (Eagly & Karau, 2002).

5. The “Lazy Native” Narrative:

   Stereotypes depicting Indigenous peoples as lazy or dependent are harmful myths that overlook the systemic barriers and impacts of colonization that contribute to social and economic disparities (Hartmann et al., 2009).

6. “Bootstrap” Narrative:

   The belief that individuals can “pull themselves up by their bootstraps” regardless of their circumstances, ignoring the significant barriers and disadvantages that some groups face in accessing resources and opportunities (Leondar-Wright & Yeskel, 2007).

7. Tokenism:

   Embracing superficial forms of inclusion, such as hiring a small number of minority employees to appear diverse, without addressing underlying power imbalances or fostering genuine inclusion (Kanter, 1977).

8. Just World Belief:

   The assumption that the world is inherently just and that people get what they deserve. This myth rationalizes social inequality and reduces the motivation to challenge unjust systems (Lerner, 1980).

These examples of legitimizing myths serve to maintain the status quo by justifying social hierarchies and discriminatory practices, often at the subconscious level. Unpacking and challenging these myths is crucial to creating a workplace that is truly egalitarian and inclusive of Indigenous professionals and other marginalized groups.

Social Dominance Orientation and Professional Interactions:

Understanding Dominant Group Behaviors

Social dominance orientation (SDO) reflects the extent to which individuals support hierarchical relationships and the domination of ostensibly superior groups over inferior ones (Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994). Within professional settings, individuals with a high SDO may consciously or unconsciously exhibit behaviors that reinforce their group’s dominance. This can manifest through practices that promote in-group favoritism, exclusive networking circles, or the perpetuation of organizational norms that prioritize the values and working styles of the majority group (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). These behaviors contribute to maintaining the status quo and can intensify feelings of marginalization among Indigenous professionals.

Challenges of Navigating Dominated Spaces

The presence of high social dominance orientation within workplaces can present significant challenges for Indigenous professionals. These individuals may face overt or covert discrimination, feel pressure to conform to dominant cultural norms, and experience a lack of recognition for their unique contributions and perspectives (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Additionally, the prevalence of microaggressions—subtle, often unintentional slights that signal disrespect or devalue the individual based on group membership—can have cumulative negative effects on job satisfaction, performance, and mental health (Sue et al., 2007).

Settler Colonialism and Workplace Hierarchies:

Historical Context and Ongoing Impacts

Settler colonialism is a form of colonialism that functions through the replacement of Indigenous populations with an invasive settler society (Wolfe, 2006). The manifestations of settler colonialism include land dispossession, the suppression of Indigenous cultures, and the imposition of the settlers’ social and economic systems (Veracini, 2010). These historic acts of colonization are not isolated incidents of the past but have left enduring legacies that continue to shape social and institutional relationships, including in the workplace (Wolfe, 2006). Indigenous professionals often face environments where colonial narratives have shaped perceptions of competence, authority, and worth (Smith, 2012), leading to ongoing impacts such as discriminatory practices, underrepresentation in leadership roles, and limited access to opportunities for professional development and advancement.

Settler Colonialism as a Structure, Not an Event

Wolfe (2006) emphasizes that settler colonialism should be viewed as a structure rather than an event – an ongoing process rather than a concluded occurrence. This structural perspective highlights that the effects of colonization are continuously reproduced within societal systems, including within workplaces (Wolfe, 2006). As such, the structural presence of settler colonialism informs hierarchies and power dynamics in work environments, sustaining an imbalance where Indigenous knowledge and leadership are often undervalued or marginalized (Smith, 2012).

Power Dynamics in Settler Colonial Workplaces

Within settler colonial workplaces, the power dynamics dictated by social dominance theory become evident as dominant cultural groups often assume superiority and control over resources and decision-making processes (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). This control reinforces legacies of inequality and exclusion for Indigenous employees. Workplace cultures may reflect and reinforce the broader settler colonial narratives that can minimize or dismiss Indigenous voices and contributions (Acker, 2006). Consequently, Indigenous professionals can be faced with the need to navigate these entrenched hierarchies while advocating for equity and the recognition of Indigenous perspectives within their professional roles.

Legal Pluralism and Indigenous Law:

Conceptualizing Legal Pluralism in Professional Contexts

Legal pluralism acknowledges the existence and interaction of multiple legal systems within a single social field (Merry, 1988). Within professional contexts, especially in settler colonial societies, legal pluralism allows for the recognition and incorporation of Indigenous laws and legal traditions alongside the dominant legal framework. This can lead to more culturally responsive practices and policies that align with Indigenous values, rights, and principles of justice (Borrows, 2002). Recognizing legal pluralism is also a step towards addressing historical injustices and creating more equitable and inclusive workplaces (Tully, 1995).

The Reinforcement of Indigenous Law and Governance

The reinforcement of Indigenous law and governance is essential for empowering Indigenous communities and professionals. It involves the assertion of Indigenous legal traditions and sovereignties in a manner that reshapes governance structures, decision-making processes, and dispute resolution mechanisms within organizations (Borrows, 2002). By integrating Indigenous legal principles into professional life, workplaces can become more attuned to the needs and aspirations of Indigenous peoples, leading to transformative changes in institutional cultures and the broader legal landscape (Napoleon, 2013).

Advocating for Representation and Systemic Integration

Advocacy for the representation and systemic integration of Indigenous law within professional spheres is crucial. This advocacy can take the form of policy development, legal reform, and educational initiatives aimed at increasing the awareness and application of Indigenous legal traditions (Napoleon & Friedland, 2016). The process involves challenging dominant legal narratives and advocating for the legitimacy and respect of Indigenous law. Such efforts contribute to legal pluralism and the decolonization of existing legal and organizational frameworks, paving the way for a more just and diverse professional environment (Napoleon, 2013).

Actionable Steps for Organizations:

Embracing Legal Pluralism and Policy Change

To genuinely respect the rights and traditions of Indigenous peoples, organizations must embrace the concept of legal pluralism. This involves acknowledging the coexistence of multiple legal systems and the potential for Indigenous laws to provide valuable insights and guiding principles. Policies and procedures can be transformed to reflect a commitment to this pluralistic approach, effectively legitimizing Indigenous legal practices within the organizational structure (Tamanaha, 2000). Incorporating Indigenous perspectives into governance and decision-making processes not only upholds Indigenous sovereignty but also enriches the organization’s cultural competency and responsiveness (Borrows, 2010).

Implementing Social Dominance Theory Training

Training on social dominance theory (SDT) is a proactive step organizations can take to raise awareness about the subtle hierarchies and power dynamics that pervade workplace interactions. By educating employees about the principles of SDT and the role of legitimizing myths in perpetuating inequalities, an organization can foster a more critical and reflective workforce. Such training should also include strategies to recognize and dismantle these hierarchies, promoting a culture of equity and fairness for all employees, including Indigenous professionals (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999).

Policy Change to Address and Redress Historical and Systemic Inequities

Organizations must also undertake comprehensive policy reviews and reforms that directly address historical and systemic inequities faced by Indigenous peoples. Policies that relate to recruitment, retention, promotion, and professional development need careful examination to remove biases and barriers. Affirmative action, equitable compensation, and support for cultural obligations are examples of policy changes that can make a substantive difference. Commitment to these changes at the policy level signals an organization’s dedication to creating an environment where Indigenous professionals can excel on an equal playing field (Kidd & Kral, 2005).

Conclusion:

In summarizing the discussion on the interplay between social dominance theory and the experiences of Indigenous professionals, it becomes evident that the hierarchies and power dynamics present within workplaces can have a substantial impact on the opportunities and treatment of Indigenous employees (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Social dominance theory offers a critical lens through which to examine these structural imbalances and the ways in which they perpetuate inequality and hinder the attainment of a representative and equitable professional sphere for Indigenous peoples.

A call to action is necessary, advocating for transformative policy change that encompasses the principles of legal pluralism. Legal pluralism, in acknowledging the multiplicity of legal systems and the legitimacy of Indigenous law, can provide a foundation for more inclusive and just organizational environments (Tamanaha, 2000). To facilitate this change, training on the notions of white privilege and the dynamics of social dominance theory is a powerful tool for challenging ingrained biases and fostering a deeper understanding of systemic inequality (DiAngelo, 2018).

The vision for the future is one where legal pluralism and critical knowledge of white privilege are integrated into social dominance training. Through such educational efforts, organizations can enable their workforce to recognize and address the subtle workings of power and privilege that characterize social relations. This commitment to education and change can dismantle barriers, elevate Indigenous perspectives, and craft a workplace culture that is not only diverse but genuinely equitable and inclusive.

References:

Acker, J. (2006). Inequality Regimes: Gender, Class, and Race in Organizations. Gender & Society, 20(4), 441–464. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243206289499

Borrows, J. (2002). Recovering Canada: The resurgence of Indigenous law. University of Toronto Press.

Borrows, J. (2010). Canada’s Indigenous Constitution. University of Toronto Press.

DiAngelo, R. (2018). White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism. Beacon Press.

Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573-598. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573

Hartmann, D., Gerteis, J., & Croll, P. R. (2009). An empirical assessment of whiteness theory: Hidden from how many? Social Problems, 56(3), 403-424. https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2009.56.3.403

Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33(1), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01008.x

Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. Basic Books.

Kidd, S. A., & Kral, M. J. (2005). Practicing participatory action research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 187–195. //doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.187

Leondar-Wright, B., & Yeskel, F. (2007). Class matters: Cross-class alliance building for middle-class activists. New Society Publishers.

Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. Springer.

McNamee, S. J., & Miller, R. K. (2009). The meritocracy myth (2nd ed.). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Merry, S. E. (1988). Legal Pluralism. Law & Society Review, 22(5), 869–896. https://doi.org/10.2307/3053637

Napoleon, V. (2013). Thinking about Indigenous legal orders. In R. Provost & C. Sheppard (Eds.), Dialogues on human rights and legal pluralism (pp. 229–245). Springer.

Napoleon, V., & Friedland, H. (2016). An Inside Job: Engaging with Indigenous Legal Traditions through Stories. McGill Law Journal, 61(4), 725–754.

Neville, H. A., Lilly, R. L., Duran, G., Lee, R. M., & Browne, L. (2000). Construction and initial validation of the Color-Blind Racial Attitudes Scale (CoBRAS). Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47(1), 59-70. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.47.1.59

Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 741–763. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741

Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge University Press.

Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C. M., Torino, G. C., Bucceri, J. M., Holder, A., Nadal, K. L., & Esquilin, M. (2007). Racial microaggressions in everyday life: Implications for clinical practice. American Psychologist, 62(4), 271–286. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.62.4.271

Tamanaha, B. Z. (2000). A non-essentialist version of legal pluralism. Journal of Law and Society, 27(2), 296–321. //doi.org/10.1111/1467-6478.00161

Tully, J. (1995). Strange multiplicity: Constitutionalism in an age of diversity. Cambridge University Press.

Valencia, R. R. (2010). Dismantling contemporary deficit thinking: Educational thought and practice. Routledge.

Veracini, L. (2010). Settler Colonialism: A Theoretical Overview. Palgrave Macmillan.

Wolfe, P. (2006). Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native. Journal of Genocide Research, 8(4), 387–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623520601056240

Zavala, M. (2013). What do we mean by decolonizing research strategies? A typology of decolonizing research strategies which can be used as analytic and pedagogical tools. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 2(1), 22–40.