The Authoritarians

way to the top.

If this analysis is correct, then social dominators should not score highly on the measures that predict authoritarian aggression among the followers: fear of a dangerous world and self- righteousness. And most of them don’t. Dominators aren’t usually afraid that civilization might collapse and lawlessness ensue. Laws, they think, are not something you should necessarily obey in the first place, so much as things you should not get caught disobeying. And as for self-righteousness, it’s pretty irrelevant to people as amoral as most social dominators tend to be. They may speak of the righteousness of their cause, but that’s usually just to assure and motivate their followers. Might makes right for social dominators.

By the same token, as noted earlier, most high RWAs do not score highly on the Power-MAD and Exploitive-MAD scales that reveal “what makes the dominator tick.” Their image of themselves as the good people leaves no room for believing they are cold-blooded, ruthless, immoral manipulators after power at almost any cost. So social dominators might incite authoritarian followers to commit a hate crime, but the dominators and followers probably launch the attack for different reasons: the dominator out of meanness, as an act of intimidation and control; the follower out of fear and self-righteousness in the name of authority.

The mental life of the social dominator. Persons who score highly on the Social Dominance scale do not usually have all the nooks and crannies, contradictions and lost files in their mental life that we find in high RWAs. Most of them do not show weak reasoning abilities, highly compartmentalized thinking, and certainly not a tendency to trust people who tell them what they want to hear. They’ve got their head together. Nor are most of them dogmatic or particularly zealous about any cause or philosophy. You have to believe in something to be dogmatic and zealous, and what social dominators apparently believe in most is not some creed or cause, but gaining power by any means fair or foul.

The “soundness” of their thinking hardly means you can believe them, however. They are quite capable of saying whatever will get them ahead. After all, they hold that there’s no such thing as “right” and “wrong.” It all boils down to what you can get away with. And one of the most useful skills a person should develop, they say, is how to look someone straight in the eye and lie convincingl y.^[6] So like high RWAs, social dominators are quite capable of hypocrisy —the difference being that the RWAs probably don’t realize the hypocrisy because their thinking is so compartmentalized, whereas the dominators do but don’t care. I found evidence of this duplicity when I asked various samples for their opinions about equality—the thing the Social Dominance scale is all about, the underlying democratic value that high social dominators do not believe in.

What reasons do dominators give for giving equality short-shrift? Well, they say, ultimately complete equality is a pipe dream. Natural forces inevitably govern the worth of the individual. And people should have to earn their places in society, not get any free rides. All that society is obliged to do, if fairness is an issue, is provide a level playing field. The poor can pull themselves up by their bootstraps if they really want to. Lots of people have, haven’t they?

You have probably heard these arguments before, and some of them make a certain amount of sense. But I don’t trust the social dominator when he says them because I know how he reacts to other statements about equality. Namely:

People have no right to economic equality. All of us should get as much as we can, and if some don’t get enough, that’s their problem. (Agree)

Everyone should have an equal opportunity for economic success. Those born into poor circumstances should be given extra help to make the “playing field” level for them. (Disagree)

If the natural forces of supply and demand and power make a few people immensely wealthy and millions of others poor, so be it. (Agree)

“Access programs” to higher education, which give people from poor backgrounds extra financial support and counseling while in university, are a good idea. (Disagree)

Nobody should get extra help improving his place in society. Everyone should start off with what his family gives him, and go from there. (Agree)

There is nothing wrong with the fact that powerful people get better treatment by the law than poor people do. (Agree)

Since so many members of minority groups end up in our jails, we should take strong steps to make sure prejudice plays no role in their treatment in the legal system. (Disagree)

If powerful people can get away with illegal acts because they can afford the best lawyers, and because they have “friends in high places,” so what? It’s just natural. (Agree)

The “one-person-one-vote” idea is dumb. People who make bigger contributions to our society should get a lot more votes than those who do nothing. (Agree)

Equality is one of the fundamental principles of democracy, so we should work hard to increase it. (Disagree)

Equality” is one of those nice-sounding names for suckers. Actually only fools believe in it. (Agree)

No racial group is naturally inferior to any other. If a group does poorly, it is usually because of discrimination. (Disagree)

If everyone really were treated equally, I would get less and I would not like that. (Agree)

Given all of this, do you really believe the social dominator who says people should have to earn their success in life? He’s quite willing to let the children of the rich get rich merely through inheritance. Do you trust him when he says he’s in favor of a level playing field? He’s against programs that would give the disadvantaged a better chance. Does he really believe the poor can pull themselves up by their bootstraps, or is he content to let them face an uphill struggle that very few can overcome? It doesn’t bother the social dominator that masses of people are poor. That’s their tough luck. And some racial groups are just naturally inferior to others, he says. Justice should not be applied equally to all. The rich and powerful should have advantages in court, even if that completely violates the concept of justice. Who cares if prejudice plays a role in the justice system? He certainly doesn’t. The “right people” should have more votes than everybody else in elections. And so on.

If you stare deeply into the souls of social dominators, they believe “equality” is a sucker word. Only fools believe in it, they say. And if people took equality seriously, if society did try to provide equal opportunity for all, and if the playing field really were made level so that bootstraps could be pulled up and multitudes of lives bettered, the social dominator knows he would get less. And he very much dislikes that notion. He says so.

Personal Origins of the Social Domination Orientation

We think we understand how people become authoritarian followers (chapter 2). So where do social dominators come from? Right now, it’s hard to say. Attempts to find shaping experiences have uncovered a few “beginnings.” High social dominators among university students say it has been their experience that:

Deceit and cheating were good tactics because it led to what they wanted.

Taking advantage of “suckers” felt great.

They’ve enjoyed having power and having people afraid of them.

“Losers” deserved what happened to them.

It’s smart to use whatever power you have in a situation to get what you want.

Life boils down to what you can get away with.

People who suffer misfortunes deserve them because they are lazy or dumb or made bad moves.

And of course, they say their lives have taught them that “Life is a jungle.”

These experiences indicate that the future dominator was rewarded earlier in life when he cheated, took