Dominator culture's invisible hand

I'm not sure this is a good title.

I know I want to talk about dominator culture. I keep seeing cases where that analysis is missing and desperately needed. 

(I also feel very pulled to write about various things in relation to Charlie Kirk's death, but a lot of those relate to dominator culture, so it should work out.)

Before getting into ways in which dominator culture works, I want to write first about how much it is accepted, where we don't even notice it.

That's where the Adam Smith reference comes up. His point was that with capitalism an invisible hand will often guide things for the common good. 

Without delving too deeply into capitalism right now, that premise looks a little shaky.

That being said, there are people who are going to be very comfortable with how and where dominator culture leads us. That can make the required examination uncomfortable.

First of all, what is dominator culture?

From the Center for Partnership Systems, "Dominator culture refers to a model of society where fear and force maintain rigid understandings of power and superiority within a hierarchical structure."

I want to emphasize the potential variety in those models. You can talk about patriarchy and racism and caste and white supremacy and ableism... it's not wrong to mention any of it. It is also not complete.

Because there are multiple systems leading to different positions in the hierarchy, you can -- for example -- have brown people prejudiced against Black people even though it would be in their best interest to avoid racism. You can label anti-Blackness a separate thing and even relate it to colorism, but the key is really about being able to be superior to someone, even if it means you have to be below others. 

Because it is scary to be below others, that might make you cling to the superiority you have, without even considering that there might be a world without that hierarchy and the fear and abuse that goes with it.

Therefore, some people find the phrase "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion" very offensive.

They may not be the people on top, but they are more likely to instinctively fear being moved to the bottom rather than there no longer being a bottom.

Here are my examples of its subtlety.

Personally, I first came across the phrase "dominator culture" while reading bell hooks. I was like "That's it!" Here was a word that perfectly expressed this thing I had kept noticing. When I looked it up and saw that the opposite was "partnership culture", which valued men and women equally, I was disappointed, thinking that then the model is that couples lead, still leaving me out. 

When I actually read Riane Eisler's The Chalice and the Blade, expecting to be dissatisfied with that part... no, the opposite of dominator culture is that we are all working together. 

Having lived under and been influenced by dominator culture for years, it affected my expectations. Even though I had been bumping up against the system and reading material that made me want to challenge it, I was still limited by it.

The broader example was a recent post saying that when science fiction tries to create an alternate society as a matriarchy, it's just a role reversal with the women dominating, which has not been historically how they have worked. We just assume the opposite is only a change in who's in power, not how power works.

While I have to acknowledge that there is science fiction that does not fall into that, yes, that type of interpretation exists, and there is a reason for it.

Dominator culture limits our imagination and holds us back. Sometimes it doesn't need to use force because the fear is powerful enough.

Also powerful is the apathy and the ignorance and all of those other things where the issue isn't even in contention. 

But I know something better is possible.