Domination only fully operates when it is common knowledge among those involved

Evidence

This is that it will be a matter of common knowledge among the people involved, and among any others who are party to their relationship—any others in the society who are aware of what is going on—that the three base conditions are fulfilled in the relevant degree. The conditions may not be articulated in full conceptual dress, but the possibilities involved will tend to register in some way on the common consciousness. Everyone will believe that they obtain, everyone will believe that everyone believes this, and so on. And so on, at least, in the following pattern: no one will disbelieve that everyone believes this, no one will disbelieve that that is not disbelieved … (Lewis 1983:166). — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 306

Categorization

• DEFINE: Introduces a common-knowledge condition into the definition of domination — the fourth criterion beyond the three base conditions.
• XREF: The Lewis iterated-belief structure parallels the standard game-theoretic common knowledge machinery; connects to the reader’s institutional-trust research on reputation systems requiring shared awareness. — connects to: Domination becomes a mutual communicative asymmetry, not just objective control — Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and…, 315; Domination requires only the capacity to interfere arbitrarily, not its exercise — Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and…, 1217; Domination is a distinct harm even when no interference occurs — Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and…, 64 (+1 more)

Broader Connections

• Domination becomes a mutual communicative asymmetry, not just objective control #expands (0.85) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 315
• Domination requires only the capacity to interfere arbitrarily, not its exercise #contradicts (0.80) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 1217
• Domination is a distinct harm even when no interference occurs #qualifies (0.75) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 64
• Predictability of domination does not reduce domination itself #complicates (0.75) — Frank Lovett, Republicanism, 30