Dominators can be blind to the fact their domination demeans the dominated

Evidence

When I say that the existence of a certain sort of domination between two parties is going to be a matter of common knowledge amongst them, and amongst their fellows, I should mention that this does not entail that they will evaluate it negatively: it does not entail that they will be aware of the domination as something on a par in any way with slavery. It is possible for those who do the dominating, for example, to take their superiority so far for granted that it does not ever strike them that the parties they dominate may bristle under the yoke. Think of Helmer Thorvald, the husband in Ibsen’s play A Doll’s House. He is clearly aware of dominating Nora, his wife, and indeed clearly believes that this domination is good for her. But he is absolutely blind to the fact that this domination could come to seem irksome and demeaning to Nora herself. — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 314

Categorization

• XREF: Parallels the reader’s existing material on coercive control and epistemic invisibility of the dominated — the ‘cannot speak for themselves’ theme echoes silence-as-disenfranchisement work. — connects to: Freedom increases with reduced domination, not with improved insight into one’s dominator — Frank Lovett, Republicanism, 21; Unconstrained coercive power makes its holders devalue those they dominate

Broader Connections

• Unconstrained coercive power makes its holders devalue those they dominate #expands (0.85)
• Freedom increases with reduced domination, not with improved insight into one’s dominator #qualifies (0.75) — Frank Lovett, Republicanism, 21