Equal non-interference does not secure equal status where power asymmetries exist

Evidence

That two people enjoy the same freedom as non-interference, that they even enjoy the same expectation of such freedom, is consistent with one of them, and only one of them, having the power to interfere in the life of the other. Consistently with possessing the power to interfere, the more powerful may have no interest in interfering; this may be because of indifference or preoccupation or devotion: it may even be because the less powerful people are good at keeping them happy or at keeping out of their way. Thus the powerful person may be as unlikely to interfere with others as the less powerful. But even if both parties enjoy equal non-interference, and an equal expectation of non-interference, they are likely to develop a shared awareness of the asymmetry of power, and indeed an awareness shared with others in the community: this was a major theme of the last chapter. And once it is a matter of common awareness that one of them is powerful enough to be able to interfere more or less arbitrarily in the life of the other, then that is going to affect their relative status. It is going to be a matter of common knowledge that the one is weaker than the other, vulnerable to the other, and to that extent subordinate to the other. — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 430

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to my solidarity research: the mechanism here is that common awareness of an asymmetry, independent of harm, subordinates — an important contrast to theories that ground status purely in realized interference. — connects to: Equal-power masking assumption is wrong and only partly power detection holds — Professor Dr.-Ing. Hugo Fastl, Professor Dr.-Ing. Eberhard, Psychoacoustics- Facts and Models, 912; Fletcher’s equal-power masking assumption is demonstrably false; Mere non-interference can coexist with domination when security is absent — Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and…, 349 (+1 more)
• QUESTION: Does Pettit’s argument imply that a purely benign, trusted patron still subordinates — what are the implications for mutual-aid structures built around internalized hierarchy even without coercion?

Broader Connections

• Mere non-interference can coexist with domination when security is absent #corroborates (0.80) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 349
• Equal-power masking assumption is wrong and only partly power detection holds #complicates (0.75) — Professor Dr.-Ing. Hugo Fastl, Professor Dr.-Ing. Eberhard, Psychoacoustics- Facts and Models, 912
• Fletcher’s equal-power masking assumption is demonstrably false #qualifies (0.72)
• Domination varies in intensity from mild to absolute unchecked interference #qualifies (0.72) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 300