Even un-harmed members of a vulnerable class remain dominated

Evidence

Suppose that women are not protected, either by law or culture, from physical abuse by their husbands. You may be a fortunate woman whose husband is very unlikely to abuse you, say because of being deeply in love, but that difference between your situation and those of other married women does not mean that your fate in the non-domination stakes is quite independent of theirs. On the contrary. To the extent that any woman can be abused on an arbitrary basis by her husband, womanhood is a badge of vulnerability in this regard; in particular, it is a badge of vulnerability that you, fortunate though you are, must bear in common with others. You can only hope to escape domination in this respect to the extent that all women are enabled to escape domination. Your fate is intertwined with theirs. — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 582

Categorization

• XREF: The ‘lucky woman whose husband wouldn’t abuse her’ example parallels the later contrast (para 586) with non-interference accounting, and connects to feminist solidarity arguments in Young, and to common-cause rhetoric of identity politics. — connects to: Lower classes are most vulnerable to authority because socialization denies them ego-strength — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School: Its History,…, 610; Hegemony explains class domination without reducing it to narrow class-interest exposure. — Hall, Stuart, Essential Essays, Volume 1, 527

Broader Connections

• Lower classes are most vulnerable to authority because socialization denies them ego-strength #corroborates (0.85) — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School, 610
• Hegemony explains class domination without reducing it to narrow class-interest exposure. #expands (0.80) — Hall, Stuart, Essential Essays, Volume 1, 527