Intergroup relations are defined by power asymmetries, not just difference.

Evidence

Groups do not exist in a social vacuum. They are embedded in intergroup relations or systems of intergroup relations, which are in turn characterized by differentials or asymmetries on sociostructural dimensions (Farley, 1982). One important sociostructural dimension is power, and power asymmetries are a typical characteristic of many, if not most, intergroup relations (Ng, 1982; Sachdev & Bourhis, 1985, 1991). From a social psychological perspective, power is generally viewed as a relational construct that describes a social relationship in which one party has, or is perceived to have, the ability to impose its will on another to achieve desired outcomes (Haslam, 2001, p. 210). Power can be based not only on the ability to allocate material rewards or punishments but also on the possession of immaterial resources such as information, expert knowledge, and status or reputation (French & Raven, 1959). — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 4407

Categorization

• XREF: Echoes the power-as-control formulation (control over own and others’ outcomes) that recurs in later chapters and parallels Fiske’s work on power and stereotyping. — connects to: Power is constitutive of social relations, not separable from them. — Chantal Mouffe, The Democratic Paradox, 446