Subordinate groups share the dominant status ranking of their own subordination

Evidence

Group-based social hierarchies are also characterized by a high degree of hierarchical consensuality. By this term we mean that there is a high degree of consensus within the social system as to which groups are “dominant” and which groups are “subordinate.” This consensuality not only characterizes the beliefs of dominants, but more importantly, the beliefs of subordinates. This high degree of cross-group consensuality is critical for the orderly and relatively peaceful coordination of dominant and submissive behaviors and the maintenance of an ongoing system of group-based social inequality. … One example of this high degree of hierarchical consensuality can be found in our analysis of a sample of 723 UCLA undergraduates in 1989. We asked these students to rate the social status of five ethnic groups on a scale from “1-Very low status” to “7-Very high status.” Results showed that the ethnic groups were perceived to have highly significant differences in social status. The average social status ratings were ordered: (1) Whites (M =6.42), (2) Asians (M=4.80), (3) Arabs (M= 3.59), (4) Blacks (M=3.31) and (5) Latinos (M= 3.00). There was a very high level of consensus in the ethnic status ratings of these five groups across all respondents (intraclass r=.999). In addition, the degree of consensus among raters within each of the four ethnic groups was high: (Euro- Americans: intraclass r=.998; Asian-Americans: intraclass r=.997; Latino-Americans: intraclass r =.995; Afro-Americans intraclass r=.988. Most importantly, however, the consensuality in perceived social status of American ethnic groups was largely impervious of the ethnic group to which one belongs. Inspection of the mean status ratings of each of these five ethnic groups within each of four ethnic groups in Figure 18.3 shows a very high degree of cross-ethnic consistency in how American ethnic groups are perceived. The same basic results were found using a second sample of UCLA students and four ethnic groups four years later. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 3252

Categorization

• XREF: Direct empirical counterpoint to the premise of strategic essentialism as a collective re-valuation project: if subordinates cognitively consense to the dominant ranking, how can ironic identity re-claiming even be collectively legible? Connects to the reader’s question of whether strategic essentialism is available to groups or only individuals, and to Pettigrew/Aliport-type debates. — connects to: Subordinate groups often internalize dominant-group evaluations and derogate their own group — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology: Key Readings, 2691; Hierarchy persists through individual, institutional, and subordinate-side processes jointly — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology: Key Readings, 3191; Subordinates sometimes favor dominant groups over their own ingroups — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 3209 (+7 more)

Broader Connections

• Subordinates sometimes favor dominant groups over their own ingroups #corroborates (0.90) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 3209
• Subordinated racial groups actively participate in creating and maintaining hierarchy #corroborates (0.88) — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 3583
• Hegemony succeeds when subordinate groups accept the dominant vision as their own #expands (0.85) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 3380