Dominance and submissivness in society means everything?

[Political_Chucky]

Ok I have bought and read a few books that are very well wrote I think and also very controversial I think. If anyone has read The 48 Laws of Power The Art of Seduction The 33 strategys of war by Robert Greene, or Emotional Intelligence and social intelligence by Daniel Goleman then you'll definitely by on my page, and if anyone has read into body language or being dominent in society then your in too.

I'm really starting to doubt something, because the mind is really determined by how well the brain develops and how many neurotranssmitters are really operating and how much dopamine and serotonin is being pumped through. The way people think and percieve things isn't neccessarily because of class sometimes, it can also be about the way people are really made. So is it wrong to minipulate people in social situations when you know how to make people do what you want to do like in relationships? I have read the books above and i'm really starting to see the world like a Matrix with the numbers coming down the screen. I analyze any social situation and see the faults in doing something, what a person is actually thinking just by their body language and the game we play when we are talking. I feel like i'm really going crazy too!

Any how, is Dominance and Submissivness totally wrong? Thats my real question.

[h0m0revolutionary]

I think you're on the verge of faux-psychology that would have you believe class isn't the foundation of power relationships.

A working class persons dominance cannot extend to that of their boss, because it is the economic and political power relationship that has to take presidence. If you're looking for an explanation as to why people are submissive and others not so, don't look at biology or disposition, they're secondary reasons, look at the class structure and the exploititive power-relationships that characterize it.

[FreeFocus]

A working class persons dominance cannot extend to that of their boss, because it is the economic and political power relationship that has to take presidence.

Well, feelings of dominance are situational, and the situation under capitalism gives a worker no reason to feel "dominant" over their boss - rather, it's the other way around. People in positions of power (i.e., higher up in a hierarchy) act in abusive ways towards others and become more or less obsessed with dominance and maintaining their positions.

[Political_Chucky]

I think you're on the verge of faux-psychology that would have you believe class isn't the foundation of power relationships.

A working class persons dominance cannot extend to that of their boss, because it is the economic and political power relationship that has to take presidence. If you're looking for an explanation as to why people are submissive and others not so, don't look at biology or disposition, they're secondary reasons, look at the class structure and the exploititive power-relationships that characterize it.

Why would class be the foundation when it all starts in how a person relates to power? Yes, people who are born into a certain class could feel a certain way of being dominant or submissiveness, but your taking what I said to literal into political and economical terms. I'm talking more about socially. Relating a persons submissiveness or dominance doesn't only rely on their class, but on a way a person thinks and how much ambition that person really has.

[mikelepore]

I have never heard of a company employee telling the chairman of the board how the latter is required to dress, how fast he is supposed to work, whether he's required to stand up or sit down during work hours, whether he has permission to use the office phone to call home, how many day's he's allowed to be out sick, how often he's allowed to go to the bathroom, or whether or not he has permission to leave the office to go to a dentist appointment. The control is all pointed in one direction.

The fact of control of some people over others has nothing to do with personality types, how you feel, or what you believe. It is as objectively real as the cement and steel that the workplace is made of.

In another time and place, you could make that that the ancient pharaoh and the worker who is building the pyramid, and the power relationship is about the same. Class divided society in general is like this.

[FreeFocus]

I have never heard of a company employee telling the chairman of the board how the latter is required to dress, how fast he is supposed to work, whether he's required to stand up or sit down during work hours, whether he has permission to use the office phone to call home, how many day's he's allowed to be out sick, how often he's allowed to go to the bathroom, or whether or not he has permission to leave the office to go to a dentist appointment. The control is all pointed in one direction.

The fact of control of some people over others has nothing to do with personality types, how you feel, or what you believe. It is as objectively real as the cement and steel that the workplace is made of.

In another time and place, you could make that that the ancient pharaoh and the worker who is building the pyramid, and the power relationship is about the same. Class divided society in general is like this.

I agree, but while the fact of control as reality is usually not based in personality types, personality types do amplify dominance and aggression when given the appropriate circumstances. Personality types also influence human interaction, obviously - a worker will not display an attitude of dominance and superiority to a boss because of his situation, but that same worker may behave differently and aggressively when dealing with another worker - in other words, when the situation allows personality traits to be expressed freely.

[9]

I think it is an error to implicate biology and physiology in more than a cursory role with regard to societal dominance v. submissiveness. Perhaps you are referring to these traits in a minor social context like romantic relationships or coworkers or sibling rivalry (and I think they are largely irrelevant beyond such limited interpersonal relationships). It is true that many people are born introverted or extroverted and that these traits are largely genetic, and I suppose it can probably be accurately said that the extrovert tends to take a dominant role in interpersonal relationships and the introvert more often tends to take a submissive role. But I think assigning such minor individual tendencies to account for any larger societal dynamic is fundamentally misguided.

[FreeFocus]

I think it is an error to implicate biology and physiology in more than a cursory role with regard to societal dominance v. submissiveness. Perhaps you are referring to these traits in a minor social context like romantic relationships or coworkers or sibling rivalry (and I think they are largely irrelevant beyond such limited interpersonal relationships). It is true that many people are born introverted or extroverted and that these traits are largely genetic, and I suppose it can probably be accurately said that the extrovert tends to take a dominant role in interpersonal relationships and the introvert more often tends to take a submissive role. But I think assigning such minor individual tendencies to account for any larger societal dynamic is fundamentally misguided.

Agreed. Human society is significantly more complex than animal societies - human society features economic systems, political systems, institutions, etc. For this reason, the facts of human life are determined by much more than merely personal traits, and social dynamics do not boil down to interactions between individuals alone.

[Political_Chucky]

Sorry been working too much haven't had time to respond. Anyways, you can't look at everything through political and economical terms even with classes. My whole question whether or not dominance or submissiveness is wrong is primarily targeted at social encounters or even through career climbing. Keeping your emotions under control and your feelings and intentions hidden is far more then just personal traits, they are trained and specific traits that allow someone to dominant in any situation. The way a person was raised by their parents will determine how open they are with their feelings and this is what I mean by emotional control, not allowing yourself to show what you are really thinking. With that, you are now better able to control a situation and able to minipulate it to your advantage. If this still sounds confusing I highly recommend reading The 48 Laws of Power... its pretty much what leftists are against since it pretty much teaches you how to rise to power, but it is also a useful tool on know what it takes to obtain that power.

[mel]

Sorry been working too much haven't had time to respond. Anyways, you can't look at everything through political and economical terms even with classes. My whole question whether or not dominance or submissiveness is wrong is primarily targeted at social encounters or even through career climbing. Keeping your emotions under control and your feelings and intentions hidden is far more then just personal traits, they are trained and specific traits that allow someone to dominant in any situation. The way a person was raised by their parents will determine how open they are with their feelings and this is what I mean by emotional control, not allowing yourself to show what you are really thinking. With that, you are now better able to control a situation and able to minipulate it to your advantage. If this still sounds confusing I highly recommend reading The 48 Laws of Power... its pretty much what leftists are against since it pretty much teaches you how to rise to power, but it is also a useful tool on know what it takes to obtain that power.

The fact that it is possible to learn to exhibit the traits necessary to succeed in a capitalist society, and exploit others does not make that exploitation any better, nor does it excuse it, nor does it make capitalist society egalitarian.

Dominance and Submissiveness in interpersonal relationships is ultimately mostly irrelevant in a sociopolitical context, and biology, physiology, and sociology are ultimately not particularly relevant to determining whether or not a society is exploitative.

Let me reiterate in an attempt to make this clearer:

Socialist analysis is primarily concerned with class because ones relationship to production is ultimately their most fundamental relationship in society. Somebody who is working two jobs and primarily concerned with feeding their family does not have time to read "48 Laws of Power" and learn the skills necessary to atempt to manipulate their boss(es) into giving them fair wages. Understanding body language and hiding your feelings may allow some to "climb the social ladder", but if everyone were aware of these things, and everyone attempted to exploit these physiological holes, they would close up. Regardless of individual drive and physiology and understanding of body languages, capitalism cannot support a society of people who all are bosses. Vecause capitalism is necessarily exploitative it is wrong regardless of any given individual's ability to attain upwards mobility because NOT EVERYONE can attain upwards mobility.

Because of this, relationship to the means of production is still the most important way to socially categorize people, people with "submissive" personalities are not a revolutionary class, people with "dominant" personalities are not a revolutionary class, and revolution is still necessary because capitalism is exploitation. The greatest exploitation is that which is a result of capitalism (the subjugation of the working class), while it's not irrelevant to day-to-day life, other forms of social exploitation (such as in romantic relationships) are relatively small-scale and ultimately may in large part disappear as the shift is made from capitalist subjugation to individual autonomy and collective production.

I'll try to say this one more time: Yes, it is possible for some people to climb the social ladder by taking advantage of some learn-able skills and social manipulation. No, that does not make class analysis irrelevant, nor does it make analysis based on interpersonal dominance/submissiveness relevant to the socialist position. Individuals manipulate others, in many ways, oftentimes for their own benefit and to the detriment of those who they manipulate. Why do you think that pointing out this fact somehow supercedes class analysis or is more important than class analysis?

[Political_Chucky]

The fact that it is possible to learn to exhibit the traits necessary to succeed in a capitalist society, and exploit others does not make that exploitation any better, nor does it excuse it, nor does it make capitalist society egalitarian.

Dominance and Submissiveness in interpersonal relationships is ultimately mostly irrelevant in a sociopolitical context, and biology, physiology, and sociology are ultimately not particularly relevant to determining whether or not a society is exploitative.

Let me reiterate in an attempt to make this clearer:

Socialist analysis is primarily concerned with class because ones relationship to production is ultimately their most fundamental relationship in society. Somebody who is working two jobs and primarily concerned with feeding their family does not have time to read "48 Laws of Power" and learn the skills necessary to atempt to manipulate their boss(es) into giving them fair wages. Understanding body language and hiding your feelings may allow some to "climb the social ladder", but if everyone were aware of these things, and everyone attempted to exploit these physiological holes, they would close up. Regardless of individual drive and physiology and understanding of body languages, capitalism cannot support a society of people who all are bosses. Vecause capitalism is necessarily exploitative it is wrong regardless of any given individual's ability to attain upwards mobility because NOT EVERYONE can attain upwards mobility.

Because of this, relationship to the means of production is still the most important way to socially categorize people, people with "submissive" personalities are not a revolutionary class, people with "dominant" personalities are not a revolutionary class, and revolution is still necessary because capitalism is exploitation. The greatest exploitation is that which is a result of capitalism (the subjugation of the working class), while it's not irrelevant to day-to-day life, other forms of social exploitation (such as in romantic relationships) are relatively small-scale and ultimately may in large part disappear as the shift is made from capitalist subjugation to individual autonomy and collective production.

I'll try to say this one more time: Yes, it is possible for some people to climb the social ladder by taking advantage of some learn-able skills and social manipulation. No, that does not make class analysis irrelevant, nor does it make analysis based on interpersonal dominance/submissiveness relevant to the socialist position. Individuals manipulate others, in many ways, oftentimes for their own benefit and to the detriment of those who they manipulate. Why do you think that pointing out this fact somehow supercedes class analysis or is more important than class analysis?

Taking my words out of context isn't nice mr. I didn't say anything about class analysis being obsolete in any way. Let me make this clear for you:

1. Psychology is the systematic study of the human mind more or less. There are several traits and human functions that many people do unconsciously, such as crossed arms across the chest when someone is insecure or defensive. Thats just an example for body language. Now, you recognize that body language may or may not help read people to climb the social ladder and really I didn't bring this topic up to discuss whether or not its going to help everyone because like you said, if everyone knew this people would close up thinking everyone is manipulating everyone. But just as many social expressions with body language, the way people think are also systematic. In seduction and relationships, you can certainly label people by the way they try to seduce such as the player, the vixen, the charmer, the spontanious natural, etc, all of which can be mixed into each other.

Now in the social world and even the political world, there are strategies to getting what you want and how people percieve you. John F. Kennedy, who is the leader of the U.S., attacks puny little Cuba in the bay of the pigs and fails. Without even trying Castro's Cuba is made more notorious through this action because he actually repelled the U.S. from invading. That is putting all attention on you which is a form of power in itself projecting all eyes on you. According to this book, that is a law of power. Interpersonal relationships are relevent because behind closed doors thats how your going to get from point A to point B, point B being on a bigger scale. Do you think a revolution is based purely on putting a leaflet on a lightpost and waiting for something to happen? No. Become social, knowing how to talk to people, and proving that you are not some idiot talking about a fantasy world of communism. Psychology, sociology, linguistics, any type of social form of study has everything to do with proving why society minipulates and how to obtain and destroy capitalism(if thats what your after).


Don't bring all this socialist classwar bullshit into what my topic is. I believe that class war is the factor to why we are in poverty, but my reasons for bringing this topic up is an attempt to answer how the bourgeosie stay in power? Why is it that people are accepting that the media is bullshit, but no mass movement has been made? Why does history seem to repeat itself time and time again with the same systematic minipulation from the rich class to the poor.

[gilhyle]

There are a variety of ways in which the individual relates to the cultural, social, familial or economic environment. Those types of behaviour can indeed be more or less exhaustively characterised in terms of dominance and submission.

However, two points have to be made - the strategy of standing to the side just doesnt fit, it remains an open strategy which may in time become dominant or submissive or never be resolved. Secondly, while the behaviour can be characterised this way, much of it looses its distinctive character in the process of being shoe horned into these categories......which is not to say that dominance/submission is not important, its just...schematic and therefore superficial.

But Im not rejecting it by saying that, schematic superficial topographical schema of phenomena can be quite useful.