Vo,6 No.1 March 30, 2016 Reparations: The Problem of Social Dominance Carlton Waterhouse, J.D., Ph.D Professor of Law Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law Abstract In theory, reparations provide redress for past injustices. They reflect political attempts to seek to balance the scales of justice in the wake of crimes against humanity, gross human rights abuses, and other tortious state action. As one of the more politically salient legal academic subjects, however, it is clear that the sociopolitical processes within and between states greatly influence when, why, and how reparations are used. Reparations theorists have done an excellent job developing vital models for use by states to provide warranted redress. Roy L. Brooks and Eric Yamamoto, both of whom have contributed to this journal in the past, have developed the Atonement and Social Healing models of reparations respectively. Key words : reparations, redress, past injustices, political attempts, justice, gross human rights abuses, other tortious state action, sociopolitical processes, vital models, the Atonement, Social Healing models 11 WEIS (World Environment and Island Studies) REPARATIONS: THE SOCIAL DOMINANCE institutional practices, relations of individuals PROBLEM to others inside and outside their groups, the psychological predispositions of individuals, and the interaction between the evolved psychologies of In theory, reparations provide redress for past 4 injustices. They reflect political attempts to seek men and women. to balance the scales of justice in the wake of crimes against humanity, gross human rights It provides a general theory that applies across abuses, and other tortious state action. As one of societies and relates to group interactions of all the more politically salient legal academic subjects, kinds though the theory includes a particularized analytical model specifically applicable to “societies however, it is clear that the sociopolitical processes 5 within and between states greatly influence when, producing stable economic surplus.” why, and how reparations are used. Reparations The theory maintains that “human societies tend theorists have done an excellent job developing to organize as group-based social hierarchies in which at least one group enjoys greater social status vital models for use by states to provide warranted 6 redress. Roy L. Brooks and Eric Yamamoto, both of and power than other groups.” This phenomenon whom have contributed to this journal in the past, appears to be universally observable across human societies irrespective of governmental structure, have developed the Atonement and Social Healing 7 models of reparations respectively. economic and social complexity, or belief system. This article extends the discourse on reparations In human societies, dominant group members enjoy a disparate share of what theorists identify by examining how and why reparations fall short 8 of the well-developed systems these and other as “positive social value.” This consists of reparations scholars have created. In my first article important resources like wealth, quality housing and healthcare, abundant food, political power, leisure, assessing past reparations programs, I evaluated 9 the quality of several prominent programs from the and education. Correspondingly, subordinate group perspective of past victims of injustice and their members bear a disparate share of “negative social moral agency and social empowerment during value” such as “substandard housing, disease, and after program development.1 That research underemployment, dangerous and distasteful work, disproportionate punishment, stigmatization and indicated that few programs were successful in 10 reversing the tragic consequences and social vilification.” disadvantages stemming from past injustices. This According to Social Dominance Theory, societies article explores how the social status of victims may with stable economic surplus include three affect whether and to what degree redress is made. distinct systems of group based hierarchy; an In other words, it asks how and why a group of age system, a gender system, and an arbitrary- set system.11 Under the age system, “adults have victims’ place in a society’s social hierarchy might 12 affect the quantity or quality of reparations provided a disproportionate social power over children.” by a state. The gender system reflects a disproportionate distribution of “social, political, and military power”13 to men over women.14 For the arbitrary set system, groups constructed on some basis other than the The Meaning of Social Dominance human life cycle “have differential access to things of positive and negative social value.”15 Arbitrary set Social dominance theory provides an insightful groups relate to social distinctions that correspond investigation into social inequality across human 2 to identity characteristics like “nationality, race, societies. As a multilevel integrative theory of ethnicity, class, estate, descent, religion, and intergroup relations, Social Dominance Theory clan.”16 Across societies, the intensity, degrees, combines broad social analysis with examinations of and level of violence used to maintain hierarchy human psychology.3 Social dominance theory was developed in the 1990s and stands out due to its 4) Id. comprehensive effort to: 5) Id.at 273 Understand the process producing and maintaining 6) Id. at 271-272. prejudice and discrimination at multiple levels of 7) Id. at 271. analysis, including cultural ideologies and policies, 8) Id. at 272. 9) Id. 1) For my initial efforts using this approach see The Good, The 10) Id. Bad, And The Ugly: Moral Agency And The Role of Victims in 11) Id. at 273. Reparations Programs, 31 U. PA. J. INT’L. L. 257 (2009) 12) Id. 2) Felicia Pratto, Jim Sidanius & Shana Levin, Social Dominance Theory and the Dynamics of Intergroup Relations: Taking 13) Id. Stock and Looking Forward, 17 Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 271, 14) Id. 271 (2006). 15) Id. 3) Id. 16) Id. 12 Vo,6 No.1 March 30, 2016 differ, as do the boundaries of membership in age, deploying these myths and ideologies institutions gender and arbitrary set groups.17 can function as hierarchy enhancing or hierarchy The structured analysis of arbitrary set dominance attenuating forces themselves.29 Hierarchy represents one of the most salient features of enhancing institutions also reproduce and maintain Social Dominance Theory for the purposes of this social hierarchy through their allocation of more article. Its researchers point out that: positive social value to dominant groups.30 Financial according to Social Dominance Theory, group- institutions, government security organizations, based social hierarchy is produced by the net effects and corporations all represent hierarchy enhancing of discrimination across multiple levels: institutions, institutions.31 Criminal justice systems serve a individuals, and collaborative intergroup processes. special role in maintaining arbitrary set group Discrimination across these levels is coordinated to dominance since “compared to dominants, favour dominant groups over subordinate groups by subordinates are over represented in prison cells, legitimising myths, or societal, consensually shared torture chambers, and execution chambers across social ideologies.18 many different societies.”32 Hierarchy attenuating institutions may diminish Accordingly, while “the naked use of force, but seldom balance the effects of hierarchy intimidation, and discrimination on the part of enhancing institutions.33 These institutions provide dominants against subordinates”19 is one aspect of disproportionate assistance to members of group hierarchy, Social Dominance Theory examines subordinate groups.34 Religious organizations aiding how social myths and ideologies legitimate existing the poor, civil and human rights organizations, and hierarchy within the social framework.20 Theorists welfare organizations are considered hierarchy identify two social myth and ideological types attenuating institutions.35 Across societies, these regarding social dominance. Hierarchy enhancing organizations usually fail to balance the effects of legitimizing myths support inequality through “moral their hierarchy enhancing counterparts as they lack and intellectual justifications”21 of social inequality resources, legal support, force, and other bases of and group based domination.22 These myths power.36 Theorists maintain that hierarchy enhancing support the view that inequality is “fair, legitimate, institutions play a critical role in maintaining social natural, or moral.”23 Just world beliefs, meritorious dominance because of their resources, reach, karma, the Divine Right of Kings, Manifest Destiny, longevity, internalized replicating norms, and etc. all represent examples of myths and ideologies shield against personal culpability.37 This leads to that support social dominance.24 Counter ideologies substantial sex and arbitrary set discrimination and social myths that undermine social hierarchy across societies in “employment, housing, retail are designated as hierarchy-attenuating legitimizing markets, health care, and education.”38 myths.25 Human rights, egalitarian religious themes, Individual discrimination also furthers social socialism, and feminism are identified among dominance. When individual decisions repeated hierarchy attenuating myths.26 In both accounts, the across a large scale reflect hierarchy enhancing myths rest within the world views and behavioral myths in employment,