Ethan Bolick

Mrs. Thomas
UWRT 1103
8 March 2015

Part I: You See, But Do You Follow?

The ideal of social hierarchy transcends virtually all human cultures and some animal
groups. With this Inquiry Project, I set out to discover exactly what places individuals in certain
roles or ranks in these sociological systems. Until I began researching this topic, I was unaware
that it was almost directly applicable to a highly controversial concept in psychology. This being,
Nature vs. Nurture. This concept relates to the argument of whether the environment and
resources surrounding an individual affect his/her (life decisions, personality traits, social
standing etc.) more than innate characteristics and genes. Obviously, we inevitably run into this
debate when we ponder such deep questions as: what makes a human subservient? After
acquiring ample knowledge about the background of this controversy, I believe my once narrow
point of view has bloomed into a much broader perspective in terms of this difficult question.
With the pivotal assistance of some undeniably intelligent writers and authors, I intend to use
unbiased, logical thinking in order to present my findings.
I would like to begin by addressing the psychological concept of which I mentioned in
the previous paragraph. As I began to look further into the psychology behind my thesis
question, I stumbled upon two different writers. Although their professional backgrounds and

arguments varied; they each managed to effectively present both sides of the Nature V. Nurture
debate, with little to no bias.
Beverly Daniel Tatum touched on the nature side of the debate with her take on how
dominance plays its role in any given society; Dominant groups, by definition, set the
parameters within which the subordinates operate. The dominant group holds the power and
authority in society relative to the subordinates (3). Here she insinuates that dominance can
almost be inherent, because the dominant members tend to inforce the culture and even rules,
making it difficult for the offspring of a subordinate to change the cycle. Yet, she goes on to
explain how the Nurture concept played a large role in dominance during slavery and
segregation. This being that dominant whites reinforced the culture that blacks should remain
subordinate. Julia T. Wood offers similar insight on a separate, but related topic.
Wood compares the dominance versus submissive complex to one of the most obvious,
although critical, themes. This theme being gender. Julia uses examples from television and
music in the past, as well as the present, to prove her claim that media and subculture have
undermined women and even played huge factors in violence towards females. Just as Tatum
believed that the culture promoted by dominant whites made society difficult for blacks, Wood
thought that it was this same vicious cycle that has repressed women for so many years. She
recalls, In 1987, fully 2/3s of the speaking parts (in television across the U.S) were for men.
Women were portrayed as significantly younger and thinner than women in the population as a
whole, and most are depicted as passive, dependent on men, and enmeshed in relationships or
housework. (Wood 7). She goes further to explain how such displays of women on television
can easily relay the wrong message to youth, resulting in the consistency of this injustice in later
generations.

A few more notable voices to be heard from my research is that of Jim Sidanius and
Felicia Pratto. They are the authors of chapter 47 of the book, Handbook of Theories of Social
Psychology: Volume Two (2000). Technically, Sociology is the social psychology but this
chapter alone addresses sociological ideals as well as psychological abstracts. The factual portion
of this writing focuses on something called social dominance theory. Social Dominance Theory
is basically the phenomena that Julia Wood and Beverly Tatum both agreed was reinforcing
racist and sexist stereotypes in society. It is defined as (a theory that argues) intergroup
oppression, discrimination and prejudice are the means by which human societies organize
themselves.(Sidanius and Pratto 418). As the chapter opens, the authors discuss the topic as
inevitable and unavoidable by mentioning how this exact process has brought multiple past
societies to ruin. However, at the conclusion of the chapter, Sidanius completely modifies the
tone and provides a story of personal experience. He relates to the material previously discussed
by displaying how difficult it was to be raised as black youth during times of segregation in New
York: As a 10-year old boy growing up in New York City in the mid-1950s, I had already
become uncomfortably aware that being a Negro in America was not an all together a good
thing. (420).
Noticing this correlation of Social Dominance Theory really furthered my understanding
of this question and even where I should go for the answer. However, I had researched slavery
and the holocaust first, in order to gain historical knowledge of the relationship of leaders and
submissive followers. Therefore, the repentance of this theory throughout history was only
revealed to me after reading the chapter by Sidanius and Pratto. I chose to present the
information to you in the order I believed it would have benefitted me the most. Theory, then
evidence.

Part II: The Reality

Now that I have examined the scientific side of this concept, I plan to further prove (as
well as disprove) some of the theories and ideas presented in the previous section. It is important
to understand the complexity of this debate lies in the mere fact that each of us can relate, on
some level, to how the phenomena of dominance plays a role in our own life. Therefore, it can be
difficult for a number of individuals to look at this debate with an unbiased perspective. For
example, I fill a submissive sociological role when I obey the commands of my instructor in the
classroom. However, I exhibit a role of dominance when I am given the responsibility of
watching after my brother when my parents arent home. Yes, it is true that this example only
displays a rather limited representation of the concept, but it successfully displays how easily one
can be subconsciously affected by social hierarchy due how prevalent it has become in humanity.
To be quite frank, bias most commonly comes into play when historical instances are referenced
by someone who might share: heritage, beliefs, culture or even ideas with a certain demographic
which happened to be victimized at this time in history. More simply put, when personal
connections are made to the either side of a controversy, past or present, individuals usually
allow their emotions to deter their sense of logic. The following paragraphs are just what the title
entails; The Reality. That being said, I urge you to look upon both of these topics anew. Not as if
you had never heard of them before, but as if you had only heard the facts yesterday. For this one
instance, free yourself from the issue of morality and merely view these events from a logical
point of view. I wouldnt incite such specific direction unless I was sure youd learn something
unfathomably valuable from the experience.

Let me begin this paragraph by reassuring you that, slavery was an unjust act and was
rightfully outlawed. Yet, much can be learned from studying the behavior of people on both sides
of this travesty. Not only did my research teach me about how slaves reacted to such harshness,
but it also unveiled to me that the demeanor of the slave owners also played a large role in the
submissive nature of slaves. For instance, from a young age, Frederick Douglass had received
lessons in reading and writing from his masters wife in a state that outlawed to education of
slaves. Although he may have been beaten and mistreated like every other slave, it was the caring
and kindness exhibited by his masters wife that showed Frederick that not all white were as
heartless as those who hide behind the whip. Once he understood that the color of ones skin
could not define the compassion in their heart, Douglass knew that the only righteous means of
liberation had to be non-violent. On the other hand, Nat Turner was raised on a plantation with a
cruel master as well. However, Turner was not graced with the opportunity to encounter someone
similar to Fredericks masters wife. Therefore, each day his hatred for whites was fueled by the
abuse he took from his overseers in the fields. On the 21st of July in 1831, Nat Turner led 70
other slaves to escape the plantation, only to murder 60 whites (many of which were women and
children). Some of these included Nats slave master and his family. Turner managed to evade
the law for about a month, until he was found and hanged for his crimes. Can something as
simple as subconscious moral guidance from a reliable source mark the difference between the
fates of these two souls? Both Nat and Douglass were firm believers in Christianity and they had
both spent most of their life without an actual mother or father there to help raise them. The
answer, in this case, is actually rather trivial. You see, both individuals lacked a strong sense of
direction in their childhood due to the fact that they were separated from their biological parents
at a young age. When Frederick began taking lessons as a young child with a malleable mind, he

was actually learning the values and rewards of education. This, in turn, could have motivated
him to retaliate to the improper treatment by using the advantage he was given; intelligence.
Likewise, Nat Turner merely struck back against the hand of injustice with the only tool he had
been equipped with; brute force. Yet, without being able to scientifically explore the human
subconscious (much less the subconscious of a dead man), the ulterior motives of these men will
forever remain a mystery. However, I was still able to conclude that; not only did Fredericks
Masters wife improve his chances at freedom by granting him the gift of literacy, but also she
increased his probability of success by opening his eyes to the benefits of cooperation and peace.
I found my third resource to be the most difficult, yet interesting read out of all of my
research. Though, difficulty in this sense pertains to my disdain towards the underlying tone of
sadness created by the depressing nature of the subject matter. In her novel, Hitler Youth:
Growing up in Hitlers Shadow, Susan C. Bartoletti explains how Hitler utilized propaganda and
clever lies to incite the children of Germany to join the Nazi Regime. Hitler would speak at
schools, take pictures with kids, and even respond when children wrote to him. He even goes as
far as to build a monument to a boy who was murdered while serving in one of his youth
programs. While this may seem to be a kind gesture at surface level, Hitler constructs this
memorial, not for Herbert Norkus [a young boy who was stabbed to death in a street fight against
communist teenagers (Bartoletti 12-13)], but for other children to see that anyone who dies
fighting for Hitlers cause could become a hero. While we could go on and on about dominance
and subservience in the Holocaust, it was the mere title of Susans work (after the first read) that
assisted me in arriving at my final conclusion.

I do not believe in coincidence. Therefore, upon noticing the one topic that I found to be
consistent with almost all of my research, I attempted to apply the scientific knowledge of the
authors mentioned in Part I, to the events discussed in Part II. Here are my findings.

Part III: The Apple and the Tree

Youve heard the saying, Im sure. But what does it mean in this context, and how can it
be applied to slavery and the Holocaust? Good question, Im glad you asked. The fact of the
matter is, at a young age, our brain is still developing, and is much more susceptible to new
information; good or bad. This makes our childhood crucial; not just to our psyche, but to our
entire process of learning as well. It is because of this fact that when a society is met with an idea
or belief that is widely accepted upon its first acknowledgement, it can be difficult to change the
opinion of others because they have had this concept instilled in them by the previous generation.
Furthermore, once a standard is held within a society, it can become nearly impossible to remove
or alter this standard, because the older generation which was resistant against change is bound
to produce offspring with similar, if not identical, viewpoints. Frederick Douglass was fortunate
to be given constructive discipline and schooling, whereas Turner was not as lucky. One survived
the viscous cycle long enough to see himself become a free man in the north, and one did not.
Hitler realized that if he could reach the young children and implant his ideas into them at an
early stage, he could harness the immeasurable power of tomorrow. Sidanius even argues the
same concept in relation to a society as a whole, even as they adapt and change, societies that
are group-based dominance hierarchies will tend to continually reorganize themselves, and even
other societies, as such.(420). Even though his theory isnt necessarily pertaining to the
dynamic and malleable nature of a childs brain, he makes it clear that he thinks societies

naturally remain resistant to change. Beverly Tatum displays somewhat of a similar viewpoint as
she explains how this cycle also applies to racism and dominance because dominant members
will assure that they (and presumably their offspring) remain as such. Finally, Julia Wood didnt
quite address children in particular, but she continually discussed how sexism and gender roles
have already transcended many generations; this due to the process of the Social Dominance
Theory. So what do we take away from this? As college students we symbolize what many
consider the official transition stage into adulthood. However, as individuals who tread the line
between growing and grown, it is our responsibility to bridge the gap and ensure that children
today maintain their sense of open-mindedness. Yet, it would be foolish to state that most of the
adults in todays age couldnt use some open-minded thought as well. It is easier to build strong
children than to repair broken men.-Frederick Douglass