Why the “Domination” Paradigm Fails and the “Communion” Paradigm Endures

Through decades of studying the rise and fall of the ancient Maya civilization of Central America, one of my areas of interest has been the formation and decline of “kingship,” how power was gained and wielded and how it failed. Universally, and from a whole-systems perspective, hierarchy and domination are structural and evolutionary phenomena rooted in primate biology and behavior.

Origins

In Chimpanzee Politics, Frans de Waal reports that among primates, including chimpanzees and baboons, dominance serves an adaptive function, reducing conflict, maintaining cohesion and coordinating defense by creating a dependable social order. Dominant males (and sometimes females) gain their positions through physical strength, alliances or demonstrations of increased intelligence. Whereas primates operate on instinct, humans create social, cultural and political systems such as religions, kingdoms, militaries and economies where domination became institutionalized.

Emergence

Anthropologist Riane Eisler, author of The Chalice and the Blade, coined the term “domination paradigm” in contrast to the “partnership model.” Analyzing how social hierarchies and institutions evolved from fear-based control into partnership-based cooperation, she found that domination got reinforced through millennia of patriarchy, warfare and control of resources.

In her awesome book, Thinking in Systems, environmental scientist Donella Meadows explained that domination gained traction over time and endured because “success accrues to the successful”—winners continue to win through the concentration of power and the suppression of corrective forces.

Basically, dominators such as rulers, kings and dictators overpower “cooperators” by imposing strict social controls. Philip Zimbardo, author of The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil, observed that in domination systems the controls and feedback loops are suppressed through censorship, propaganda and fear. They produce social insecurity, confusion, uncertainty and eventually systemic collapse. Specifically, Zimbardo’s social controls are those necessary to maintain life—food, security, money, energy, information—and these days this includes attention, all of which creates dependency. Dominators maintain control over these essentials, in large part, by referring to or retelling religious, political or ideological stories that frame their superiority as natural, deserved or divinely sanctioned. When their authority becomes validated through laws, market statistics, spiritual bias or cultural norms, domination becomes autopoietic (a whole systems term meaning “self-maintaining.” At least for a while.

The Dynamics of Rise and Fall

When fear runs the show in a social system, be it primate or human, the door opens for an aggressive individual to emerge and dominate. Increasingly, when his or her authority feels threatened by those being dominated, they typically turn up the temperature on separation (royals vs peasants; haves vs have-nots) and exclusion—any group of people different from them.

            In my civilization, he who is different from me does not impoverish me—he enriches me.

                        Antoine de Saint-Exupery, French writer, poet, journalist

Enjoying some success, the “alpha,” “ruler,” or “dictator” further solidifies his position at the top of the hierarchy by incorporating family members, friends and those who themselves either aspire to power or are stimulated by being close to it. In ancient hierarchical societies, those related to—or managed to win the favor of—the ruler could rather quickly rise to prominent positions and become beneficiaries of his status and wealth—even replace him.

A real life example is a story recorded by the Spaniards who invaded Mexico. In 1194 AD, Hunic Ceel Cauich was a Maya slave about to be sacrificed at the sacred cenote at Chichen Itza in Yucatan. Most human offerings were thrown into the well, which is a 90 foot drop to the surface today. It broke their backs and they died instantly. This devout young man, offering to sacrifice himself and deliver a message to the gods, leapt in and landed feet first. To the amazement of the Ajaw (lord) and priests he survived. When they pulled him up, he told the Ajaw that he’d delivered his message to Chac, and this god of lightning and rain responded. “What did he say?” they asked. “With respect, Ajaw Chac Xib Chac, he said the jaguar throne is rightfully mine.” So this young man became the Lord of Chichen Itza. Years later, considered a “holy lord” (sanctioned by the gods), he conquered the neighboring city of Mayapan.

On the positive side, those dominated may thrive when the dominator acts as protector and steward, particularly during a crisis, or when he or she provides for the common good. Such is the case under benevolent dictators or true social democracies such as Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the Iroquois Confederacy and the Mondragón Cooperative Network in the Basque region of Spain.

But when a population suffers through suppressed creativity and innovation, inequality, restricted trade, alienation, environmental degradation or even the perception that the system is in peril, and when the dominator becomes self-centered, detached from reality and no longer secures the good of his or her people—the system breaks down. One of the contributing causes of the collapse of Maya civilization was the inability of the kings and priests to win the favor of the gods by providing rain through decades of drought. When the population moved away, kingship died.

I do not think the measure of a civilization is how tall its buildings of concrete are, but rather how well its people have learned to relate to their environment and fellow man.

Sun Bear, Chippewa tribal chief

Dominator Tactics and Titles

Early rulers claimed divine sanction—the Pharaohs of Egypt, the K’in Ajaw “Holy Lords” of the ancient Maya and the Huangdi “Emperors” in China. These and others considered themselves mediators to the gods or divine in their own right.

As empires expanded, sacred sanctions gave way to military supremacy—Caesars in Rome, the Shah “King” of Persia, the Melekh “King” of Israel, the Chakravartin “universal ruler” of India and the Führer “Leader” in Germany.

In the industrial and modern eras the focus shifted to control by governments and corporate heads—the General Secretary of the Soviet Union, the Chairman of the People’s Republic of China, the Supreme Leader in North Korea and the CEO “Chief Executive Officers” in corporations.

The greatest danger to a civilization is greater and greater concentrations of power and wealth in fewer and fewer hands.

Dee Hocks, founder & CEO emeritus of VISA International

Are Dominators “Leaders?”

Research on the topic of domination and dominators prompted me to ask: Are dominators leaders? Not satisfied with the dictionary definition of “leader,” I asked Jason Miller, my son-in-law (a certified leadership coach and consultant for major corporations and other institutions) for the definition he preferred. “A leader,” he said, “is an individual who inspires and motivates people to drive change and/or achieve a common goal.” Parsing this out and adding some perspectives from anthropology and whole-systems science—

• Leaders empower others to be agents of change. Dominators hold on to that role, because their reference point is ego, personal glory, recognition or control.
• Systemically, leadership is an open feedback loop, the energy is directed outward. Domination is a closed loop—energy flows inward toward the ego.
• Leaders collaborate on behalf of the future. They work cooperatively toward a common goal. Dominators live for immediate satisfaction: winning, recognition, survival, applause.
• Leaders inspire through modeling and empathy. “We’re all together in this.” Dominators live in fear of losing their power, becoming irrelevant, vulnerable, disrespected or ignored.
• Leaders cultivate collaborators. Dominators seek followers, people below them.
• Leaders welcome feedback so the system becomes self-correcting. Dominators don’t want feedback. Feeling like they know better than anyone else, they make people afraid to speak truth to power.
• Leaders encourage power-with. Dominators seek power-over.
• Leaders motivate by encouraging diverse opinions and creativity. Dominators demand loyalty and obedience.

A leader is best when people barely know he exists. When his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say: we did it ourselves.

           Lao Tzu. Chinese philosopher

In The Grand Option: Personal Transformation and a New Creation, philosopher Beatrice Bruteau elaborates the differences between the “domination” and “communion” paradigms. Whereas the  Domination Paradigm is based on fear, possession, control, separation and egoic identity, the Communion Paradigm is rooted in love, mutual empowerment and shared creativity.

She cites the Last Supper as the point in history where, by washing the feet of his disciples, Jesus shattered the domination paradigm. And then, by offering his body and blood for them to ingest, he demonstrated the true nature of the communion paradigm. According to Beatrice, “To live is to communicate life, because life is essentially a spreading, growing phenomenon. Therefore, the more one communicates life, affirms life in one’s fellows, gives oneself to enhance their lives, the more one is alive, is truly living, and thus is truly oneself.”

The Way Forward

I know I’m overusing Beatrice Bruteau as a source, but she was the only philosopher I know of who elevated Riane Eisler’s term, “partnership model” to “communion paradigm.” This is significant, because “partners,” perceived as external to one another, can experience resistance, even undermine the other’s position, beliefs or strategy. “Communion,” on the other hand, is unitive. Beatrice writes, “The only way out of the domination system is to move into the paradigm of communion, of mutual empowerment. The new creation calls us beyond the old domination system. We are to evolve into a new mode of being—not over and against one another, but with and for one another. The communion paradigm is the new pattern of personhood and social organization required for the next stage of human evolution… What we need now is a transformation of consciousness itself, from separative self-consciousness to the consciousness of communion.”

Only the communion paradigm can bring about the unity and creativity our species now requires. The alternative is extinction.

                        Beatrice Bruteau, philosopher

_________________________________________________

My other sites:

David L. Smith Photography Portfolio.com

Ancient Maya Cultural Traits.com: Weekly blog featuring the traits that made this civilization unique

Spiritual Visionaries.com: Access to 81 free videos on YouTube featuring thought leaders and events of the 1980s.