**A society where one group entirely dominates, can never be good.** • Whether we’re discussing social domination or political domination, I don’t think in any case, one group should hold that much power. In a social context for example, I don’t think men should dominate in society, nor do I think white people should dominate in society. I believe in the benefits of diverse multiculturalism, whereby members of society integrate and people of all cultures, sexualities, genders, ethnicities etc, can _co-exist peacefully_. Similarly, our political society should operate under a system of checks and balances, where no one group or person, has enough power to unilaterally enforce or implement certain decisions or control. • _Dominance_ is described as [“using power, coercion and intimidation in group situations”](https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/minds-business/dominant-leaders-are-bad-for-groups.html). Used as a tool to gain power, dominance can be dangerous in the wrong hands, which is why I don’t think any one group should have access to it. This is because dominant leaders “tend to exhibit arrogance, superiority and conceit” with “higher than average levels of aggressive, disagreeable, manipulative personality traits”. Therefore, when one group has access to this much power, it can be extremely dangerous. • A society where a group dominates, is a society which is probably characterised by _inequality_ and mistreatment of some individuals. For example, a society with male domination likely treats women as inferior and consequently treats them unfairly. _Male dominance_ is one of the [“most widespread forms of inequality in human history”]( https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/3440-explanations-of-male-dominance.%20Accessed%2025%20April%202019) and stems from the inaccurate assumption that men are for some reason biologically superior to women. Regardless of who the dominating group is, I don’t think a system where they have ultimate power or control is ever a good thing. This seems to go against the principles of a democracy.

**[Social Capital theory] (https://www.oecd.org/insights/37966934.pdf) talks about how in evolutionary terms, social relationships have developed because they yield reproductive benefits. Hierarchies are needed in some capacity for civilisation.** - This is a tricky one because social capital and structure are needed in society. And especially in terms of each individual's social 'capital', [there can never be total equality] (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/01/13/the-equality-conundrum). Some will always be better equipped/more privileged — in social, cultural, intellectual economic ways— than others. - I think the key is that no one group should dominate via force and aggression. [Democratically elected groups] (https://www.carnegiecouncil.org/publications/articles_papers_reports/why-democracy-is-the-best-weve-got) who can serve as decision-making bodies are needed in some capacity, however. There will always need to be some kind of social hierarchy — it's [what civilisation is built upon] (https://hbr.org/2003/03/why-hierarchies-thrive). Intricate social networks need pre-placed structures. - As nice as total equality in society sounds in theory, it would probably just result in anarchy. Our cultures rely to not an insignificant extent upon hierarchies of people with differing levels of social capital. But I do agree that 'one group' should not possess total societal domination/power. It's why democracy is the best system that we've got.