Abstract
This article analyses the phenomenon of ‘micro-domination’, in which a series of dominated choices are individually inconsequential for a person’s freedom but collectively consequential. Where the choices concerned are objectively inconsequential, micro-domination poses a problem for ‘objective threshold’ accounts of domination which either prioritise particularly bad forms of domination or exclude powers that do not risk causing serious harm to their victims. Where the choices concerned are subjectively inconsequential to the victim, micro-domination poses a problem for the common republican strategy of creating arenas of contestation for victims of domination, which rely on victims objecting strongly enough to a dominating relationship to sound the alarm. This kind of invigilation may systematically fail victims of micro-domination. Throughout the article, I suggest some ways of better accounting for and responding to cases of micro-domination.
Highlights
This article analyses the phenomenon of ‘micro-domination’, in which a series of dominated choices are individually inconsequential for a person’s freedom but collectively consequential
Where the choices concerned are subjectively inconsequential to the victim, micro-domination poses a problem for the common republican strategy of creating arenas of contestation for victims of domination – the ‘fire-alarm’ model of invigilation – which relies on victims objecting strongly enough to a dominating relationship to sound the alarm
Micro-domination involves the power to interfere in choices that are not consequential in this last sense – they do not on their own risk serious harm, say – but where the set of many such dominated choices is consequential, whether the same choice repeated over time or many similar choices
Summary
This article analyses the phenomenon of ‘micro-domination’, in which a series of dominated choices are individually inconsequential for a person’s freedom but collectively consequential. Micro-domination involves the power to interfere in choices that are not consequential in this last sense – they do not on their own risk serious harm, say – but where the set of many such dominated choices is consequential, whether the same choice repeated over time or many similar choices.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callSimilar Papers
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
