Dominant group/Theoretical definition

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This is a Failed State Index, 2005-2007.
  Alert
  Warning
  No Information / Dependent Territory
  Moderate
  Sustainable
Credit: Brian Szymanski.

A theoretical definition is a definition within a theory. A theory is one or a system of ideas intended to explain something.

To prevent circularity of meaning by using words in the definition that are or mean the exact same as that intended to be defined, a theoretical definition is based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

At the extreme, a theoretical definition should use no terms that are relative or exact synonyms for the thing to be defined. This excludes any term with its much more popular synonyms in the same synonymy categories as the thing to be defined.

A theoretical definition of dominant group could use any concepts in any way. Usually, some effort is made to use the scientific term in close proximity to its suggested meaning based on the common meanings of the two words chosen.

In addition to searching for more theoretical definitions, it may be beneficial to compose a variety of such definitions and test them against control groups or a control group.

Theoretical definition[edit]

Proof of concept for a theoretical definition of dominant group ideally is a definition that uses no exact or relative synonyms of dominant group.

Def. "the meaning of a word in terms of the theories of a specific discipline"[1] is called a theoretical definition.

Def. that "which attempts to formulate a theoretically adequate characterization of the objects to which it is applied."[2] is called a theoretical definition.

Dominant group[edit]

Examples from primary sources are to be used to prove or disprove each hypothesis. These can be collected per subject or in general.

  1. Accident hypothesis: dominant group is an accident of whatever processes are operating.
  2. Artifact hypothesis: dominant group may be an artifact of human endeavor or may have preceded humanity.
  3. Association hypothesis: dominant group is associated in some way with the original research.
  4. Bad group hypothesis: dominant group is the group that engages in discrimination, abuse, punishment, and additional criminal activity against other groups. It often has an unfair advantage and uses it to express monopolistic practices.
  5. Control group hypothesis: there is a control group that can be used to study dominant group.
  6. Entity hypothesis: dominant group is an entity within each field where a primary author of original research uses the term.
  7. Evolution hypothesis: dominant group is a product of evolutionary processes, such groups are the evolutionary process, produce evolutionary processes, or are independent of evolutionary processes.
  8. Identifier hypothesis: dominant group is an identifier used by primary source authors of original research to identify an observation in the process of analysis.
  9. Importance hypothesis: dominant group signifies original research results that usually need to be explained by theory and interpretation of experiments.
  10. Indicator hypothesis: dominant group may be an indicator of something as yet not understood by the primary author of original research.
  11. Influence hypothesis: dominant group is included in a primary source article containing original research to indicate influence or an influential phenomenon.
  12. Interest hypothesis: dominant group is a theoretical entity used by scholarly authors of primary sources for phenomena of interest.
  13. Metadefinition hypothesis: all uses of dominant group by all primary source authors of original research are included in the metadefinition for dominant group.
  14. Null hypothesis: there is no significant or special meaning of dominant group in any sentence or figure caption in any refereed journal article.
  15. Object hypothesis: dominant group is an object within each field where a primary author of original research uses the term.
  16. Obvious hypothesis: the only meaning of dominant group is the one found in Mosby's Medical Dictionary.
  17. Original research hypothesis: dominant group is included in a primary source article by the author to indicate that the article contains original research.
  18. Primordial hypothesis: dominant group is a primordial concept inherent to humans such that every language or other form of communication no matter how old or whether extinct, on the verge of extinction, or not, has at least a synonym for dominant group.
  19. Purpose hypothesis: dominant group is written into articles by authors for a purpose.
  20. Regional hypothesis: dominant group, when it occurs, is only a manifestation of the limitations within a region. Variation of those limitations may result in the loss of a dominant group with the eventual appearance of a new one or none at all.
  21. Source hypothesis: dominant group is a source within each field where a primary author of original research uses the term.
  22. Term hypothesis: dominant group is a significant term that may require a 'rigorous definition' or application and verification of an empirical definition.

Relative synonymy[edit]

A synonymous definition “cannot be used in the construction of precising or theoretical definitions.”[2] But, relative synonyms are often used in theoretical definitions.

With a two-word term, genus classes (or categories[3]) may consist of three varieties:

  1. category1 + category2,
  2. "dominant" + category2, or
  3. category1 + "group".

Here "category1" refers to any category of relative synonyms for "dominant" (adjective or noun), and "category2" is the same for "group" (noun or verb).

The added possibilities of "group" as a verb suggests usages like "dominantly grouped", with the adverb "dominantly", or "dominant grouping".

These variations in part due to analyzing a two-word term allow additional possibilities to consider in forming genus differentia definitions.

The term dominant group appears to be used to identify entities of importance. The genera differentia for possible definitions of dominant group fall into the following set of orderable pairs:

Genera differentia for dominant group[3]
Synonym for dominant Category Number Category Title Synonym for group Category Number Catgeory Title
“superior” 36 SUPERIORITY "arrangement" 60 ARRANGEMENT
“influential” 171 INFLUENCE "class" 61 CLASSIFICATION
“musical note” 462 HARMONICS "assembly" 74 ASSEMBLAGE
“most important” 670 IMPORTANCE "size" 194 SIZE
“governing” 739 GOVERNMENT "painting", "grouping" 572 ART
"master" 747 MASTER "association", "set" 786 ASSOCIATION
----- --- ------- "sect" 1018 RELIGIONS, CULTS, SECTS

'Orderable' means that any synonym from within the first category can be ordered with any synonym from the second category to form an alternate term for dominant group; for example, "superior class", "influential sect", "master assembly", "most important group", and "dominant painting". "Dominant" falls into category 171. "Group" is in category 61. Further, any word which has its most or much more common usage within these categories may also form an alternate term, such as "ruling group", where "ruling" has its most common usage in category 739, or "dominant party", where "party" is in category 74. "Taxon" or "taxa" are like "species" in category 61. "Society" is in category 786 so there is a "dominant society".

Hypothetical theoretical definitions[edit]

For example,

Def. F(x) such that y = F(x), whenever F(x) ⊆ X and y > x ∈ X is called a dominant group.

If such a definition existed for dominant group in a theory for any field, then this definition may be a theoretical definition, or specifically a purely theoretical definition.

Def. "[t]he nobility, or the hereditary ruling class"[4] is called an aristocracy.

One synonym for dominant group is ruling group. Another is ruling class. A hypothetical theoretical definition might be

Def. a governing group from the aristocracy that is "[o]f high birth or social position"[5] is called ruling elites.

A state could be said to "succeed" if it maintains, according to philosopher Max Weber, a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within its borders. When this is broken (e.g., through the dominant presence of warlords, paramilitary groups, or terrorism), the very existence of the state becomes dubious, and the state becomes a failed state. Bold added.

Legacy of vengeance-seeking group grievance: based on recent or past injustices, which could date back centuries. Including atrocities committed with impunity against communal groups and/or specific groups singled out by state authorities, or by dominant groups, for persecution or repression. Institutionalized political exclusion. Public scapegoating of groups believed to have acquired wealth, status or power as evidenced in the emergence of "hate" radio, pamphleteering and stereotypical or nationalistic political rhetoric.[6] Bold added.

Criminalization and/or delegitimisation of the state: endemic corruption or profiteering by ruling elites and resistance to transparency, accountability and political representation. Includes any widespread loss of popular confidence in state institutions and processes.[7] Bold added.

Progressive deterioration of public services: a disappearance of basic state functions that serve the people, including failure to protect citizens from terrorism and violence and to provide essential services, such as health, education, sanitation, public transportation. Also using the state apparatus for agencies that serve the ruling elites, such as the security forces, presidential staff, central bank, diplomatic service, customs and collection agencies.[8] Bold added.

Security apparatus as "state within a state": an emergence of elite or praetorian guards that operate with impunity. Emergence of state-sponsored or state-supported private militias that terrorize political opponents, suspected "enemies," or civilians seen to be sympathetic to the opposition. An "army within an army" that serves the interests of the dominant military or political clique. Emergence of rival militias, guerilla forces or private armies in an armed struggle or protracted violent campaigns against state security forces.[9] Bold added.

Rise of factionalised elites: a fragmentation of ruling elites and state institutions along group lines. Use of aggressive nationalistic rhetoric by ruling elites, especially destructive forms of communal irredentism or communal solidarity (e.g., "ethnic cleansing", "defending the faith").[10] Bold added.

Lexical definition[edit]

Def. "a social group that controls the value system and rewards in a particular society"[11] is called a dominant group, occurs in Mosby's Medical Dictionary.[11]

Ethnical dominant group[edit]

"For purposes of this analysis, I define a dominant ethnic group as the ethnic group in a society that exercises power to create and maintain a pattern of economic, political, and institutional advantage, which in turn results in the unequal (disproportionately beneficial to the dominant group) distribution of resources."[12] Bold added.

Def. "the ethnic group in a society that exercises power to create and maintain a pattern of economic, political, and institutional advantage, which in turn results in the unequal (disproportionately beneficial to the dominant group) distribution of resources"[12], bold added, is called a dominant ethnic group.

Psychological dominant group[edit]

"[A] group is dominant if it possesses a disproportionate share of societal resources, privileges, and power."[13]

Def. "if [a group] possesses a disproportionate share of societal resources, privileges, and power"[13] it is called a dominant group.

Dominance[edit]

Notation: let the symbol BSRI stand for Bern Sex Role Inventory.

"Several weeks after completing the BSRI subset, 24 students (12 males, 12 females) from the dominant group and 24 students (12 males, 12 females) from the submissive group were asked to participate in the study."[14]

"This manipulation is consistent with the theoretical definition of dominance as being the tendency to make decisions for others and command and direct others to take certain actions."[14]

Def. "the tendency to make decisions for others and command and direct others to take certain actions" is called dominance.[14]

Hypotheses[edit]

  1. Appointed leaders are not members of the dominant group.

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. Mindspillage (July 13, 2004). "Theoretical definition". p. 1. Retrieved 2011-10-04.
  2. 2.0 2.1 Irving M. Copi (1955). Introduction to Logic. New York: The MacMillan Company. p. 472. |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  3. 3.0 3.1 Peter Mark Roget (1969). Lester V. Berrey and Gorton Carruth (ed.). Roget's International Thesaurus, third edition. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company. p. 1258. |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  4. "aristocracy". San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. October 9, 2012. Retrieved 2012-10-11.
  5. "elite". San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. August 31, 2012. Retrieved 2012-10-11.
  6. "Legacy of vengeance-seeking group grievance". the Fund for Peace. Retrieved 2007-08-25.
  7. "Criminalization and delegitimisation of the state". the Fund for Peace. Retrieved 2007-08-25.
  8. "Progressive deterioration of public services". the Fund for Peace. Retrieved 2007-08-25.
  9. "Security apparatus". the Fund for Peace. Retrieved 2007-08-25.
  10. "Rise of factionalised elites:". the Fund for Peace. Retrieved 2007-08-25.
  11. 11.0 11.1 Farlex (2009). "The Free Dictionary by Farlex: Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 8th edition". Elsevier. Retrieved 2011-09-07.
  12. 12.0 12.1 Ashley W. Doane Jr. (June 1997). "Dominant Group Ethnic Identity in the United States". The Sociological Quarterly 38 (3): 375-97. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.1997.tb00483.x. 
  13. 13.0 13.1 Eric D. Knowles, Kaiping Peng (August 2005). "White selves: conceptualizing and measuring a dominant-group identity". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 89 (2): 223-41. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.89.2.223. 
  14. 14.0 14.1 14.2 Youngme Moon, Clifford Nass (December 1996). "How “real” are computer personalities? Psychological responses to personality types in human-computer interaction". Communication Research 23 (6): 651-74. doi:10.1177/009365096023006002. http://crx.sagepub.com/content/23/6/651.short. Retrieved 2012-10-10. 

External links[edit]

{{Dominant group}}{{Linguistics resources}}

{{Terminology resources}}{{Universal translator}}