Strictly private interpersonal dominations, which would negate our autonomy, are thought typically held in check by a series of social forces, including legal ones.
It contends that these arguments do not go far enough to recognize and address private, and in particular structural, forms of domination.
To give autonomy its due, the State must cease its domination.
To be sure, when pressed, they ordinarily grant that, when private domination ushers someone out of life, especially against a choice to live, not only life itself, but autonomy too is extinguished.
The State, principally through forbearance, but sometimes through action, chiefly targeting private individuals who break the peace, can keep the twin forces of domination at bay.
If accurate, eliminating public domination would clear what, as a rule, is an unobstructed path to autonomous choice.
Third, we propose the concept of 'soft bureaucracy' to gain an understanding of how organizations are evolving towards an ambivalent structure of governance, within which domination is not essentially exerted by means of, for example, violence, direct punishment or local hierarchical supervision, but through sophisticated managerial strategies.
The organizational order is based on the couple [confidence-obedience], which creates the structure of domination.
In a great number of cases, the emergence of a rational association from amorphous social action has been due to domination and the way in which it has been exercised.
In Weber's conceptual framework, domination is never assimilated to enslavement or even to mere subordination.
organizational governance can correspond to a political structure stimulating intentional and deliberate strategies of domination.
Domination can be, under some conditions [especially under conditions of legitimacy], the most efficient mode of governing organizations, both for people and for 'dominators'.