Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Domination

Domination refers to a structured form of social power in which one actor or group secures obedience to its directives from subordinates, often stabilized by claims to legitimacy rather than mere coercion.^[1] The sociologist Max Weber defined it as "the probability that certain specific commands (or all commands) will be obeyed by a given group of persons," distinguishing it from raw power by its reliance on organized compliance within administrative or social structures.^[1]^[2] Weber outlined three ideal types of legitimate domination underpinning stable rule: traditional authority, rooted in the sanctity of time-honored customs and loyalties to hereditary leaders; charismatic authority, derived from the perceived extraordinary qualities of an individual leader inspiring devotion; and rational-legal authority, based on impersonal rules, bureaucratic hierarchies, and acceptance of enacted laws as binding.^[3]^[4] In political philosophy, the concept has evolved to emphasize structural dependencies and the risk of arbitrary interference, where non-domination—absence of subjection to others' unchecked power—serves as a criterion for freedom, influencing republican critiques of liberal individualism.^[5] While domination facilitates coordinated action and institutional order, it raises concerns over exploitation when legitimacy erodes or power asymmetries enable unchecked control, as evidenced in analyses of hierarchical societies and states.^[5]^[2]

Etymology and Historical Conceptions

The term domination derives from the Latin dominatio ("act of ruling, control"), formed from the verb dominari ("to rule, govern, dominate"), which stems from dominus ("lord, master, ruler of the house").^[6] This etymology, entering Middle English around 1386 via Old French domination, connotes absolute mastery or superior power exercised over dependents, often without reciprocity or consent, as in the Roman paterfamilias' authority over household members and property.^[7] The concept inherently implies asymmetry, where the dominator holds discretionary control akin to a master's command over slaves or inferiors.^[5] In ancient Greek philosophy, Aristotle (384–322 BCE) outlined early distinctions between forms of rule that align with domination as despotic authority. In Politics (Book I), he posited "natural slavery," wherein certain individuals—often barbarians lacking full rational deliberation—are suited for subjection to masters who exercise despotikē archē (despotic rule) for the slaves' own benefit, as the master deliberates on their behalf.^[8] Aristotle differentiated this unilateral domination from political rule (politikē archē) among free citizens, which seeks common advantage through alternation and equality, arguing that despotic forms arise from natural inequalities in capacity rather than mere convention. He viewed such hierarchies as teleologically justified, with the master's dominance enabling the slave's function, though empirical evidence from diverse societies challenged universal applicability.^[9] Roman thinkers adapted these ideas, emphasizing domination's risks to liberty. Cicero (106–43 BCE), in De Re Publica, contrasted dominium (private mastery or absolute property-like control) with imperium (legitimate public command), portraying unchecked dominium as coercive force antithetical to res publica, where citizens avoid subjection to arbitrary masters.^[10] This framework influenced later views, as seen in the Empire's Dominate era (initiated by Diocletian in 284 CE), when emperors adopted dominus as a title, signaling overt monarchical domination over a centralized bureaucracy and subjects, supplanting the Principate's facade of shared rule.^[11] Medieval adaptations, such as Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), reframed Aristotelian domination as justifiable only if aligned with natural law and divine order, deeming tyrannical or arbitrary forms unjust violations of human dignity.^[5]

Modern Philosophical Theories

In neo-republican political philosophy, domination is conceptualized as a central threat to individual freedom, distinct from mere interference. Philip Pettit, in his 1997 book Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government, defines domination as occurring when one agent holds the capacity for arbitrary interference in another's choices, meaning interference not equally constrained by the interests of the interfered party.^[12] This capacity need not be exercised to constitute domination; the mere possibility undermines freedom as non-domination, which Pettit contrasts with liberal notions of non-interference.^[13] Pettit argues that republican freedom requires institutional mechanisms, such as contestatory democracy and the rule of law, to ensure power-holders are responsive to those subject to their decisions, thereby tracking the latter's interests and preventing arbitrary sway.^[14] Frank Lovett builds on this republican tradition in A General Theory of Domination and Justice (2010), offering a structural account where domination arises from enduring relations of structural power that enable arbitrary disadvantage, independent of intent or outcome.^[15] Lovett posits that such relations are unjust because they impair the dominated party's ability to secure their basic interests, advocating for non-domination as a principle of justice realizable through reliable enforcement of laws and norms that curb power asymmetries.^[16] Unlike Pettit's emphasis on tracking interests, Lovett stresses the reliability of institutional constraints over discretionary responsiveness, arguing that democracy alone does not suffice without embedded safeguards against elite capture.^[17] In Frankfurt School critical theory, domination is analyzed as embedded in the logic of instrumental reason and capitalist structures. Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer, in Dialectic of Enlightenment (1947), contend that the Enlightenment's rational mastery over nature extends to social domination, where abstract reason reduces human relations to means-ends calculation, perpetuating myth-like control under advanced capitalism.^[18] This view critiques how cultural industries and bureaucratic administration foster passive conformity, eroding critical autonomy without overt coercion.^[19] Jürgen Habermas, in The Theory of Communicative Action (1981), refines this by distinguishing strategic action—goal-oriented manipulation that risks domination—from communicative action, which seeks mutual understanding via rational discourse.^[20] Habermas proposes discourse ethics and deliberative institutions to mitigate systemic domination, though critics note his framework assumes idealized conditions often undermined by real power imbalances in late-modern societies.^[21] These theories, while influential, have faced empirical scrutiny for overemphasizing structural determinism at the expense of observable agency in resisting domination.^[22] Social dominance theory (SDT), proposed by psychologists Jim Sidanius and Felicia Pratto in the early 1990s, posits that complex human societies inevitably organize into group-based social hierarchies featuring dominant and subordinate groups differentiated by attributes such as race, gender, class, or nationality.^[23] These hierarchies arise from surplus-producing societies where intergroup competition leads to dominance by certain groups, maintained not solely by coercion but through interlocking psychological, ideological, and institutional mechanisms that stabilize inequality.^[24] Unlike theories emphasizing individual prejudice or economic materialism alone, SDT integrates individual differences with systemic forces, arguing that oppression forms like racism, sexism, and classism stem from a species-typical tendency toward group dominance rather than isolated pathologies.^[25] A core individual-level construct in SDT is social dominance orientation (SDO), defined as a dispositional preference for societal arrangements that favor hierarchical inequality and group dominance over egalitarianism.^[26] First measured via a 14-item Likert scale in 1994, with items assessing approval of inequality (e.g., "Some groups of people are simply not the equal of others"), SDO predicts attitudes toward hierarchy-enhancing policies, such as opposition to affirmative action or support for military expansion. Later iterations, like the 2015 SDO7 scale with 16 items, distinguish subfacets of dominance (endorsing force to maintain superiority) and anti-egalitarianism (rejecting equality-promoting efforts), showing higher SDO scores among males, conservatives, and those in hierarchy-enhancing professions, with test-retest reliability around 0.70-0.80 across studies.^[27] High-SDO individuals systematically pursue roles that reinforce group dominance, while low-SDO ones gravitate toward hierarchy-attenuating fields like social work. At the societal level, SDT emphasizes legitimizing myths—widely accepted beliefs, stereotypes, and ideologies that justify the status quo, such as meritocratic narratives attributing dominance to innate superiority or cultural traditions embedding gender hierarchies.^[28] These myths interact with SDO to produce asymmetric behavioral realism: dominant groups exhibit more overt discrimination (e.g., hiring biases favoring ingroups by 20-30% in meta-analyses), while subordinates show greater restraint to avoid retaliation, observable in aggregate data from labor markets and legal systems.^[25] SDT also incorporates universalism versus ethnocentrism, predicting that dominance tendencies manifest universally but adapt to local group boundaries, with cross-national surveys in 27 countries (circa 2001) revealing consistent SDO correlations with support for ingroup-favoring policies (r ≈ 0.40).^[23] Hierarchical stability is further explained by reciprocal causation between individual orientations, myths, and institutions, though the theory allows for disequilibria leading to shifts, as seen in historical reversals like the decline of overt caste systems.

Controversies and Empirical Critiques

Social dominance theory (SDT) has faced empirical scrutiny over its core prediction of behavioral asymmetry, whereby dominant groups are hypothesized to exhibit stronger support for group-based hierarchies than subordinate groups, yet studies have disconfirmed this in multiple contexts. For instance, research by Schmitt, Branscombe, and Kappen (2003) demonstrated that subordinate group members can display comparable or higher levels of social dominance orientation (SDO) under certain conditions, undermining the theory's claim of inherent asymmetry in hierarchy endorsement. Similarly, Wilson and Lui (2003) found inconsistencies in SDO's predictive power for prejudice, suggesting that threat perceptions or other mediators better explain intergroup attitudes than SDO alone. Critics argue that SDT's evolutionary foundation for a universal "social dominance drive" lacks substantiation, conflating proximate psychological mechanisms with unproven ultimate causes rooted in animal hierarchies, while ignoring human cultural variability and historical egalitarian societies. The theory posits that all surplus-producing societies inevitably form group-based dominance hierarchies, but empirical evidence from hunter-gatherer and small-scale societies shows persistent non-hierarchical structures, challenging SDT's universality.^[29] Methodological concerns center on the SDO scale's reliability and construct validity, with meta-analyses revealing that its dominance and anti-egalitarianism facets often diverge predictively, suggesting they measure distinct constructs rather than a unified orientation. Low internal consistency in some samples and potential tautology—where SDO items circularly predict hierarchy-favoring attitudes without independent validation—have led to questions about whether SDO captures a stable trait or context-dependent ideology.^[30] SDT's account of societal stability has been critiqued for inadequately addressing change, as it attributes hierarchy persistence to legitimizing myths without explaining why dominance fails in cases of inequality reversal or power shifts, such as through collective mobilization or institutional reform. Alternative frameworks, including realistic conflict theory and system justification theory, better integrate resource competition and motivated cognition, offering stronger empirical fits for both stability and flux in intergroup relations. Proponents of SDT counter that these critiques overlook aggregate-level data supporting hierarchy maintenance, but detractors maintain the theory's predictions falter at individual and dynamic levels.^[29]^[31]

Evolutionary and Biological Foundations

Dominance Hierarchies in Animals

Dominance hierarchies in animals consist of ranked social relationships characterized by asymmetric aggression or submission, whereby higher-ranking individuals gain priority access to contested resources such as food, shelter, and mates, while suppressing subordinates to minimize repeated conflicts. These structures are widespread across taxa, including birds, mammals, fish, insects, and crustaceans, and function to reduce the energetic costs and injury risks associated with constant agonistic interactions, thereby promoting group stability and efficiency. Empirical studies indicate that stable hierarchies correlate with lower overall aggression rates, as predictable rank outcomes allow individuals to avoid unnecessary fights.^[32]^[33] The foundational observation of dominance hierarchies came from Thorleif Schjelderup-Ebbe's 1921 dissertation on domestic chickens (Gallus gallus domesticus), where he documented a linear "pecking order" in which each bird pecks those of lower rank and submits to those above, establishing a transitive sequence that persists with minimal reversals unless disrupted by factors like group size changes. Hierarchies form through diverse mechanisms: direct contests evaluating resource-holding potential (e.g., size or strength in crabs and fish like Metriaclima zebra), where larger individuals often dominate; conventions such as maternal inheritance in baboons or seniority in social insects like ants; and self-organizing dynamics via winner-loser effects, observed in pukeko birds and fish groups, which amplify initial asymmetries into linear ranks. Social eavesdropping further streamlines formation, as in paper wasps (Polistes fuscatus), where bystanders infer dominance from observed fights without participating.^[34]^[35] Maintenance involves ongoing signals and enforcement to reinforce ranks. Dominant individuals use identity-specific cues—such as unique facial markings in wasps or chemical profiles in ants—to facilitate recognition, coupled with threats or punishment like eviction in fish or physiological suppression in subordinate wasps. Genetic factors contribute to stability, as evidenced by the placental-accelerated sequence PAS1, an enhancer of the Lhx2 gene, which in mice promotes consistent rank formation during tube-test confrontations; disruptions via PAS1 knockouts lead to unstable hierarchies. In primates like chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), male hierarchies emerge through coalitions and displays, granting alphas mating priority, while female ranks influence food access via linear aggression patterns; adolescent males, however, delay full hierarchy integration until adulthood.^[35]^[33]^[36] Variations in hierarchy steepness and linearity reflect ecological pressures; steep despotic systems prevail in resource-scarce environments (e.g., some fish reefs, where size dictates rapid dominance), while shallower egalitarian ones occur in cooperative breeders. Contrary to depictions from captive wolf studies, wild gray wolf (Canis lupus) packs function as family units led by breeding parents, with cooperative hunting and pup-rearing rather than enforced linear dominance by "alphas," as clarified by long-term field observations since the 1990s. Across insects and fish, dominants often inhibit subordinates' reproduction or growth, enhancing inclusive fitness in kin groups, though instability arises from demographic shifts or intruders, underscoring hierarchies' dynamic yet adaptive nature.^[37]^[38]^[32]

Applications to Human Behavior

In human groups, dominance hierarchies emerge through agonistic interactions involving coercion, intimidation, or physical aggression, mirroring patterns observed in nonhuman primates but modulated by cultural and cognitive factors. Experimental studies demonstrate that individuals rapidly self-organize into linear hierarchies during resource competitions, with higher-ranked participants securing greater access to rewards such as food or mates. For instance, in controlled tasks mimicking foraging scenarios, participants who employ assertive strategies—such as interrupting or physically positioning to block others—ascend ranks, while submissive behaviors correlate with lower status. These hierarchies stabilize group dynamics by reducing conflict frequency, as subordinates defer to dominants to avoid costly confrontations, a pattern evidenced in longitudinal observations of small human groups like military units or sports teams where rank predicts interaction outcomes with over 80% accuracy in dyadic encounters.^[39] Biological underpinnings link dominance behaviors to physiological markers, including elevated testosterone levels in dominants, which facilitate aggressive displays and risk-taking. Primate comparisons reveal evolutionary continuity: like chimpanzees, human males often compete via displays of strength or alliances, but humans exhibit steeper reliance on coalitions to challenge superiors, enabling lower-status individuals to topple despots in 40-60% of observed cases across ethnographic data from hunter-gatherer societies. Unlike more despotic primate species, human hierarchies integrate prestige—gained through demonstrated competence or generosity—alongside raw dominance, allowing skilled providers to attain influence without violence; field studies in foraging bands show prestige leaders receiving deference in decision-making 2-3 times more often than dominants alone. This dual pathway reflects adaptations to cooperative breeding and cultural transmission, where excessive coercion invites egalitarian leveling mechanisms like gossip or ostracism.^[40]^[41] Applications extend to mating and resource allocation, where dominant status correlates with reproductive success: meta-analyses of 33 societies indicate high-status men sire 20-30% more offspring on average, driven by preferences for assertive traits signaling genetic quality and provisioning ability. In modern contexts, such as corporate environments, dominance predicts promotion rates, with assertive negotiators earning 15-20% higher salaries, though chronic subordination elevates stress hormones like cortisol, contributing to health disparities including cardiovascular risks 1.5-2 times higher in low-rank individuals. Psychological experiments further show that even infants as young as 10 months discriminate hierarchical relations, preferring to affiliate with dominants for perceived protection, underscoring innate perceptual biases shaped by ancestral environments. These patterns persist cross-culturally, from Yanomami villages to urban firms, affirming hierarchies as adaptive solutions to coordination challenges despite institutional efforts to flatten them.^[42]^[39]

Debates on Dominance in Psychology

Psychological research on dominance encompasses debates over its biological foundations, manifestations in human behavior, and applicability of animal models. Evolutionary psychologists posit that dominance hierarchies, characterized by agonistic interactions and coercive control over resources, exhibit continuity from non-human animals to humans, supported by evidence such as formidability predicting reproductive success in men (Zr = 0.18) and dispute resolution outcomes in small-scale societies like the Tsimane.^[40] The Dominance Behavioral System (DBS), a biologically mediated framework, regulates dominance motivation and behavior through social cue monitoring, with heightened activity linked to externalizing disorders like psychopathy (r = 0.49) and narcissism (r = 0.57–0.71), while subordination correlates with depression (r = -0.45 for self-perceived power).^[43] Testosterone modulates these dynamics context-dependently, elevating dominance-seeking in competitive environments.^[43] A central contention contrasts dominance with prestige as routes to status. Dominance relies on intimidation or aggression to enforce compliance, persisting in humans particularly among males for resource access, yet empirical studies in forager and experimental groups reveal prestige—attained via demonstrated competence and prosociality—as a parallel, often stronger pathway, predicting influence independently (e.g., likeability and leadership nominations untied to task knowledge).^[44]^[40] Prestige hierarchies, argued to be human-unique for facilitating cultural transmission, challenge dominance-centric models by showing reduced coercion through egalitarian norms, mobility, and coalitions that "level" hierarchies, as observed in infants' early dominance sensitivity evolving into prestige preference with age.^[40] This duality implies human hierarchies integrate evolutionary legacies with cultural adaptations, though debates persist on measurement variability and whether prestige fully supplants dominance in established groups.^[43] Critiques of extrapolating animal dominance to humans highlight profound divergences. Direct analogies, such as those invoking lobster serotonin hierarchies to justify innate human inequality, falter on evolutionary distance—humans and lobsters diverged 350 million years ago, with disparate neural architectures (human amygdala vs. lobster ganglia) and serotonin functions (aggression in lobsters, emotional regulation in humans).^[45] Human-specific factors like normative enforcement and voluntary deference undermine despotic animal structures, evidenced by prestige's prevalence in cooperative contexts where dominance erodes trust.^[40] Social constructivist views emphasize cultural plasticity, noting egalitarian hunter-gatherer bands where leveling mechanisms suppress overt dominance, though evolutionary evidence counters pure relativism by demonstrating persistent rank-tracking instincts.^[40] These debates underscore that while dominance operates biologically, its expression in humans is modulated by prestige and institutions, with overreliance on animal models risking oversimplification of causal pathways.^[43]

Mathematics and Formal Sciences

Graph Theory and Dominating Sets

In graph theory, a dominating set for an undirected graph G = (V, E) is a subset S \subseteq V such that every vertex v \in V \setminus S is adjacent to at least one vertex in S.^[46]^[47] A dominating set is minimal if no proper subset of it is dominating, and independent if no two vertices in it are adjacent.^[46] The domination number \gamma(G) denotes the size of the smallest dominating set in G.^[46] These structures capture the minimal resources needed to "control" or cover the graph's vertices via direct connections. The concept of dominating sets was introduced by Øystein Ore in his 1962 book Theory of Graphs, where he coined the terms "dominating set" and "domination number" while studying vertex covers and related parameters.^[46] Ore's work built on earlier graph-theoretic ideas from the 19th century, such as de Jaenisch's 1862 chessboard domination problems, but formalized domination as a combinatorial optimization problem.^[48] Subsequent developments by Claude Berge in the same era expanded on independent domination, distinguishing it from general domination.^[49] Computing a minimum dominating set is NP-hard, as shown by reductions from vertex cover and other NP-complete problems, holding even for restricted classes like planar bipartite graphs.^[50]^[51] Exact algorithms exist for special graphs, such as trees or grids, often via dynamic programming in linear time, but general cases require exponential-time methods like branching or inclusion-exclusion.^[52] Approximation algorithms, including a greedy heuristic that selects vertices by their closed neighborhood size, achieve factors like $1 + \ln |V|, though sublogarithmic approximations remain NP-hard.^[53] Dominating sets model real-world optimization, such as placing facilities to serve clients (where each facility covers itself and neighbors) or selecting wireless sensor nodes to monitor a network, minimizing nodes while ensuring coverage.^[54] In routing protocols for ad-hoc networks, connected dominating sets approximate minimum spanning trees for efficient broadcasting, reducing message overhead.^[55] Grid graphs representing city blocks use domination numbers to optimize guard or server placements, with applications in security and logistics.^[47] These uses highlight domination's role in operations research, where empirical network data drives bounds on \gamma(G), often O(\log |V|) for random graphs but varying widely by structure.^[56] In graph theory, the domination number \gamma(G) of a graph G denotes the cardinality of a minimum dominating set, representing the smallest subset of vertices that dominates all others.^[57] Closely related is the independent domination number i(G), which is the size of the smallest independent dominating set—a dominating set where no two vertices are adjacent.^[58] An independent dominating set combines the properties of an independent set (no edges between members) and a dominating set, ensuring every non-member vertex is adjacent to exactly one member in some formulations, though minimally it requires at least one adjacency.^[58] Another variant is the total domination number \gamma_t(G), defined for graphs without isolated vertices as the size of the smallest total dominating set, where every vertex in G—including those in the set—has at least one neighbor in the set, excluding self-loops.^[59] This strengthens standard domination by requiring intra-set coverage, applicable in network designs needing redundancy.^[59] Minimal dominating sets, which cannot be reduced without losing the domination property, contrast with maximal ones that cannot be expanded; the former relate to irreducible covers in optimization.^[60] The minimum dominating set problem is NP-hard, as established for general graphs, with reductions from vertex cover showing intractability even on restricted classes like planar bipartite graphs.^[61] Exact algorithms include brute-force enumeration of subsets, achieving O(2^n n) time for n-vertex graphs by checking all potential sets.^[62] Branch-and-bound methods, such as those using reduction rules like closed-neighborhood subsets and unique neighbors, improve practicality for moderate n, often via backtracking.^[63] Approximation algorithms provide efficient heuristics; a greedy approach iteratively selects vertices maximizing uncovered neighbors per choice, yielding a \ln \Delta + 1-approximation where \Delta is the maximum degree, though constant-factor guarantees like 1.5 exist for some graphs via linear programming relaxations.^[64] Iterated greedy variants refine solutions by local perturbations, showing empirical effectiveness on sparse graphs despite NP-hardness.^[65] For special cases, such as trees or interval graphs, polynomial-time exact algorithms exist using dynamic programming, computing \gamma(G) in O(n) time.^[66]

Games and Strategy

Board and Tabletop Games

In board and tabletop games, domination mechanics typically involve players exerting control over board spaces, resources, or opponents through territorial expansion, area majority, or positional superiority, often simulating competitive hierarchies or conquest. These elements encourage strategic maneuvering to achieve overwhelming influence, with outcomes determined by the extent of controlled areas or eliminated rival forces. Such games draw from both abstract strategy and thematic simulations of conflict or survival.^[67] Domination (also published as Focus), designed by Sid Sackson and first released in 1963, exemplifies abstract domination through piece stacking and alignment on a 6x6 grid. Players move stacks of up to four pawns, pushing opponents' pieces to form uninterrupted lines of five or more aligned pawns, which are then dominated and removed; the game ends when one player forms such lines across the board or forces the opponent into immobility. This mechanic prioritizes foresight in positioning to cascade captures and achieve total board control, with optimal play often revolving around central dominance to limit opponent mobility.^[68] Dominant Species, published in 2010 by GMT Games and designed by Chad Jensen, applies domination to a prehistoric theme where players represent animal classes adapting during an ice age via worker placement on hex tiles. Players select actions like speciation, migration, or domination to claim terrain types, using animal-specific cards and elemental events to contest control; dominance is quantified by cube placement on tiles, with scoring favoring species that secure majority influence amid shifting environmental pressures. The game's replayability stems from variable dominance cards that enable tactical overrides, such as stealing contested areas, fostering cutthroat competition for evolutionary supremacy.^[69]^[70] Classic conquest games like Risk, invented in 1957 by Albert Lamorisse and first published in France as La Conquête du Monde before U.S. release in 1959 by Parker Brothers, center on global territorial domination. Players deploy armies to attack adjacent territories, reinforced by continent holdings (e.g., Asia yields +2 armies), aiming to conquer all opponents and hold the world; dice-based combat resolves battles, with strategic fortification of chokepoints and temporary alliances enabling dominance. Success hinges on balancing aggression with defensive consolidation, as overextension risks elimination.^[71]^[72] Ancient games such as Go, originating in China over 2,500 years ago, embody territorial domination through stone placement on a grid to enclose empty areas (territory) and capture opponent stones by surrounding them. Black starts without compensation, and players alternate surrounding spaces; final scoring counts enclosed points minus captured stones, with advanced play emphasizing influence shapes to dominate potential opponent expansions without direct confrontation. This fosters long-term strategic depth, where subtle encroachments yield superior board control.^[73]

Video Games and Mechanics

In first-person shooter games, particularly the Call of Duty series, Domination serves as a core multiplayer objective-based mode emphasizing territorial control. Introduced in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 on November 10, 2009, the mode pits two teams against each other to capture and hold three fixed control points (typically labeled A, B, and C) scattered across the map.^[74] Capture occurs when a team member stands within the zone's radius for a set duration—often 5 to 10 seconds—without enemy interference, after which the point generates points (or "tickets") for the controlling team at a rate of one per second per held zone.^[75] The first team to accumulate a predetermined score limit, usually 200 points, secures victory, promoting constant movement, flanking, and defensive positioning to contest or recapture zones.^[74] Mechanics often include faster capture rates with multiple players on the point and vulnerabilities like enemy overpopulation slowing or reversing progress, which balances aggression with coordination in respawn-enabled matches lasting 10-15 minutes.^[75] In real-time and turn-based strategy games, domination mechanics revolve around resource accumulation, military expansion, and systematic conquest to eliminate opponents. The Civilization series, starting with its 1991 debut and refined in titles like Civilization VI (October 21, 2016), features Domination as a victory condition requiring the conquest of every rival civilization's original capital city through phased warfare.^[76] Players must prioritize early-game production of military units via technologies like Archery (unlocking ranged attackers) and later advancements such as Steel (for Swordsmen with +6 combat strength), while managing logistics like pillaging enemy improvements for yields and leveraging terrain bonuses—hills grant +3 defense, rivers impose crossing penalties.^[76] Success demands forward settling near targets for loyalty pressure (-10 to -13 per turn from proximity), sustained offensives with siege units to breach city defenses (requiring double movement to position), and reinforcements to counter garrisons, often extending campaigns across hundreds of turns on larger maps.^[77] Mobile and hybrid strategy titles like DomiNations, released April 2015 by Nexon M and Big Huge Games, integrate domination as the overarching goal of progressing civilizations from the Stone Age to the Information Age via base-building, troop training, and multiplayer raids.^[78] Mechanics emphasize resource management (food, gold, oil) for upgrading wonders and units—e.g., Greeks excel in early phalanx dominance with supply-line bonuses—while alliances enable cooperative world conquest events, where players coordinate attacks on shared maps to claim territories and defeat AI or human foes in real-time battles.^[79] Victory scales with age advancement, unlocking atomic bombs or space tech for endgame superiority, but requires balancing defense against barbarian incursions and player invasions that deplete stockpiles if undefended.^[78]

Music and Arts

Albums

Domination is the fourth studio album by the American death metal band Morbid Angel, released on May 9, 1995, by Giant Records.^[80] The album consists of 11 tracks characterized by aggressive riffing, blast beats, and themes of occultism and cosmic horror, marking a shift toward more groove-oriented elements compared to prior releases while retaining the band's technical brutality.^[81] Key tracks include "Where the Slime Live," which features chaotic solos and double-bass drumming, and "Eyes to See, Ears to Hear," noted for its mid-tempo groove and atmospheric interludes.^[81] Produced by the band with Flemming Rasmussen, it was the final Morbid Angel album with vocalist David Vincent until his 2017 return and achieved moderate commercial success, peaking at number 93 on the Billboard 200.^[80] In the power metal genre, German band Primal Fear issued their fifteenth studio album, Domination, on September 5, 2025, via Reigning Phoenix Music.^[82] Featuring 12 tracks with soaring vocals by Ralf Scheepers and themes of conquest and heroism, the album includes singles like "The Hunter" and "I Am The Primal Fear," emphasizing high-energy riffs and symphonic elements typical of the band's style.^[83] It incorporates new members on keyboards and guitar, contributing to a refreshed production that reviewers described as a return to the band's aggressive roots.^[84] Jazz saxophonist Cannonball Adderley released Domination in 1965 on Capitol Records, an orchestral album blending hard bop with big band arrangements conducted by Oliver Nelson. Recorded in sessions from October 1964 to January 1965, it showcases Adderley's alto saxophone on originals like "Domination" and covers such as "Shake a Lady," supported by a large ensemble including trumpeters and trombonists for a lush, dominant sound palette. The record highlights Adderley's post-Miles Davis era experimentation with arranged jazz, prioritizing ensemble power over small-group improvisation.

Songs and Performances

"Domination" is a song by the American heavy metal band Pantera, serving as the sixth track on their fifth studio album Cowboys from Hell, released on July 24, 1990, by Atco Records.^[85] The lyrics depict themes of aggressive control and power assertion, with lines such as "Agony is the price that you'll pay in the end / Domination consumes you then calls you a friend," set against a groove metal style characterized by down-tuned guitars and a prominent breakdown riff played in E standard tuning.^[86] This riff has been widely recognized in metal circles for its heaviness and influence on subsequent groove metal acts.^[87] Pantera frequently performed "Domination" live during their tours supporting Cowboys from Hell and subsequent albums, often dedicating it to audiences with high energy.^[88] Notable renditions include a 1991 appearance at the Monsters of Rock festival in Moscow, Russia, on September 28, 1991, where the band's intense delivery contributed to their growing international reputation amid the post-Soviet era's metal scene. An official live video of the song, captured during the band's peak touring years, showcases vocalist Phil Anselmo's raw screams and guitarist Dimebag Darrell's precise soloing, highlighting the track's role in Pantera's shift from glam metal to hardcore-influenced aggression.^[89] Other songs titled "Domination" include a 2018 track by the nu metal band Saliva from their album 10 Lives, released on October 19, 2018, featuring lyrics about primal dominance and survival instincts, produced by Steve Perreira.^[90] Similarly, the Japanese hard rock band BAND-MAID released "DOMINATION" as part of their 2018 album World Domination, blending heavy riffs with their maid-themed aesthetic in an official music video that emphasizes theatrical performance elements.^[91] These later tracks echo domination motifs but lack the foundational impact of Pantera's version in heavy music history.

Cultural Impact

The theme of domination in visual arts has historically served to legitimize political and social power structures, with rulers commissioning works that depicted conquest and authority to reinforce their legitimacy. For example, Jacques-Louis David's equestrian portraits of Napoleon Bonaparte, such as Napoleon Crossing the Alps completed between 1801 and 1805, portrayed the emperor in heroic poses inspired by classical antiquity, symbolizing imperial expansion and unchallenged rule over vast territories. Similarly, in sculpture, Benvenuto Cellini's bronze Perseus with the Head of Medusa (1545), erected in Florence's Loggia dei Lanzi, embodies triumphant domination over mythological chaos, commissioned by Cosimo I de' Medici to assert Medici family supremacy amid Renaissance Florence's political turbulence.^[92] These works contributed to cultural narratives equating domination with divine or heroic mandate, influencing European perceptions of governance as inherently hierarchical. In early 20th-century vanguard painting, motifs of virility and domination reflected artists' aspirations for creative autonomy, often framing artistic freedom as a form of subjugating traditional norms or societal constraints. Movements like Futurism and Expressionism incorporated aggressive, dynamic forms to evoke mastery and conquest, as seen in Umberto Boccioni's Unique Forms of Continuity in Space (1913), a striding figure symbolizing forward momentum and technological dominance.^[93] Such representations paralleled broader cultural shifts toward modernism, where domination motifs underscored the era's fascination with speed, violence, and national vigor, impacting public discourse on progress and power—though academic analyses frequently interpret them through lenses of critique, potentially overlooking their empirical roots in human competitive drives.^[94] Music has engaged domination themes less explicitly but through compositions evoking power dynamics and hierarchy, often drawing from philosophical or mythological sources. Richard Strauss's Also sprach Zarathustra (1896), inspired by Friedrich Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra, opens with a fanfare motif symbolizing the will to power and overcoming weakness, which permeated cultural consciousness via its use in Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), associating sonic grandeur with evolutionary and cosmic domination.^[95] In popular genres, heavy metal tracks like Pantera's "Domination" (1990) from the album Cowboys from Hell lyrically and musically assert aggressive control and rebellion against weakness, contributing to the subculture's emphasis on individual strength amid 1990s grunge and alternative dominance, with over 500,000 copies sold by 1992 reflecting its resonance in youth alienation.^[96] These elements highlight music's role in normalizing or challenging perceived dominations, though institutional critiques often prioritize resistance narratives over the motif's appeal to innate status-seeking behaviors.

References

[1]
Sociology 250 - Notes on Max Weber - University of Regina
Oct 7, 1999 · Weber defines domination "as the probability that certain specific commands (or all commands) will be obeyed by a given group of persons" (Weber ...
[2]
Max Weber's Analytical Framework of Power and Domination
Jan 14, 2023 · According to Weber, domination is a more stable and institutionalized form of power, often characterized by an organized system of rules and ...Weber's definition of power · Distinction between power and... · Class
[3]
SOCY 151 - Conceptual Foundations of Weber's Theory of Domination
That's what he calls Herrschaft. Domination is the probability that a command will be obeyed. Right? The difference--right?--between power--domination--this is ...
[4]
Max Weber: Types of Domination - 315 Words | Essay Example
Dec 24, 2022 · Max Weber defines three main types of domination or authority that include legal, charismatic, and traditional authority.
[5]
Domination - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Nov 8, 2018 · Domination is an unjust or morally illegitimate form of social power. Whatever domination turns out to be, it is morally serious. It is a ...Does Domination Require the... · What Kind of Power Is...
[6]
Domination - Etymology, Origin & Meaning
"Domination" originates from late 14th-century Old French and Latin, meaning "rule or control by superior power," derived from Latin dominari, "to rule," ...
[7]
domination, n. meanings, etymology and more
The earliest known use of the noun domination is in the Middle English period (1150—1500). OED's earliest evidence for domination is from around 1386, ...
[8]
Aristotle: Politics | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Aristotle believes that women and slaves (or at least those who are slaves by nature) can never benefit from the study of politics, and also should not be ...
[9]
Aristotle | Natural Law, Natural Rights, and American Constitutionalism
Aristotle did affirm the existence of a “law of nature,” but he was admired by and influenced the American Founders more for his related views on republican ...
[10]
Cicero: Political Philosophy - Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews
Jan 4, 2022 · Cicero believed a state must be free from domination, the state belongs to the people, and the best system is a mix of kingship, aristocracy, ...
[11]
The Roman Empire | The Pursuit of Dominance - Oxford Academic
Nov 17, 2022 · The first case examines the grand strategy of the Roman Empire. Its approach to dominance evolved over the years, largely in response to changing external ...
[12]
2 Liberty as Non‐Domination - Oxford Academic
One party dominates another just so far as they have the capacity to interfere on an arbitrary basis in some of the other's choices.
[13]
Freedom and Political Form: On Philip Pettit's Republican Theory of ...
Jan 17, 2019 · In his republican political philosophy, Philip Pettit advances two central arguments: first, freedom ought to be understood as non-domination ...
[14]
Freedom as non-domination (Chapter 1) - On the People's Terms
Critical notice of On the people's terms: a Republican theory and model of democracy, by Philip Pettit, Cambridge University Press, 2012, xii+333pp. Authors ...
[15]
A General Theory of Domination and Justice - Amazon.com
30-day returnsThis study aims to redress this lacuna. It argues first, that domination should be understood as a condition experienced by persons or groups.Missing: republicanism | Show results with:republicanism
[16]
Domination and democratic legislation - Sean Ingham, Frank Lovett ...
Jan 24, 2022 · Republicans hold that people are not free to the extent that they are subject to domination. People are dominated, on the republican view, if ...
[17]
Introduction | The Well-Ordered Republic | Oxford Academic
Freedom from domination, on the republican view, is institutionally-constituted, and because republican institutions depend on citizen support for their ...
[18]
Frankfurt School and Critical Theory
Both versions are critical in that they remain faithful to the objective of clearing false consciousness from ignorance and domination; but whereas Habermas ...
[19]
https://journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.2307/3235124
[20]
Critical Theory (Frankfurt School)
Dec 12, 2023 · Habermas increasingly came to the view that critical theory needed more robust social-theoretical and normative foundations, since, in his eyes, ...
[21]
Habermas and the Light of Reason: On Late Critical Theory
Aug 11, 2019 · Although Habermas came to criticize Adorno's solution, he acknowledged that Adorno, in comparison to Horkheimer, was more able to keep his ...
[22]
[PDF] Limits of Critical Theory, Critique and Emancipation in Habermas ...
The discussion on this article focuses on Habermas' critique of Horkheimer and Adorno's critical theory in his The. Philosophical Discourse of Modernity. In ...
[23]
Social dominance theory. - APA PsycNet
Social Justice Research, 9, 145-170. Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1993). The inevitability of oppression and the dynamics of social dominance.
[24]
Social Dominance - Cambridge University Press & Assessment
Sidanius, Jim Levin, Shana Liu, James and Pratto, Felicia 2000. Social dominance orientation, anti-egalitarianism and the political psychology of gender: an ...
[25]
Social dominance theory: A new synthesis. - APA PsycNet
This reprinted chapter originally appeared in (Social Dominance: An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression [J. Sidanius; R. Pratto], 1999.)
[26]
[PDF] Social Dominance Orientation: A Personality Variable Predicting ...
The 14-item SDO scale was balanced in that half the items indicated approval of inequality and half indicated approval of equality (see items in ...
[27]
[PDF] SDO7 Scale Instructions: Show how much you favor or oppose each ...
The SDO7 scale uses numbers 1-7 to show favor or oppose ideas. Con-trait items are reverse-scored before computing the mean.
[28]
(PDF) Social Dominance Orientation - ResearchGate
Social dominance orientation (SDO) is an individual's preference for group-based inequality and dominance versus equality and inclusion.<|separator|>
[29]
When Inequality Fails: Power, Group Dominance, and Societal ...
Dec 16, 2013 · We identify logical, empirical, and theoretical shortcomings in social dominance theory's account of stability and change, consider alternative ...
[30]
A critical examination and meta-analysis of the distinction between ...
Aug 18, 2022 · A critical examination and meta-analysis of the distinction between the dominance and antiegalitarianism facets of social dominance orientation.Missing: critiques | Show results with:critiques
[31]
A Comparison of Social Dominance Theory and System Justification
Mar 15, 2018 · This study tests specific competing hypotheses from social dominance theory/realistic conflict theory (RCT) versus system justification ...
[32]
The establishment and maintenance of dominance hierarchies
Jan 10, 2022 · Animal groups are often organized hierarchically, with dominant individuals gaining priority access to resources and reproduction over ...
[33]
Social dominance hierarchy: toward a genetic and evolutionary ...
Jun 10, 2020 · In social animals, the formation of dominance hierarchy is essential for maintaining the stability and efficacy of social groups. A study by ...
[34]
Pecking order: UC biologist explains 100 years of dominance ...
Jan 12, 2022 · “Dominance hierarchies in groups are incredibly common. But species form these systems in ways that might look similar but are managed quite ...Missing: review | Show results with:review
[35]
The establishment and maintenance of dominance hierarchies - PMC
Jan 10, 2022 · In this review, we describe the behaviours used to establish and maintain dominance hierarchies across different taxa and types of societies.
[36]
[PDF] Food Competition and Linear Dominance Hierarchy among Female ...
Dominance relationships in many primates fit to a linear hierarchy, ... Food Competition and Linear Dominance Hierarchy in Female Chimpanzees. 851.
[37]
Is the Alpha Wolf Idea a Myth? - Scientific American
Feb 28, 2023 · The idea that wolf packs are led by a merciless dictator, or alpha wolf, comes from old studies of captive wolves. In the wild, wolf packs are simply families.
[38]
Behavioral and neural correlates of social hierarchy formation in a ...
Jul 9, 2024 · We find that dominance hierarchies form rapidly and linearly based on size, with larger fish displaying more aggressive or dominant behaviors.
[39]
Understanding Social Hierarchies: The Neural and Psychological ...
In this review we explore the nature of social hierarchies and the traits associated with status in both humans and nonhuman primates.
[40]
Dominance in humans | Philosophical Transactions of the Royal ...
Jan 10, 2022 · Dominance captures behavioural patterns found in social hierarchies that arise from agonistic interactions in which some individuals coercively exploit their ...Theorizing dominance · Challenges to dominance in... · Dominance in humans...
[41]
Psychological foundations of human status allocation - PNAS
Aug 18, 2020 · Competing theories of status allocation posit divergent conceptual foundations upon which human status hierarchies are built.
[42]
[PDF] evolutionary foundations of hierarchy 1 - Mark van Vugt
Status is an individual's standing in a social hierarchy determining resource access. Hierarchies can be based on dominance or prestige, and are common in ...
[43]
The Dominance Behavioral System and Psychopathology
Extensive research suggests that externalizing disorders, mania-proneness, and narcissistic traits are related to heightened dominance motivation and behaviors.
[44]
Prestige and dominance-based hierarchies exist in naturally ...
May 1, 2019 · Prestige and dominance are thought to be two evolutionarily distinct routes to gaining status and influence in human social hierarchies.<|separator|>
[45]
Psychologist Jordan Peterson says lobsters help to explain why ...
Jan 24, 2018 · Peterson argues that, like humans, lobsters exist in hierarchies and have a nervous system attuned to status which “runs on serotonin”.
[46]
[PDF] Domination in Graphs - Digital Commons @ USF
May 19, 2010 · Oystein Ore [39] introduced the terms “dominating set” and “domination number” in his book on graph theory which was published in 1962. The ...
[47]
[PDF] c-Dominating Sets for Families of Graphs
We define a dominating set of a graph G to be a set of vertices of G such that every vertex of G is either in the set or adjacent to a vertex in the set. The ...
[48]
[PDF] Graphs with the concept in the field of dominance
The rigorous study of domi- nating sets in graph theory began around 1960, even though the subject has historical roots dating back to 1862 when de. Jaenisch ...<|separator|>
[49]
[PDF] On Strong Domination Number of Graphs
The theory of independent domination was formalized by Berge (1962) and Ore (1962).
[50]
Proof that Dominant Set of a Graph is NP-Complete - GeeksforGeeks
Jul 15, 2025 · A dominating set is a subset where non-members are adjacent to a member. The problem is NP-complete because it's NP-hard, proven by reducing ...
[51]
Biomolecular and quantum algorithms for the dominating set ...
Mar 14, 2023 · The dominating-set problem is to find a minimum-size dominating set in G. It is is a NP-complete problem. Figure 1 shows a graph with V = { v 1 ...
[52]
Exact and heuristic algorithms for the domination problem
Mar 16, 2024 · Neither exact nor approximation algorithm existed for the problem known to be N P -hard. We show that it remains N P -hard for restricted types ...
[53]
A 2-Approximation Algorithm for Dominating Sets - TechRxiv
Mar 28, 2025 · In this paper, we introduce an efficient polynomial-time algorithm for computing an approximate Dominating Set in undirected graphs.
[54]
[PDF] Domination in Graph and Some of its applications in various fields
The dominating sets in graphs are natural models for facility location problems in operational research. Facility location problems are concerned with the ...
[55]
[PDF] Applications of Distance - 2 Dominating Sets of Graph in Networks
A set D⊆ Vof vertices in a graph G = (V,E) is called a dominating set if every vertex v𝜀V is either an element of D or it is adjacent to an element of D. The ...
[56]
[PDF] EXPLORING THE IMPACT OF DOMINATION IN GRAPH ...
REAL-WORLD APPLICATIONS: Domination theory was successfully applied in diverse areas, including network security, sensor placement, disease control, traffic ...<|separator|>
[57]
Domination Number -- from Wolfram MathWorld
The (lower) domination number gamma(G) of a graph G is the minimum size of a dominating set of vertices in G, i.e., the size of a minimum dominating set.
[58]
[PDF] Independent Domination in Graphs: A Survey and Recent Results
A dominating set of a graph G is a set S of vertices of G such that every vertex not in S is adjacent to a vertex in S. The domination number of G, denoted by γ ...
[59]
A survey of selected recent results on total domination in graphs
A set S of vertices in a graph G is a total dominating set of G if every vertex of G is adjacent to some vertex in S . In this paper, we offer a survey of ...
[60]
ON DOMINATION RELATED CONCEPTS IN GRAPH THEORY ...
In graph theory, a dominating set (D) means every vertex not in D is adjacent to at least one vertex in D. An independent set (D) means no two vertices in D ...
[61]
Geometric dominating set: NP-complete? - MathOverflow
Jan 31, 2015 · The traditional dominating set problem has been known to be NP-complete since at least Garey & Johnson's 1979 book.<|separator|>
[62]
[PDF] Exactly Solving Minimum Dominating Set and Its Generalization
The Minimum Dominating Set Problem (MDSP) seeks the smallest subset of vertices where every other vertex is adjacent to at least one in the subset.
[63]
[PDF] Minimum Dominating Set: Empirical Comparisons of Graph ...
Backtracking algorithm of Fomin et al. • Two reduction rules: • Closed-neighborhood subset rule. • Unique neighbor rule. • Vertex selection.
[64]
[PDF] A Simple Algorithm for Dominating Set
A dominating set is a subset where every vertex is in the set or has a neighbor in it. A simple algorithm uses a status (white, blue, red) for each vertex.
[65]
An iterated greedy algorithm for finding the minimum dominating set ...
The problem of finding the minimum dominating set is a combinatorial optimization problem that has been proved to be NP -hard. Given the difficulty of this ...
[66]
[PDF] Chapter 7: Dominating Set - Algorithms and Complexity (Freiburg)
An optimal dominating set consists of all nodes on the center axis. The distributed greedy algorithm computes an optimal dominating set, however, the nodes are ...
[67]
The Giant List of Tabletop Game Mechanics and Terms
There are a ton of different board game mechanics. This list provides definitions for many of the most popular tabletop mechanics you will find in a wide ...
[68]
Domination AKA Focus Board Game Review and Rules
Sep 2, 2019 · A look at the 1963 abstract strategy game Domination which includes a review and the instructions for how to play the game.
[69]
Dominant Species | Board Game - BoardGameGeek
In stock Rating 3.9 (22,114) Dominant Species (2010). With an ice age approaching, which animals will best propagate, migrate, and adapt? 22K Rating ...The Card Game · Beginning of the next ice age. · Marine · Chad Jensen
[70]
Dominant Species Release Information for Board / Card - GameFAQs
Dominant Species is a Miscellaneous game, developed by Chad Jensen and published by GMT Games, which was released in 2010.
[71]
The history of the board game Risk - UltraBoardGames
The board game Risk was invented in the early 1950's by Albert Lamorisse, a famous director of movies. His movie "The Red Balloon" won awards at a the Cannes ...
[72]
The Risk Paid Off: Bringing War to Board Games - The History Reader
Risk, originally "La Conquête du Monde," was created by Albert Lamorisse, improved by Jean-René Vernes, and then launched by Parker Brothers as "Risk" in 1959.
[73]
https://www.siammandalay.com/2021/05/11/how-to-play-go-board-game-instructions-rules-and-strategies/
[74]
Analysis: Conquest vs. Domination - Game Developer
Mar 18, 2010 · Domination involves the same maps used in MW2's Team Deathmatch modes, but the conditions for victory are that teams gain points for the amount ...
[75]
Guides - Modern Warfare III Mode — Domination - Call of Duty
Set and forget: Domination is a perfect Multiplayer mode to utilize Claymores, Scatter Mines, and Tear Gas. Whether they eliminate enemies or not, you will at ...
[76]
Civ 7 Domination Victory Guide and How to Win | Civilization VII
Feb 17, 2025 · A Domination Victory is where you conquer every Settlement and eliminate all rival Civilizations in the game. It's similar to a Military Victory ...
[77]
Need some starter tips for domination victory - Steam Community
Feb 6, 2025 · Taking cities even far inland works well with a good mix of ranged, melee and siege units. Once promoted and upgraded you can have powerful ...
[78]
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.nexonm.dominations.adk
[79]
Dominations - Big Huge Games
DomiNations is an epic combat strategy game of advancement, exploration, and conquest from a group of industry veterans.
[80]
Domination - Morbid Angel | Album - AllMusic
Rating 7/10 (250) Discography Timeline ; Altars of Madness (1989) ; Blessed Are the Sick (1991) ; Abominations of Desolation (1991) ; Covenant (1993) ; Domination (1995).
[81]
Morbid Angel - Domination - Encyclopaedia Metallum
Morbid Angel ; 1. Dominate, 02:40 ; (loading lyrics...) ; 2. Where the Slime Live, 05:27 ; (loading lyrics...) ; 3. Eyes to See, Ears to Hear, 03:52 ...
[82]
Primal Fear - Domination Review - Angry Metal Guy
Sep 3, 2025 · A review of Domination by Primal Fear, available worldwide September 5th via Reigning Phoenix Music.
[83]
Primal Fear - Domination - Ever Metal
Sep 12, 2025 · Primal Fear – Domination Reigning Phoenix Music Release Date: 05/09/2025. Review by Victor Augusto 9/10 · TRACKLISTING: 01. The Hunter 02.
[84]
PRIMAL FEAR – Domination - Kronos Mortus News
Oct 17, 2025 · Release Date: September 05, 2025. Label: Reigning Phoenix Music. Domination, Primal Fear's 15th studio album, reads less like a mere new entry ...
[85]
Domination - YouTube
May 19, 2017 · Provided to YouTube by Rhino Domination · Pantera Cowboys from Hell ℗ 1990 Atlantic Recording Corporation for the United States and WEA ...Missing: albums | Show results with:albums
[86]
Pantera – Domination Lyrics - Genius
The song Domination, track 6 on the album Cowboys from Hell, its breakdown has been called the heaviest breakdown played in E-Standard tuning. It is a song ...
[87]
The 5 Pantera Breakdowns That Will F--k You Up the Most - Loudwire
May 17, 2022 · "Domination". It's just an absolute classic! Everyone knows this song whether you like Pantera or not! Especially the breakdown! Featured ...
[88]
Pantera - Domination (Live at Italy 1992) | Moshpitv - Facebook
Apr 18, 2025 · Pantera - Domination (Live at Italy 1992) ... This next song goes out to them that has that fucking energy. And this one called Domination.
[89]
Pantera - Domination (Official Live Video) - YouTube
Oct 29, 2009 · Official live video of Pantera performing "Domination". Original song from 'Cowboys from Hell' (1990) Watch all of Pantera's official ...Missing: titled | Show results with:titled
[90]
‎Domination - Song by Saliva - Apple Music
Domination ; Performing Artists. Saliva. Performer ; Composition & Lyrics. Bobby Amaru. Songwriter. Wayne Swinny. Songwriter. B. DALY. Songwriter ; Production & ...
[91]
BAND-MAID / DOMINATION (Official Music Video) - YouTube
Feb 7, 2018 · Welcome home,masters & princesses” BAND-MAID is an impossibly hard rocking maid band. "DOMINATION" music video from "WORLD DOMINATION" The ...
[92]
Mannerism Movement Overview | TheArtStory
Jul 23, 2018 · The overall effect is one of powerful domination and emotional ferocity conveyed eloquently through Perseus's facial expression. Cosimo I ...
[93]
Virility and Domination in Early 20th Century Vanguard Painting
According to their paintings, the liberation of the artist means the domination of others; his freedom requires their unfreedom. Far from contesting the ...Missing: motif sculpture
[94]
Max Klinger's Brahmsphantasie: The Physiological Sublime ...
... domination, and destruction. This, of course, is the theme of the Schicksalslied and the fate of Prometheus and the Titans, who fight and die in Titans (fig.Missing: motif | Show results with:motif
[95]
Goodman's aesthetics - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
May 7, 2005 · Naturally, music and painting (and with the latter, of course, sculpture) ... domination of certain specific characteristics of symbols” (Goodman ...
[96]
Western Domination in Music: The Realities of Cultural ...
This paper explores the unfortunate reality of cultural appropriation and Western domination in modern popular music.