Dominance vs. Domineering

I have often struggled trying to find the words to properly explain to men the difference between dominance and domineering.

In his fascinating book about spiritual enlightenment called “Power vs. Force”, Dr. David Hawkins defined the difference between power and force. I immediately recognized the words as a perfect way to communicate the difference between dominance and domineering.

By taking his description on page 136 of his revised edition, and changing the word Power to Dominance, and the word Force to Domineering, we have a perfect description for the difference between dominance and domineering.

On examination, we’ll see that dominance arises from meaning, it has to do with motive, it has to do with principal. Dominance is always associated with that which supports the significance of life itself. It appeals to that part of human nature that we call Noble, in contrast to domineering, which appeals to that which we call crass. Dominance appeals to what uplifts, dignifies, and ennobles. Domineering must always be justified, whereas dominance requires no justification. Domineering is associated with the partial, Dominance with the whole.

If we analyze the nature of domineering, it becomes readily apparent why it must always succumb to dominance, this is in accordance with one of the basic laws of physics. Because domineering automatically creates counter-domineering, its effect is limited by definition. We could say that domineering is a movement; it goes from here to there (or tries to) against opposition. Dominance on the other hand, is still. It’s like a standing field that doesn’t move. Gravity itself, for instance, doesn’t move against anything. Its dominance moves all objects within its field, but the gravity field itself does not move.

Domineering always moves against something, whereas dominance doesn’t move against anything at all. Domineering is incomplete and therefore has to be fed energy constantly. Dominance is total and complete in itself and requires nothing from outside. It makes no demands; it has no needs. Because domineering has an insatiable appetite, it constantly consumes. Dominance, in contrast, energizes, gives forth, supplies, and supports. Dominance gives life and energy, domineering takes these away. We noticed that dominance is associated with compassion and makes us feel positively about ourselves. Domineering is associated with judgment and makes us feel poorly about ourselves.

Domineering always creates counter-domineering, its effect is to polarize rather than unify. Polarization always implies conflict, its cost, therefore, is always high. Because domineering insights polarization, it inevitably produces a win/lose dichotomy; and because somebody always loses, enemies are created. Constantly faced with enemies, domineering requires constant defense. Defensiveness is invariably costly.

In looking for the source of dominance, we’ve noted that it’s associated with meaning, and this meaning has to do with the significance of life itself. Domineering is concrete, literal, and arguable. It requires proof and support. The sources of dominance, however, are inarguable and aren’t subject to proof. The self-evident isn’t arguable. That health is more important than disease, that life is more important than death, that honor is preferable to dishonor, that faith and trust are preferable to doubt and cynicism, that the constructive is preferable to the destructive – all are self-evident statements not subject proof. Ultimately, the only thing we can say about the source of dominance is that it just “is”.

Give women incredible pleasure,

David Shade