Until recently, many theorists defined domination such that it requires unequal power, and most others held that even if domination were not defined as requiring unequal power, a requirement of unequal power would nevertheless follow from the definition of what domination is. On these views, unless there is an imbalance of power between the two parties, there can be no relation of domination. However, two prominent theorists have recently broken from this consensus, on the grounds that people can depend on one another's arbitrary or uncontrolled wills even in contexts where there is no inequality of power. In this paper, I argue that this is a mistake: domination theorists have a powerful reason to hold that domination cannot take place without a power imbalance. Consequently, we should only accept definitions of the concept on which domination requires unequal power.

中文翻译：

---

统治需要不平等的权力吗？


直到最近，许多理论家将统治定义为需要不平等的权力，而大多数其他理论家认为，即使统治没有被定义为需要不平等的权力，对不平等权力的要求仍然会从统治的定义中产生。根据这些观点，除非两党之间存在权力不平衡，否则就不可能有支配关系。然而，两位著名的理论家最近打破了这一共识，理由是即使在没有权力不平等的情况下，人们也可以依赖彼此的任意或不受控制的意志。在本文中，我认为这是一个错误：统治理论家有充分的理由认为，如果没有权力不平衡，统治就不可能发生。因此，我们应该只接受统治需要不平等权力的概念定义。