Thanks for your useful comments. However, I think that the static distinction between "dominant" and "dominated" classes obscures a more complex reality. In fact a group dominated by another group may nonetheless dominate still other groups. Patriarchy is a case in point. For example, Heidi Hartmann argues (I do not have the quote handy) that the ascent of capitalism in England subjected hitherto independent (relatively) household-based producers to the dictates of capital owners, but simultaneously furthered subjugation of women to the patriarchal rule of the male head of household. Thus, while the small time producers found themselves dominated by the nascent capitalist class, they also dominated other groups or classes. Similar kind of relationship can still be found in sweatshops - two-bit capitalists who run these sweatshop are clearly dominated by corporate capitalists class, but also becomes purveyors of of oppression toward other groups, such immigrants or women. Theda Skockpol argues that the universal male suffrage in the 19th century US (as oppsed to Europe, where suffrage was tied to social class) bonded men of different social standings but at the same excluded women of all classes from the political process, thus blurring class distinction and diluting class-based politics in this country. A parasitic class of ghetto shop and check cashing joints, drug dealers and religious figures emerged in- and preys on- Black communities of this country. Blue collar workers are often tyrannical patriarchs or racists in their private lives - and so on.
Surely enough, these multi-layered relations of domination in society create substantial conflusion and frustration which, if channeled in the "wrong" direction, may undermine the power structure. Therefore, disciplinarian populism is a useful (for the ruling class) device to direct that frustration to "safe" targets and at the same time bond the majority to the elite. European anti-semitism served precisely that function - it directed popular frustration away from the ruling elite through the spectacle of ritual punishing social outcasts.
However, what is often missed the interpretations of European antisemitism is that it usually deepened and legitimated rifts within the "mainstream" society. For example, Claudia Koontz (_Mothers in the Fatherland_) argues that nazim was primarily a reaction against the dissolution of traditional norms and social instituiona in Weimar Germany, which saw not only liberalization of sexual norms but also entering women to the traditional male occupations and positions of power. The nazi movement was exceptionally mysogynistic and insisting on getting women back to the kitchens and bedrooms. However, the disciplinarian populist spectacle of Jew- and Bolshevik- bashing "bonded" ordinary Germans of both sexes and struggling social classes, but that bonding cognitively "flattened" and legitimized hierarchies of domination withn the "mainstream" German society.
The outcast bashing in the "good old US of A" serves exactly the same purpose. The hip hop culture is a good case in point: the women- and gay- bashing bonds Black and White males and cognitively difuses the sharp contradictions bewteen racist Whites and Blacks, parasitic drug dealers and "gangstas" and their victims. Similar roles are performed by gay- and liberal- bashing by fundamentialist christian and right wing groups.
To summarize, my main point is that there no absolute distinction between dominant and dominated classes. Instead, a group that is dominated in one situation can be dominant in another situation. That often produces conflicts and frustrations that can undermine power structure in society (which is quite complex and full of grey shades!). Disciplinarian populism is one way to difuse those conflicts and frustration by ritualistic punishment of outcasts that bonds members of conflicting groups together and cognitively neutralizes rifts and inequalities among them.
Wojtek