Status

Because status is of existential importance (benefits for chimps and humans include better food, better mating opportunities and safer sleeping sites) and because everyone’s status is always in flux, it’s a near-constant obsession. This status flux is the very flesh of human drama: it creates running narratives of loyalty and betrayal; ambition and despair; loves won and lost; schemes and intrigues; intimidation, assassination and war.

Chimpanzee politics, like human politics, runs on plots and alliances. Unlike so many other animals, chimpanzees don’t only fight and bite their way to the top, they also have to be coalitional. When they reach the heights, they need to adopt a policy of sensitive politicking. Lashing out at those beneath them risks triggering revolt and revolution. The tendency of chimps to rally for the underdog creates an inherent unstable hierarchy in which the power at the top is shakier than in any monkey group. When troop leaders are toppled from their throne, it’s usually because of a gang of low-status males has conspired against them.

Shakespeare understood that there’s nothing more likely to make a person mad, desperate and dangerous than the removal of their status. The play is a tragedy, a form that frequently shows how hubris — which can be viewed as the making of an unsound claim to status — can bring personal destruction.

He’s reduced to the position of beggar, this embodiment of the corrupt leader whose mistake was to forget that status, in human groups, should be earned.

Psychologists define humiliation as the removal of any ability to claim status. Severe humiliation has been described as “an annihilation of the self.” It’s thought to be a uniquely toxic state and is implicated in some of the worst behaviors the human animal engages in, from serial murder to honor killing to genocide. In story, an experience of humiliation is often the origin of the antagonist’s dark behavior.

Feudal societies operate by traditional, reciprocal, largely personal obligations. The modern state seeks predictability through legal or bureaucratic norms. A feudal state stresses status; a modern state emphasizes achievement. Yamani represented a meritocracy whose influence would grow as fast as the oil income he was generating. Economic and social development challenges the traditional modes and sources of power; modernization trains thousands in foreign countries, inculcating values not easy to reconcile with those of an inward-looking, authoritarian state based on Bedouin loyalties. One Yamani was an invaluable asset. But what would happen when there are ten thousand? How would new status for such group be reconciled with the claims of a hereditary ruling class? How would past and future successfully meld?

Now it is true that the needs of human beings may seem to be insatiable. But they fall into 2 classes — those needs which are absolute in the sense that we feel them whatever the situation of our fellow human beings may be, and those which are relative in the sense that we feel them only if their satisfaction lifts us above, makes us feel superior to, our fellows.

Những người thích cải cách không ai khác hơn là những người có địa vị thấp trong phiên trấn hoặc có địa vị cao nhưng bất mãn vì không làm được những điều mình muốn, hoặc là những thư sinh nghèo không tài sản, không địa vị, tham gia cải cách nếu không được lợi thì cũng chẳng có gì để mất.

The consequences of high status are pleasant. They include resources, freedom, space, comfort, time and, as importantly perhaps, a sense of being cared for and thought valuable — conveyed through invitations, flattery, laughter (even when the joke lacked bite), deference and attention.

High status is thought by many (but freely admitted by few) to be one of the finest of earthly goods.

More regrettably still, status is hard to achieve and even harder to maintain over a lifetime. Except in societies where it is fixed at birth and our veins flow with noble blood, our position hangs on what we can achieve; and we may fail due to stupidity or an absence of self knowledge, macro-economics or malevolence.

And from failure will flow humiliation: a corroding awareness that we have been unable to convince the world of our value and are henceforth condemned to consider the successful with bitterness and ourselves with shame.

To be observed, to be attended to, to be taken notice of with sympathy, complacency, and approbation, are all the advantages which we can propose to derive from it. The rich man glories in his riches because he feels that they naturally draw upon him the attention of the world. The poor man on the other hand is ashamed of his poverty. He feels that it places him out of the sight of mankind. To feel what we are taken no notice of necessarily disappoints the most ardent desires of human nature. The poor man goes out and comes in unheeded, and when in the midst of a crowd is in the same obscurity as if shut up in his own hovel. The man of rank and distinction, on the contrary, is observed by all the world. Everybody is eager to look at him. His actions are the objects of public care. Scarce a word, scarce a gesture that fall from him will be neglected.

While there will inevitably be economic ramification, the impact of low status should not be read in material terms alone. The gravest penalty rarely lies — above subsistence levels, at least — in mere physical discomfort; it consists more often, even primarily, in the challenge that low status poses to a person’s sense of self-respect. Provided that it is not accompanied by humiliation, discomfort can be endured for long periods without complaint. For proof of this, we have only to look to the example of the many soldiers and explorers who have, over the centuries, willingly tolerated privations far exceeding those suffered by the poorest members of their societies, so long as they were sustained throughout their hardships by an awareness of the esteem in which they were held by others.

Blessed with riches an possibilities far beyond anything imagined by ancestors who tilled the unpredictable soil of medieval Europe, modern populations have nonetheless shown a remarkable capacity to feel that neither who they are nor what they have is quite enough.

If they’re dying to know us, they’re not worth knowing. The only People worth Our knowing are the people who don’t want to know us!

A mature solution to status anxiety may be said to begin with the recognition that status is available from, and awarded by, a variety of different audiences, and that our choice among them may be free and willed.

However unpleasant anxieties over status may be, it is difficult to imagine a good life entirely free of them, for the fear of failing and disgracing oneself in the eyes of others is an inevitable consequence of harboring ambitions, of favoring one set of outcomes over another and of having regard for individuals besides oneself. Status anxiety is the price we pay for acknowledging that there is a public distinction between a successful and an unsuccessful life.

A great deal of money was required to cultivate taste, to purchase expensive objects, and to outdo the neighbors.

The need to appear different from others, was not just achieved through the purchase and use of luxurious and expensive objects. It was also performed through the conspicuous expenditure of time in what we might call useless activities. Instead of working and earning money, those who can afford it simply spend money in activities that are financially unrewarding, such as playing golf, going to parties, driving around in luxury cars, and enjoying long holidays in exotic locations.

Homo sapiens is not just built for satisfaction. Human happiness depends less on objective conditions and more on our own expectations. Expectations, however, tend to adapt to conditions, including to the condition of other people.

Getting ahead means gaining status, the craving for which is a human universal. Humans naturally pursue status with ferocity: we all relentlessly, if unconsciously, try to raise our own standing by impressing peers, and naturally if unconsciously, evaluate others in terms of their standing. And we need it. People’s subjective well-being, self-esteem, and mental and physical health appear to depend on the level of status they are accorded by others. In order to manage their status, people engage in a wide range of goal-directed activities. Underneath the noblest plots and pursuits of our lives, in other words, lies our unquenchable thirst for status.

A common feature of our hero-making cognition seems to be that we all tend to feel like this — relatively low in status and yet actually, perhaps secretly, possessing the skills and character of someone deserving of a great deal more. I suspect this is why we so easily identify with underdog heroes at the start of the story — and then cheer when they finally seize their just reward. Because they’re us.

If this is true, it would also explain the odd that, no matter what our level of actual privilege, everyone seems to feel unfairly lacking in status.

When people in brain scanners read of another’s wealth, popularity, good looks and qualifications, regions involved in the perception of pain became activated. When they read about them suffering a misfortune, they enjoyed a pleasurable spike in their brain’s reward systems.

Because one of our deepest and most powerful urges is the gaining of ever more status, our tribal stories tell us how to earn it. A human tribe can be viewed as a status game that all its members are playing, its rules being recorded in its stories.

Because different tribes live by different models of control — communists and capitalists, to take a broad example, award their prizes of status and connection for very different behaviors — a tribal challenge is existentially disturbing. It’s not merely a threat to our surface beliefs about this and that, but to the very subconscious structures by which we experience reality.

It’s also a threat to the status game to which we’ve invested the efforts of our lives. To our subconscious, if another tribe is allowed to win, their victory won’t merely pull us down the hierarchy but will destroy the hierarchy completely. Our loss in status will be complete and irreversible. The removal of the ability to claim status meets the psychologist’s definition of humiliation, that “annihilation of self.” When a group’s collective status feels threatened and they fear even the possibility of humiliation by another group, the result can be massacre, crusade and genocide.

Social status refers to an individual’s position or standing within a social hierarchy or group. It is often based on various factors such as wealth, occupation, education, achievements, reputation, and influence. However, the importance and interpretation of social status can vary across cultures and societies.

Here are a few key points to consider regarding social status:

Social status is not fixed: Social status can be fluid and change over time. It is not solely determined by factors such as birth or background but can evolve through personal achievements, career advancements, and social interactions.
Different types of social status: Social status can be categorized into different types, such as economic status (wealth, income), occupational status (job title, profession), educational status (level of education, qualifications), and social recognition (reputation, influence, popularity).
Impact on social interactions: Social status can influence how people perceive and interact with each other. It can affect the dynamics of relationships, access to resources and opportunities, and the way individuals are treated within a community or social group.
Subjective nature: Social status is often subjective and can vary depending on cultural, societal, and individual perspectives. What may be considered high social status in one context might not hold the same significance in another.
Importance of personal qualities: While social status can be influenced by external factors, personal qualities such as character, integrity, kindness, and empathy also play a crucial role in how individuals are perceived and respected by others.
Value of authentic connections: It is essential to recognize that true friendships and relationships are not solely based on social status. Meaningful connections are built on shared values, mutual respect, trust, and genuine emotional connections.

It’s important to remember that social status does not define a person’s worth or character. Focusing on personal growth, pursuing meaningful relationships, and contributing positively to society can be more fulfilling than striving for a specific social status. Ultimately, how you choose to define and prioritize social status is a personal decision.

This is the art of luxury: you’re trying to show wealth without flaunting. Show wealth without being obvious about it.

Many people will criticize somebody for carrying a Chanel bag, but that sounds less likely to me than the club bottles. The bag is still visible, but it’s much less in your face, more inconspicuous. Why? What’s the difference between a luxury bag and a nightclub bottle?

The owner of the bag has the plausible deniability that they bought it because it’s high quality: “Look at the craftsmanship. How carefully it was designed. How masterfully executed.”

Luxury items are not bought for their functional properties.
They are bought primarily as a way to show off the money spent on them.
But that money must be spent without flaunting.
That’s the function of plausible deniability: excuses that can pass for valid reasons for the purchase, so that it doesn’t feel like flaunting.

Our educational system both drives and reflects our obsession with competition. Grades themselves allow precise measurement of each student’s competitiveness; pupils with the highest marks receive status and credentials. We teach every young person the same subjects in mostly the same ways, irrespective of individual talents and preferences.

By the way, I am totally convinced that the US system of motivating employees is far more realistic, and produces better results, than the European model. In Finland if a worker is much better than his colleagues, you give him just a little more money and keep it very quiet. In America, you give him a lot more money — and it works.

But Skilling was referring to the remarkable subset of American society known as the insecure overachiever. “Why do people work there? They recruit from the pinnacle of education system — Harvard, Berkeley, Yale Law. The people at these schools are driven by desire for status and fear of failing. You have spent you life trying to get into the best schools and being the best at everything you do. When you graduate, you reach that terrifying point in you life when the next thing you do is not obvious, when there are a lot more choices than before. McKinsey makes it very easy for people whose primary goal is to keep their options open. A lot of people in this situation don’t know what they want to do with their lives.” It doesn’t end there. In a true “profession,” one’s legitimacy rests on an actual body of knowledge. In consulting, it’s mere insecurity mixed with arrogance.

Immediately below such cliques are the hustlers, largely of new upper-class status, who carry out the decisions and programs of the top — sometimes anticipating them and always trying to do so. Here are the “operations” men — the VPs of the banks, successful small businessmen, the ranking public officials, contractors, and executives of local industries. This number two level shades off into the third string men — the heads of civic agencies, organization officials, the pettier civic leaders, newspapers men, and, finally, into the fourth order of the power hierarchy — the rank and file of the professional and business strata, the ministers, the leading teachers, social workers, personnel directors.

Your ancestors’ social status within their families and tribes was crucial to their survival.

In order to protect your social status, your monkey mind is always watching and listening to those around you, looking for signals telling whether you are respected, whether you are loved, and whether you belong.

These two ever-present possibilities — death, and losing social status or being kicked out of the tribe — are universal, what I call primordial threats.

The nice thing about being a celebrity is that if you bore people they think it’s their fault.

You won’t read about status in most business and career books. It is a topic often dodged in favor of bromides like “Treat people with respect” or “Be considerate of the other person’s time.” Good advice, but not the whole story. The business world is rife with power jostling, gamesmanship, and status signaling, like it or not. It’s especially important to understand these dynamics when you work with people more powerful than you.

He had assumed that what mattered was doing a great job and showing everyone how talented he was. While doing a great job was certainly necessary, he concluded it was not enough. What he failed to recognize was how his personal talents might make his boss look diminished in the eyes of others. He failed to navigate the status dynamics around him; failed to account for the insecurities, status anxieties, and egos of everyone else. He failed to build relationships with the people above him and below him on the totem pole. And ultimately, he paid the price with his job.

You can buy large-sum price tags to attach to your low-sum clothes, and there is even a secondary market in fake receipts. The products are one thing, but the status that goes along with them is much more important.

Coveted by many as the ultimate status symbol, the card is limited in the number of people who have it, shrouded in secrecy about exactly what the benefits are, and comes with loads of perks that make even the wealthiest Amex customers feel special.

Social status is the level of social value person is considered to hold. More specifically, it refers to the relative level of respect, honor, assumed competence, and deference accorded to people, groups, and organization in a society. Status is based in widely shared beliefs about who members of a society think holds comparatively more or less social value, in other words, who they believe is better in terms of competence or moral traits.

Such symbols can include the possession of valued attributes, like being conventionally beautiful or having a prestigious degree. Other status symbols include wealth and its display through conspicuous consumption. Status in face-to-face interaction can also be conveyed through certain controllable behaviors, such as assertive speech, posture, and emotional displays.

Because status is always relative to others, that means a person can enter many situations throughout their life or even a single day in which they hold high, equal, or low status depending on who is around them.

Status helps maintain social inequality. Because status is based on beliefs about social worth and esteem, sociologists argue it can then appear only natural that higher-status people have more material resources and power. Status makes it appear that a person’s rank or position in society is due to their relative merit, and therefore deserved.

In birds, dominant individuals preferentially select higher perches to put themselves in the best position to detect and avoid predators, as well as to display their dominance to other members of their own species.

Age, intelligence, experience, and physical fitness can influence whether or not an individual deems it worthwhile to purse a higher ranking in the hierarchy, which often comes at the expense of conflict.

Human victims typically experience symptoms like low self-esteem (due to low regard by the group), feelings of depression (due to unworthiness of efforts), social withdrawal (reduced investments in the social environment), anxiety (due to a threatening environment), and they can also be shown to experience a plethora of physiological effects.