4 ms·

The writer is referring to perception, not status. Ultimately our modern society doesn't actually offer what has been traditionally called status. While percept

by boh 5y ago

The writer is referring to perception, not status. Ultimately our modern society doesn't actually offer what has been traditionally called status. While perception is determined by consumer choices, performance, charisma or social competence, it is ultimately shallow, fickle, and limited. Status is far more durable. If you were the king of England in the pre-industrial age, it didn't matter if you were a failure, unattractive, unlikable, weak, unintelligent, accomplished nothing, you were still the king of England. In todays modern world, high "status" positions, whether you're the CEO of a company or a celebrity for instance, are temporary roles that require persistent effort to maintain. Once those roles are lost through retirement, expulsion, or irrelevance, the person loses whatever status it conferred. In the past, being a duke or count was a permanent status that remained regardless of your fortunes. There is no modern equivalent (at least in America where aristocratic titles are irrelevant). Ultimately we may be living in a world of unequal distribution of wealth, but we live in a world of equal status, since no one really has any.

alecbz 5y ago
I think I’d phrase it as “status used to be more stable”. I don’t see why we wouldn’t call social positions that are perceived to be desirable as “high-status” just because they can change. All social status is based on social perception, regardless of how stable it is. And I think it’s not as cut and dry as you’re making it sound. Dukes and lords (and probably even kings sometimes) could still lose status by, e.g., losing battles or territory, or not navigating the royal social hierarchy well. And having been a CEO continues to confer some amount of status even after you’ve left the position.
erikerikson 5y ago
I think you're distinguishing between held and assigned status leaning into a "realpolitik" of status. You're wrong about there being no modern equivalent. Today we talk about the owner class. Those who own income streams which is equivalent to having the "right" to continuous tax incomes. I would caution that wealth is only a single system to having your needs and desires met farmers can sustain themselves and others, academics actually develop superior knowledge which has transferable value (but less than academia will tell you), and so on.

by boh 5y ago

alecbz 5y ago

I think I’d phrase it as “status used to be more stable”. I don’t see why we wouldn’t call social positions that are perceived to be desirable as “high-status” just because they can change. All social status is based on social perception, regardless of how stable it is. And I think it’s not as cut and dry as you’re making it sound. Dukes and lords (and probably even kings sometimes) could still lose status by, e.g., losing battles or territory, or not navigating the royal social hierarchy well. And having been a CEO continues to confer some amount of status even after you’ve left the position.

erikerikson 5y ago

I think you're distinguishing between held and assigned status leaning into a "realpolitik" of status. You're wrong about there being no modern equivalent. Today we talk about the owner class. Those who own income streams which is equivalent to having the "right" to continuous tax incomes. I would caution that wealth is only a single system to having your needs and desires met farmers can sustain themselves and others, academics actually develop superior knowledge which has transferable value (but less than academia will tell you), and so on.