Social status

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this
article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be
challenged and removed.
Find sources: "Social status" � news � newspapers � books � scholar � JSTOR (July
2012) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Sociology
Social Network Diagram (segment).svg
History Outline Portal
Main theories
Conflict theory Structural functionalism Symbolic interactionism
Methods
Comparative Computational Critical theory Ethnography Ethnomethodology Historical
Mathematical Network analysis Positivism Qualitative Quantitative
Subfields and other major theories
Conflict Criminology Culture Demography Development Deviance Economic Education
Environmental Family Feminist Gender Health Immigration Industrial Inequality
Knowledge Law Literature Medical Military Organizational Political Race and
ethnicity Religion Rural Science Social change Social constructionism Social
movements Social psychology in sociology Stratification Technology Terrorism Urban
Browse
Bibliography By country Index Journals Organizations People Timeline
vte
Social status is the relative level of respect, honor, assumed competence, and
deference accorded to people, groups, and organizations in a society.[1][2] Some
writers have also referred to a socially valued role or category a person occupies
as a "status" (e.g., gender, race, having a criminal conviction, etc.).[3] Status
is based in beliefs about who members of a society believe holds comparatively more
or less social value.[4] By definition, these beliefs are broadly shared among
members of a society. As such, people use status hierarchies to allocate resources,
leadership positions, and other forms of power. In so doing, these shared cultural
beliefs make unequal distributions of resources and power appear natural and fair,
supporting systems of social stratification.[5] Status hierarchies appear to be
universal across human societies, affording valued benefits to those who occupy the
higher rungs, such as better health, social approval, resources, influence, and
freedom.[2]

Status hierarchies depend primarily on the possession and use of status symbols.
These are cues people use to determine how much status a person holds and how they
should be treated.[6] Such symbols can include the possession of socially valuable
attributes, like being conventionally beautiful or having a prestigious degree.
Other status symbols include wealth and its display through conspicuous
consumption.[7] Status in face-to-face interaction can also be conveyed through
certain controllable behaviors, such as assertive speech, posture,[8] and emotional
displays.[9]

Contents
1 Determination
2 In different societies
3 In nonhuman animals
4 Status inconsistency
5 Inborn and acquired
6 Social mobility
7 Social stratification
8 Max Weber's three dimensions of stratification
8.1 Status group
9 See also
10 References
11 Further reading
Determination
Some perspectives on status emphasize its relatively fixed and fluid aspects.
Ascribed statuses are fixed for an individual at birth, while achieved status is
determined by social rewards an individual acquires during his or her lifetime as a
result of the exercise of ability and/or perseverance.[10] Examples of ascribed
status include castes, race, and beauty among others. Meanwhile, achieved statuses
are akin to one's educational credentials or occupation: these things require a
person to exercise effort and often undergo years of training. The term master
status has been used to describe the status most important for determining a
person's position in a given context.[11][12]

Other perspectives, like status characteristics theory, eschew the idea of a master
status (in the sense of a social attribute that has an out-sized effect on one's
position across contexts).[13] Broadly, theoretical research finds that status
arising from membership in social categories is attenuated by having oppositely
valued task ability or group memberships (e.g., a black woman with a law degree).
[14] For instance, with respect to gender, experimental tests in this theoretical
tradition have repeatedly found experimental evidence that women exhibit highly
gendered deference behaviors only in the presence of men.[15][16][17] Other
research finds that even the interactional disadvantages suffered by possessing a
mental illness are attenuated when such people are also highly skilled on whatever
task faces a group of people.[13] Although for disadvantaged groups, status
disadvantage is not completely negated by positively valued information, their
social status does not depend predominantly on any particular group membership. As
such, research in this program has yet to identify a social characteristic that
operates like a robust trans-situational master status.

Researchers in social network analysis have shown that one's affiliations can also
be a source of status. Several studies document that being popular [18] or
demonstrating dominance over peers [19] increases a person's status. Network
studies of firms also find that organizations derive their own status in market
contexts from the status of their affiliates, like corporate partners and
investors.[1]

In different societies
Whether formal or informal, status hierarchies are present in all societies.[2] In
a society, the relative honor and prestige accorded to individuals depends on how
well an individual is perceived to match a society's goals and ideals (e.g., being
pious in a religious society). Status sometimes comes with attendant rights,
duties, and lifestyle practices.

In modern societies, occupation is usually thought of as the main determinant of

status, but other memberships or affiliations (such as ethnic group, religion,
gender, voluntary associations, fandom, hobby) can have an influence.[20][21]
Achieved status, when people are placed in the stratification structure based on
their individual merits or achievements, is thought to be reflective of modern
developed societies. This image status can be achieved, for instance, through
education, occupation, and marital status. Their place within the stratification
structure is determined by society's standards, which often judges them on success
in matching important values, like political power, academic acumen, and financial
wealth.

In pre-modern societies, status differentiation is widely varied. In some cases it

can be quite rigid, such as with the Indian caste system. In other cases, status
exists without class and/or informally, as is true with some Hunter-Gatherer
societies such as the Khoisan, and some Indigenous Australian societies. In these
cases, status is limited to specific personal relationships. For example, a Khoisan
man is expected to take his wife's mother quite seriously (a non-joking
relationship), although the mother-in-law has no special "status" over anyone
except her son-in-law�and only then in specific contexts.

Status maintains and stabilizes social stratification. Mere inequality in resources

and privileges is likely to be perceived as unfair and thus prompt retaliation and
resistance from those of lower status, but if some individuals are seen as better
than others (i.e., have higher status), then it seems natural and fair that high-
status people receive more resources and privileges.[22] Historically, Max Weber
distinguished status from social class,[23] though some contemporary empirical
sociologists combine the two ideas to create socioeconomic status or SES, usually
operationalized as a simple index of income, education and occupational prestige.

In nonhuman animals
Social status hierarchies have been documented in a wide range of animals: apes,
[24] baboons,[25] wolves,[26] cows/bulls,[27] hens,[28] even fish,[29] and ants.
[30] Natural selection produces status-seeking behavior because animals tend to
have more surviving offspring when they raise their status in their social group.
[31] Such behaviors vary widely because they are adaptations to a wide range of
environmental niches. Some social dominance behaviors tend to increase reproductive
opportunity,[32] while others tend to raise the survival rates of an individual�s
offspring.[33] Neurochemicals, particularly serotonin,[34] prompt social dominance
behaviors without need for an organism to have abstract conceptualizations of
status as a means to an end. Social dominance hierarchy emerges from individual
survival-seeking behaviors.

Status inconsistency
Main article: Status inconsistency
Status inconsistency is a situation where an individual's social positions have
both positive and negative influences on his or her social status. For example, a
teacher may have a positive societal image (respect, prestige) which increases
their status but may earn little money, which simultaneously decreases their
status.

Inborn and acquired

Social status is often associated with clothing and possessions. Compare the
foreman with a horse and high hat with the inquilino in picture. Image from 19th
century rural Chile.
Statuses such as those based on inborn characteristics, such as ethnicity or royal
heritage, are called ascribed statuses. A stigma (such as a physical deformity or
mental illness) can also be an attribute a person has possessed since birth, but
stigmas can also be acquired later in life.[3] Either way, stigmas generally result
in lower status if known to others.[13]

Social mobility
Status can be changed through a process of social mobility wherein a person changes
position within the stratification system. A move in social standing can be upward
(upward mobility), or downward (downward mobility). Social mobility is more
frequent in societies where achievement rather than ascription is valued.

Social stratification
Main article: Social stratification
Social stratification describes the way people are placed or "stratified" in
society. It is associated with the ability of individuals to live up to some set of
ideals or principles regarded as important by the society or a subculture within
it. The members of a social group interact mainly within their own group and to a
lesser degree with those of higher or lower status in a recognized system of social
stratification.[35] Some of the more common bases for such stratification include:

Groups:

Wealth/Income (most common): Ties between persons with the same personal income
Gender: Ties between persons of the same sex and sexuality
Political status: Ties between persons of the same political views/status
Religion: Ties between persons of the same religion
Race/Ethnicity: Ties between persons of the same ethnic/racial group
Social class: Ties between persons born into the same economic group
Coolness: Ties between persons who have similar levels of popularity
Max Weber's three dimensions of stratification
Main article: Three-component theory of stratification
The German sociologist Max Weber developed a theory proposing that stratification
is based on three factors that have become known as "the three p's of
stratification": property, prestige and power. He claimed that social
stratification is a result of the interaction of wealth (class), prestige status
(or in German Stand) and power (party).[36]

Prestige is a significant factor in determining one's place in the stratification

system. The ownership of property is not always going to assure power, but there
are frequently people with prestige and little property.
Property refers to one's material possessions and their life chances. If someone
has control of property, that person has power over others and can use the property
to his or her own benefit.
Power is the ability to do what one wants, regardless of the will of others.
(Domination, a closely related concept, is the power to make others' behavior
conform to one's commands). This refers to two different types of power, which are
possession of power and exercising power. For example, some people in charge of the
government have an immense amount of power, and yet they do not make much money.
Max Weber developed various ways that societies are organized in hierarchical
systems of power. These ways are social status, class power and political power.

Class Power: This refers to unequal access to resources. If you have access to
something that someone else needs, that can make you more powerful than the person
in need. The person with the resource thus has bargaining power over the other.
Social Status (Social Power): If you view someone as a social superior, that person
will have power over you because you believe that person has a higher status than
you do.
Political Power: Political power can influence the hierarchical system of power
because those that can influence what laws are passed and how they are applied can
exercise power over others.
There has been discussion about how Weber's three dimensions of stratification are
more useful for specifying social inequality than more traditional terms like
Socioeconomic Status.[37]

Status group
Main article: Status group
Max Weber developed the idea of "status group" which is a translation of the German
Stand (pl. St�nde). Status groups are communities that are based on ideas of
lifestyles and the honor the status group both asserts, and is given by others.
Status groups exist in the context of beliefs about relative prestige, privilege,
and honor and can be of both a positive and negative sort. People in status groups
are only supposed to engage with people of like status, and in particular, marriage
inside or outside the group is discouraged. Status groups can include professions,
club-like organizations, ethnicity, race, and other groups for which pattern
association.[38]
See also
Sociology portal
Achieved status
Ascribed status
Dominance hierarchy
Economic mobility
Expressions of dominance
Power (social and political)
Ranked society
Social class
Social inequality
Social stratification
Socioeconomic status
Sociometric status
Status attainment
Status set
Status symbol
References
Sauder, Michael; Lynn, Freda; Podolny, Joel (2012). "Status: Insights from
Organizational Sociology". Annual Review of Sociology. 38: 267�283.
doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-071811-145503.
Anderson, Cameron; Hildreth, John; Howland, Laura (2015). "Is the Desire for
Status a Fundamental Human Motive? A Review of the Empirical Literature".
Psychological Bulletin. 141 (3): 574�601. doi:10.1037/a0038781. PMID 25774679.
Pescosolido, Bernice; Martin, Jack (2015). "The Stigma Complex". Annual Review of
Sociology. 41: 87�116. doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-071312-145702. PMC 4737963. PMID
26855471.
Sedikides, C.; Guinote, A. (2018). ""How Status Shapes Social Cognition:
Introduction to the Special Issue,"The Status of Status: Vistas from Social
Cognition". Social Cognition. 36 (1): 1�3. doi:10.1521/soco.2018.36.1.1.
Ridgeway, Cecilia L.; Correll, Shelley (2006). "Consensus and the Creation of
Status Beliefs". Social Forces. 85: 431�453. doi:10.1353/sof.2006.0139.
Mazur, Allan (2015). "A Biosocial Model of Status in Face-To-Face Groups".
Evolutionary Perspectives on Social Psychology: 303�315.
Veblen, Thornstein (1899). The Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study of
Institutions. MacMillan.
Mazur, Allan (2015), "A Biosocial Model of Status in Face-To-Face Groups",
Evolutionary Perspectives on Social Psychology, Evolutionary Psychology, Springer
International Publishing, pp. 303�315, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-12697-5_24, ISBN
9783319126968
Tiedens, Larissa Z. (2001). "Anger and advancement versus sadness and subjugation:
The effect of negative emotion expressions on social status conferral". Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. 80 (1): 86�94. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.333.5115.
doi:10.1037//0022-3514.80.1.86. ISSN 0022-3514. PMID 11195894.
Linton, Ralph (1936). The Study of Man. Appleton Century Crofts.
Robert Brym; John Lie (11 June 2009). Sociology: Your Compass for a New World,
Brief Edition: Enhanced Edition. Cengage Learning. p. 88. ISBN 978-0-495-59893-0.
Ferris, Kelly, and Jill Stein. "The Self and Interaction." Chapter 4 of The Real
World: An Introduction to Sociology. W. W. Norton & Company Inc, Dec. 2011.
Accessed 20 September 2014.
Lucas, Jeffrey; Phelan, Jo (2012). "Stigma and Status: The Interrelation of Two
Theoretical Perspectives". Social Psychology Quarterly. 75 (4): 310�333.
doi:10.1177/0190272512459968. PMC 4248597. PMID 25473142.
Berger, Joseph; Norman, Robert Z.; Balkwell, James W.; Smith, Roy F. (1992).
"Status Inconsistency in Task Situations: A Test of Four Status Processing
Principles". American Sociological Review. 57 (6): 843�855. doi:10.2307/2096127.
ISSN 0003-1224. JSTOR 2096127.
Johnson, Cathryn (1993). "Gender and Formal Authority". Social Psychology
Quarterly. 56 (3): 193�210. doi:10.2307/2786778. JSTOR 2786778.
Johnson, Cathryn (1994). "Gender, Legitimate Authority, and Leader-Subordinate
Conversations". American Sociological Review. 59 (1): 122�135. doi:10.2307/2096136.
JSTOR 2096136.
Johnson, Cathryn; Clay-Warner, Jody; Funk, Stephanie (1996). "Effects of Authority
Structures and Gender on Interaction in Same-Sex Task Groups". Social Psychology
Quarterly. 59 (3): 221�236. doi:10.2307/2787020. JSTOR 2787020.
Lynn, Freda; Simpson, Brent; Walker, Mark; Peterson, Colin (2016). "Why is the
Pack Persuasive? The Effect of Choice Status on Perceptions of Quality".
Sociological Science. 3: 239�263. doi:10.15195/v3.a12.
Faris, Robert (2012-06-01). "Aggression, Exclusivity, and Status Attainment in
Interpersonal Networks". Social Forces. 90 (4): 1207�1235. doi:10.1093/sf/sos074.
ISSN 0037-7732.
"Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2007-10-27. Retrieved 2007-04-30.
Eder, Donna; Kinney, David A. (1995-03-01). "The Effect of Middle School Extra
Curricular Activities on Adolescents' Popularity and Peer Status � EDER and KINNEY
26 (3): 298 � Youth & Society". Youth & Society. 26 (3): 298�324.
doi:10.1177/0044118X95026003002.
Ridgeway, Cecilia (2014). "Why status matters for inequality" (PDF). American
Sociological Review. 79: 1�16. doi:10.1177/0003122413515997.
Weber, Max. 1946. "Class, Status, Party." pp. 180�95 in From Max Weber: Essays in
Sociology, H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills (eds.). New York: Oxford University.
Chimpanzee Politics (1982, 2007) deWaal, Frans, Johns Hopkins University Press
Sapolsy, R.M. (1992). "Cortisol concentrations and the social significance of rank
instability among wild baboons". Journal of Psychoneuroendocrinology. 17 (6):
701�09. doi:10.1016/0306-4530(92)90029-7.
"Accessed 10 September 2012". freewebs.com. Archived from the original on 6 May
2014. Retrieved 8 May 2018.
Rutberg, Allen T. (2010). "Factors Influencing Dominance Status in American Bison
Cows (Bison bison)". Zeitschrift f�r Tierpsychologie. 63 (2�3): 206�212.
doi:10.1111/j.1439-0310.1983.tb00087.x.
Schjelderup-Ebbe, T. 1922. Beitrage zurSozialpsycholgie des Haushuhns. Zeitschrift
Psychologie 88: 225�52. Reprinted in Benchmark Papers in Animal Behaviour/3. Ed.
M.W.Schein. 1975
Natalie Angier (1991-11-12). "In Fish, Social Status Goes Right to the Brain - New
York Times". Nytimes.com. Archived from the original on 2014-05-06. Retrieved 2014-
05-24.
Wilson, E.O, The Insect Societies (1971) Belknap Press of Harvard University Press
Wilson, E.O, Sociobiology (1975, 2000) Belknap Press of Harvard University Press
Wrangham, R. and Peterson, D. (1996). Demonic males. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
ISBN 978-0-395-87743-2.
Smuts, B.B., Cheney, D.L. Seyfarth, R.M., Wrangham, R.W., & Struhsaker, T.T.
(Eds.) (1987). Primate Societies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-
76715-9
Raleigh, Michael J. (1985). "Dominant social status facilitates the behavioral
effects of serotonergic agonists". Brain Res. 348 (2): 274�82. doi:10.1016/0006-
8993(85)90445-7. PMID 3878181.
McPherson, Miller; Smith-Lovin, Lynn; Cook, James M (2001-08-01). "Birds of a
Feather: Homophily in Social Networks". Annual Review of Sociology. 27 (1):
415�444. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415. ISSN 0360-0572.
Tony Waters and Dagmar Waters, translators and eds., (2015). Weber's Rationalism
and Modern Society. Palgrave Macmillan.
Waters, Tony and Dagmar Waters 2016 Are the terms "socio-economic status" and
"social status" a warped form of reasoning for Max Weber?" Palgrave Communications
2, Article number: 16002 (2016) Waters, Tony; Waters, Dagmar (2016). "Are the terms
"socio-economic status" and "class status" a warped form of reasoning for Max
Weber?". Palgrave Communications. 2. doi:10.1057/palcomms.2016.2.
Weber 48-56
Further reading
 Wikiquote has quotations related to: Rank
Botton, Alain De (2004), Status Anxiety, Hamish Hamilton
Michael Marmot (2004), The Status Syndrome: How Social Standing Affects Our Health
and Longevity, Times Books
Social status. (2007). In Encyclop�dia Britannica. Retrieved October 17, 2007, from
Encyclop�dia Britannica Online:
Stark, Rodney (2007). Sociology (10th ed.). Thomson Wadsworth. ISBN 978-0-495-
09344-2.
Gould, Roger (2002). "The Origins of Status Hierarchy: A Formal Theory and
Empirical Test". American Journal of Sociology. 107 (5): 1143�78.
doi:10.1086/341744.
McPherson, Miller; Smith-Lovin, Lynn; Cook, James M (2001). "Birds of a Feather:
Homophily in Social Networks". American Journal of Sociology. 27: 415�44.
doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415.
Bolender, Ronald Keith (2006). "Max Weber 1864�1920". LLC: Bolender Initiatives.
Retrieved 2010-10-15.
Chernoff, Seth David (2015). "What is Success".
Bourdieu, Pierre. Distinction: a Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste,
translated by Richard Nice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1984.
Ridgeway, Cecilia (2014). "Why Status Matters for Inequality". American
Sociological Review. 79 (1): 1�16. doi:10.1177/0003122413515997.
Weber, Max (2015) "Classes, St�nde, Parties," pp. 37�58 in Weber's Rationalism and
Modern Society: New Translations on Politics, Bureaucracy, and Social
Stratification Edited and Translated by Tony Waters and Dagmar Waters. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
vte
Social class
Status Stratification
Theories
Gilbert model Marxian Mudsill theory New class Spoon class theory Weberian (three-
component)
Related? topics
Caste Chattering classes Class conflict Class discrimination Classicide Classless
society Euthenics Nouveau riche / Parvenu Poverty Ranked society Snobbery Social
cleansing Social exclusion Social mobility Social orphan Social position Social
stigma Subaltern
By demographic
By country or region
Category Category
Authority control Edit this at Wikidata
BNF: cb11967442t (data) GND: 4077618-9 LCCN: sh85124077 NDL: 00571919
Categories: Social statusAnthropologySociological terminology
Navigation menu
Not logged inTalkContributionsCreate accountLog inArticleTalkReadEditView
historySearch
Search Wikipedia
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
In other projects
Wikimedia Commons
Languages
???????
B�n-l�m-g�
???????
?????????
Catal�
Ce�tina
Deutsch
Eesti
Espa�ol
Esperanto
?????
Fran�ais
Galego
???
Ido
Bahasa Indonesia
Italiano
?????
???????
????????
Lietuviu
Nederlands
???
Polski
Portugu�s
Rom�na
???????
Scots
Simple English
Slovencina
?????? / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / ??????????????
Suomi
Svenska
Tagalog
?????
??????
???
T�rk�e
??????????
Ti?ng Vi?t
??
Edit links
This page was last edited on 10 May 2019, at 20:03 (UTC).
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License;
additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and
Privacy Policy. Wikipedia� is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation,
Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policyAbout WikipediaDisclaimersContact WikipediaDevelopersCookie
statementMobile viewWikimedia Foundation Powered by MediaWiki