Talk:Social status

This article is currently the subject of an educational assignment.

Archives

Pierre Bourdieu section

Would someone who is qualified to please re-write this section. It needs to be re-edited by someone with a better ability to convey complex ideas clearly. For example, what does the sentence: "economic constraints tend to relax without any fundamental change in the pattern of spending" actually mean? It sounds like it means something, but in practice it is somewhat cryptic121.73.7.84 (talk) 03:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Social mobility and social status The following claims are empirically false:

"Social mobility is especially prominent in the United States in recent years with an ever-increasing number of women entering into the workplace as well as a steady increase in the number of full-time college students.[4][5] This increased education as well as the massive increase in multiple household incomes has greatly contributed to the rise in social mobility obtained by so many today."

Social mobility is usually defined as intergenerational change in income ranking. Those changes have actually slowed down in the US since about 1973, in association with substantially increasing income inequality. Multi-earner families and women in the workforce have led mostly to churning within income strata. College has become a necessity for middle class life that is increasingly unaffordable for poverty class and lower working class families, leading to a reduction in mobility. This section needs to be dropped or else filled in with references to real research.

The following claims are mostly irrelevant to mobility. Also, while the "consumption as status" idea is important, the following analysis of it casts little light.

With this upward mobility; however, comes the philosophy of "Keeping up with the Joneses" that so many Americans obtain. Although this sounds good on the surface, it actually poses a problem because millions of Americans are in credit card debt due to conspicuous consumption and purchasing goods that they do not have the money to pay for.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burressd (talk • contribs) 19:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This whole Bourdieu section has very little to do with social status -- respect and honor given to a person -- and a whole lot more to do with cultural approaches to social class. Class is a totally different concept than status. This page doesn't get a lot of editorial activity, so I'm going to make an executive call and take it out altogether and paste it below if anyone who knows about Bourdieu wants to rehab it or borrow bits of it for other wiki pages.

--Jimmysoc (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu developed theories of social stratification based on aesthetic taste in his work Distinction. Bourdieu claims that how one chooses to present one's social space to the world, one's aesthetic dispositions, depicts one's status and distances oneself from lower groups. Specifically, Bourdieu hypothesizes that these dispositions are internalized at an early age and guide the young towards their appropriate social positions, towards the behaviors that are suitable for them, and an aversion towards other lifestyles.
Bourdieu theorizes that class fractions teach aesthetic preferences to their young. Class fractions are determined by a combination of the varying degrees of social, economic, and cultural capital. Society incorporates "symbolic goods, especially those regarded as the attributes of excellence, […as] the ideal weapon in strategies of distinction".[37] Those attributes deemed excellent are shaped by the interests of the dominating class. He emphasizes the dominance of cultural capital early on by stating that "differences in cultural capital mark the differences between the classes".[38]
Aesthetic dispositions are the result of social origin rather than accumulated capital and experience over time. The acquisition of cultural capital depends heavily on "[t]otal, early, imperceptible learning, performed within the family from the earliest days of life".[37] Bourdieu hypothetically guarantees that the opinions of the young are those that they are born into, the accepted "definitions that their elders offer them".[39]
He asserts the primacy of social origin and cultural capital by claiming that social capital and economic capital, though acquired cumulatively over time, depend upon it. Bourdieu claims that "one has to take account of all the characteristics of social condition which are (statistically) associated from earliest childhood with possession of high or low income and which tend to shape tastes adjusted to these conditions".[40]
According to Bourdieu, tastes in food, culture and presentation, are indicators of class, because trends in their consumption seemingly correlate with an individual's fit in society.[41] Each fraction of the dominant class develops its own aesthetic criteria. A multitude of consumer interests based on differing social positions necessitates that each fraction "has its own artists and philosophers, newspapers and critics, just as it has its hairdresser, interior decorator or tailor."[42]
Bourdieu does not wholly disregard the importance of social capital and economic capital in the formation of cultural capital. In fact, the production of art and the ability to play an instrument "presuppose not only dispositions associated with long establishment in the world of art and culture but also economic means…and spare time".[43] However, regardless of one's ability to act upon one's preferences, Bourdieu specifies that "respondents are only required to express a status-induced familiarity with legitimate... culture".[44]
"[Taste] functions as a sort of social orientation, a 'sense of one's place', guiding the occupants of a given... social space towards the social positions adjusted to their properties, and towards the practices or goods which befit the occupants of that position".[45] Thus, different modes of acquisition yield differences in the nature of preferences.[46]
These "cognitive structures…are internalized, 'embodied' social structures", becoming a natural entity to the individual.[47] Different tastes are thus seen as unnatural and rejected, resulting in "disgust provoked by horror or visceral intolerance ('sick-making') of the tastes of others."[48]
Bourdieu himself believes class distinction and preferences are "most marked in the ordinary choices of everyday existence, such as furniture, clothing or cooking, which are particularly revealing of deep-rooted and long-standing dispositions because, lying outside the scope of the educational system, they have to be confronted, as it were, by naked taste".[49] Indeed, Bordieu believes that "the strongest and most indelible mark of infant learning" would probably be in the tastes of food.[50] Bourdieu thinks that meals served on special occasions are "an interesting indicator of the mode of self-presentation adopted in 'showing off' a life-style (in which furniture also plays a part)".[50] The idea is that their likes and dislikes should mirror those of their class fractions.
Children from the lower end of the social hierarchy are predicted to choose "heavy, fatty fattening foods, which are also cheap" in their dinner layouts, opting for "plentiful and good" meals as opposed to foods that are "original and exotic".[40][50] These potential outcomes would reinforce Bourdieu's "ethic of sobriety for the sake of slimness, which is most recognized at the highest levels of the social hierarchy," that contrasts the "convivial indulgence" characteristic of the lower classes.[51] Demonstrations of the tastes of luxury (or freedom) and the tastes of necessity reveal a distinction among the social classes.
The degree to which social origin affects these preferences surpasses both educational and economic capital. In fact, at equivalent levels of educational capital, social origin remains an influential factor in determining these dispositions.[44] How one describes one's social environment relates closely to social origin because the instinctive narrative springs from early stages of development.[52] Also, across the divisions of labor "economic constraints tend to relax without any fundamental change in the pattern of spending".[53] This observation reinforces the idea that social origin, more than economic capital, produces aesthetic preferences because regardless of economic capability consumption patterns remain stable.
[37] Bourdieu 66 [38] Bourdieu 69 [39] Bourdieu 477 [40] Bourdieu 177 [41] Bourdieu 184 [42] Bourdieu 231–32 [43] Bourdieu 75 [44] Bourdieu 63 [45] Bourdieu 466 [46] Bourdieu 65 [47] Bourdieu 468 [48] Bourdieu 56 [49] Bourdieu 77 [50] Bourdieu 79 [51] Bourdieu 179 [52] Bo 78
[53] Bourdieu 185

Definitions need to be cited

Please see my comment at Talk:Social position#Definitions need to be cited. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evolutionary Aspects of Social Status

In my opinion the article can be greatly improved through adding a new section describing the impact that perceived social status has on interpersonal attraction in humans. The evolutionary theory behind social ranking deserves greater mention than the already existing section 'In non-human animals'. If no one objects I would like to work on such a section in the coming weeks, as part of my project for University.Roja123 (talk) 01:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Success is unbounded" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Success is unbounded. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 26#Success is unbounded until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Este artículo no es neutral

Sita a muchos economistas pies de en enfoque sobre el origen tippos de posiciones y diferencias 2806:342:FDCC:17A8:688F:3ADB:F096:A725 (talk) 08:38, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction?

This appears to be contradictory:

Status is based in widely shared beliefs about who members of a society think holds comparatively more or less social value, in other words, w believe is better in terms of competence or moral traits. Status is determined by the possession of various characteristics culturally believed to indicate superiority or inferiority (e.g., confident manner of speech or race).

If status is based on who's more competent or moral, then we're living in a meritocracy, which we're clearly not. If it's based on superficial and stereotypical things like "confident manner of speech or race", then we're in big trouble, which seems more like the actual current situation, what with systemic racism still existing. Even putting the real world aside, saying it's based on both actual competency and also confidence, let alone someone's race, is logically inconsistent.

As one example, autistic people often have an abundance of competency and morals, yet a lack of social skills, causing a complete lack of social status. So it really does seem like the superficial markers of someone thinking they're competent are favoured over them actually knowing what they're doing. Knowing how to socialise also seems far more relevant to social status than competency or morals.

ZoeB (talk) 19:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see much of a contradiction - status can and is determined both by merits and superficial and stereotypical things. If sources say the latter is more common, as it may unfortunately be the case, as you indicate, we can say so for clarity. Both sentences you cite seem to be referenced (first one directly to https://doi.org/10.1521%2Fsoco.2018.36.1.1 , second one hopefully to https://doi.org/10.1353%2Fsof.2006.0139 ). So it would be good to consult them for more information. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. If I may clarify, in the social scientific literature, status is based on shared beliefs. It has to do with who people believe is more competent / moral and who is less competent / moral. People can be mistaken in their beliefs about these things. People who are in fact very prosocial or who are in fact very competent are not necessarily perceived that way.

Jimmysoc (talk) 15:22, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"or who are in fact very competent are not necessarily perceived that way." I am not certain if this is new to Wikipedia, but when I was in school, several teachers noted that marketing makes all the difference in this field. You may be competent, intelligent, hard-working, etc. It does not matter if nobody knows about it, and you will never be credited for your contributions. But if you get the press or the rumor mill talking in glowing terms about your supposed skills and achievements, you may get the credit for the achievements of others. War veterans in my family also noted that generals tend to get credited for whatever victory is accomplished by their subordinates. My family members repeated an anecdote from the Greek Civil War, attributed to what a senior officer told to his soldiers: "You will struggle, you will fight, we will get the glory". Dimadick (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great insight! And there is research to back up your intuition from sociology, psychology, organization science, etc. mostly I think in the context of studying careers and who gets credit for successes. I think that's something that's missing from the article currently, and could definitely use some elaboration. Jimmysoc (talk) 14:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]