The Status of the Politics of Status
Here’s what happens when you wait a day to publicize your new article in the Australian Centre for Independent Studies’ magazine Policy, “Out of Position: Against the Politics of Relative Standing“: David Friedman goes and writes an excellent blog post about the same subject:
It seems obvious that, if one’s concern is status rather than real income, we are in a zero sum game. If my status increases relative to yours, yours has decreased relative to mine. So this point of view seems to support the approach to politics that sees it mainly as a question of who gets to benefit at the expense of whom, of which side who is on.
Like many things that seem obvious, this one is false. It is true that my status is relative to yours. It does not, oddly enough, follow that if my status is higher than yours, yours must be lower than mine, or that if my status increases someone else’s must decrease. Status is not, in fact, a zero sum game.
This point was originally made clear to me when I was an undergraduate at Harvard and realized that Harvard had, in at least one interesting way, the perfect social system: Everyone at the top of his own ladder. The small minority of students passionately interested in drama knew perfectly well that they were the most important people at the university; everyone else was there to provide them with an audience. The small minority passionately interested in politics knew that they were the most important ones; their friends were there to be herded into meetings of the Young Republicans and Young Democrats in order to get them elected to positions in those organizations that were the stepping stones to further political success. The small minority….
Right on! Indeed, I talked with David about exactly this for about a half-hour in Vegas this April, though I claim no influence whatsoever. Nevertheless, I claim comprehensiveness! Here’s a taste of my 3600 words… (footnotes omitted)
Crucially, there is no limit to the possible forms of excellence. So, while the number of positions on any single dimension of status may be fixed, there is no reason why dimensions of status cannot be multiplied indefinitely. It does not in fact require a violation of mathematical law to produce more high-status positions, for it is possible to produce new status dimensions.
New dimensions of excellence and status often open up due to technological innovation. It was impossible to be a chart-topping pop star or a champion triathalete before there were radios and bikes. Liberal market societies not only create new technologies, they create proliferating forms of association, affiliation, expression, and identity at a sometimes alarming rate. Each musical genre, each hobby, each committee, each church, each club, each ideology, each lifestyle provides a new dimension—a new frame of reference—for positional competition. Environmental purists can compete with one another to conspicuously consume eco-friendly products (or conspicuously refuse to consume much at all), while punk rockers duke it out on grounds of anti-establishment authenticity, and economics professors knock themselves dead trying to get articles into esoteric journals no one else cares about.
The cultural fragmentation some critics lament is precisely what liberates us from unavoidable zero-sum positional conflict. Surfer dudes don’t compete with Star Trek geeks for status. Dynamic market liberal societies create higher-order positive-sum games (for example, the ‘create a new status dimension’ game, or the ‘find the status dimension on which you rank highest’ game) that have lower-order zero-sum games as parts.
Once we recognise the anarchic multi-dimensionality of status, the frequent supposition of Frank, Layard, Cassidy, and others that the distribution of income—whether within the office or within the nation—is the the main dimension of positional competition begins to look bizarre. Struggling artists do not doubt their superiority in the face of successful accountants. And it should not need pointing out that many of us simply don’t know how much our friends make, and don’t much care.
[...]
We are not destined to want fancier cars, bigger houses, and more upscale outfits, nor are we helpless to feel diminished by those who out-consume us. We can opt out by opting in to competing narratives about the composition of a good life. And we do it all the time. We can, like Gauguin, quit law and family to paint naked natives in Tahiti. Or, better, we can move the family to a quieter place where houses are cheap and schools are good. (‘Is this heaven?’ ‘No, Iowa.’) If we are aggrieved by the rigours of the rat race, the answer is not the clumsy guidance of a paternal state. The answer is simply to stop being a rat.
There is, of course, much more. Please check it out.
October 19th, 2006 04:41
Will, obviously both you and David Friedman are correct about the multiplicity of potential status games. You seem to imply, though, that status is status is status is status (Not winning one game? Try another!). But I guess that most people are engaged in several different competitions concurrently, and I don’t think it’s obvious that the benefits they reap from each are substitutable, even to a small extent.
For instance, I have what I believe to be a worthwhile job in a think-tank, am a qualified ski instructor and play the uilleann pipes. All of these things I take some status from (i.e. I feel better about my work than most people I know, I ski better than most people I know and, whilst I don’t play the pipes very well at all, I get a certain amount of kudos from friends in Irish music circles for even attempting). But there’s hardly any sense in which the status I gain from each is substitutable. If for some reason I had to take a banal and repetitive job, becoming better at playing the pipes would not compensate the decline in relative status I would feel from being just another member of the rat race.
If it is true that people play several different games and that status rewards are largely non-substitutable, the question arises as to whether all status games are of comparable status. In other words, is there a sense of – if you like – ‘meta-status’ that is a function not only of how you are doing in each status competition you engage in, but of WHICH status competitions you participate in? Is it relatively more important to be playing some games than others?
You can argue that this question is irrelevant, because status is perceived – if you feel your status to be at some level, then it is, tout court. But my guess would be that people are drawn to play games for different reasons: because of their own interests and beliefs, yes, but also because of the number of other people playing and because of external pressure to play.
Underlying the contention of Frank, Layard, et al is the idea that people find it hard (if not impossible) to opt out of the money game. Perhaps a small minority of people manage to (“The hell with it, I just won’t care about money any more! I’ll put all my efforts into being the best ……”). But most don’t, because the status of the money game itself is high in Western society. It’s not the only competition in town, sure, but it’s the biggest and shiniest, has the most players and promises the best prizes (even if it doesn’t always deliver them).
October 19th, 2006 12:42
Sam, You say: “If for some reason I had to take a banal and repetitive job, becoming better at playing the pipes would not compensate the decline in relative status I would feel from being just another member of the rat race.” Well maybe it would and maybe it wouldn’t. It’s up to you. There’s nothing written into your system that requires you to be more proud about your job than your skill on the pipes. I’ve known many folks with banal jobs, which to them are simply a way to finance their status-conferring hobby. They don’t notice that the job is low-status, since status, to their mind, isn’t what the job is FOR.
I think it’s just weird to think that it’s hard to opt out of the money game. Back where I’m from, people seemed interested in living comfortably, but the money game was hardly important to most. The few to which it evidently was important were pitied by everyone else. And I probably could manage to get work as a consultant for over twice my salary, but I don’t do that. Why is that?
October 19th, 2006 13:20
I agree with you, Will. If you think most people put that premium on the money game, it gets bloody hard to explain college professors. Or clergy. Or non-profit workers.
And Sam, I’d point out that while you say you play three status games (and don’t mention money among them), you’re engages in infinitely more status games that you didn’t mention, probably because you don’t care about them. I know I used this same example a couple months ago, but I doubt that many of this blog’s readers are depressed by the fact that I’m (probably) a better ballroom dancer, just like it doesn’t bother me that you’re a better skier and uilleann piper.
October 19th, 2006 23:11
I find it ironic that liberals often accuse libertarians of being too focused on materialistic matters; when it’s the liberals who have more trouble seeing that relative income is not most people’s primary concern.
Could there be some projecting going on?
October 20th, 2006 01:02
Will, this is probably my favorite article of yours. I’ve recently left one rat race where the reactions of the players to my departure was quite predictable depending on their position relative to me (just below= happy, just above= relieved or sad depending on whether they viewed me as competition or a collaborator that helped them achieve their position, too far above or below= could not care less). The thing that amazed me most was how often I was told that I was “brave” for doing something different. Sad that people get in one race on one ladder and can’t imagine anything else.
October 20th, 2006 08:16
Congratulations on the aldaily.com link. Talk about status unrelated to income…
October 20th, 2006 09:14
Thanks Jen! I think you’re brave for moving to Idaho. (Just kidding.)
Thanks Matt. No kidding. I’ve followed A&L Daily for years, so I’m psyched.
October 22nd, 2006 12:18
[...] On your marks, get set, go home By william Will Wilkinson criticises the happiness movement. [...]
October 23rd, 2006 12:16
Hi Will,
While the point you make is undoubtedly valid up to a point, I wonder whether you place too much faith in it’s actual potential to get us out of the income-status game. Whatever the theoretical possibilities for entering into a preferred set of status races that one is best able to succeed in, and despite obvious anecdotal examples of people who do this to great effect, the statistical eveidence tends to suggest that this isn’t what the majority of people, on average, actually do.
The interesting question then becomes why not? To what extent can people really choose the status races they enter into? Does it require a certain level of self-awareness that many people lack? Is having systematically differnt values from one’s peers in some sense psychologically costly? etc. And what can we do to improve situation?
October 23rd, 2006 16:58
Will,
Some status games are not avoidable, as other commenters have said. One might be providing opportunities for one’s children. There are many parents who would love to have lots of money to buy into an expensive suburban neighborhood with good schools, send their kids to expensive private collages without worrying about financial aid, etc. Unfortunately this is a status game that may really have some zero-sum elements which people can not escape by choosing different preferences.
Also, while some games can be chosen, the act of choosing a different game often involves admiting defeat, and thus suffering the consequences of being on the losing end of a zero sum game. I may choose not to be a Ph.D. in physics, and choose economics instead, but if I make that choice because I can’t hack it in physics, then I still lost that game, and chose one which falls further down on my rank of preferred games to play.
While you are right to critisize the one-dimensional thinking of many happiness theorists, your multi-dimensional game does not solve the problem, it just makes it more complicated.
October 23rd, 2006 17:12
Steve, If you read the article, you’ll notice that I address the schooling issue. That’s not an unavoidable status game. You can home school your children. You can move to an area where houses are cheap and public schools are excellent (like in Iowa, where I’m from). You can choose to let your kid finance their own college education. Personally, when I have kids, I would like to educate them at home, and let them know early on that if they want to go to college, they’ll either need to get scholarships or self-finance. And that’s not sacrificing the kids’ prospetcs. My prediction is that they would actually have a big advantage over most kids of their generation.
October 23rd, 2006 19:23
What drivel. One might just as well presuppose that because markets are positive sum and produce incredible diversity, there are no poor. Why, if there were any poor people, they would just find a market niche where there talents were better rewarded, and presto, they’d be well off!
The hand waving assertions (such as the dismissal of vervet monkey dominance compared to academic dominance) are rife and silly on their face. “Struggling artists do not doubt their superiority in the face of successful accountants.” Bullshit: of course they do. Which is why so very many avoid or depart the arts.
And of course, the problem of status is not solved by being excellent at something irrelevant because status is what other people think of you. Including people you can’t leave behind, that will judge you, such as your family. Including people you HAVE to do business with, such as the people who might loan you money for college or a house. Including people you merely pass on the street, who might choose to attack you or rob you because of your status. None of them might think better of you because you are the high lord elf Bigglesnort in your D&D cell: they will think you have low status because you don’t earn a good living.
Maybe Will Wilkinson and his circle of friends don’t worry about their status. They probably don’t worry much about their access to health care or where their next meal is coming from either. But those latter two can be really important to the well-being of the poor, and status might be too. We can’t tell from Will’s anecdotes of his personal feelings.
October 23rd, 2006 20:42
Mike - How does how much money you make help with the scenarios you outline?
Familys can judge on all sorts of matters, not just money earned. Eg, you’re a bad person because you married a soccer player/didn’t get your PhD/didn’t nurse cousin Emily through her illness/voted Green/converted to being a Jehovah Witness/etc.
People who might loan you money for a house or school do so presumably either because they love you (eg your parents) or because they think they will gain from the interest on the loan. Either possibility doesn’t have much to do with status in itself.
All things being equal, I would have thought a person in the street would be more likely to attack a person who looks rich/high status than the opposite. I have a friend who has had three leather coats stolen from him so far, no one has ever tried to take my old wool one. Indeed, complete strangers have chased me down the street to give it back when I have left it accidently in bars or restaurants.
October 24th, 2006 10:56
Sorry, Wilkinson and Friedman are both wrong, at least as far as their arguments here are presented. Friedman gave it away by pointing out how the political science people are using the others there … for later political success! Political success against… whom, I wonder?
If people only care about specific dimensions of status, zero-sumness (positionality) is preserved. You might as well just claim that, in the absence of these TOTALLY INNOVATIVE MARKETS, DUDE, a society with only one status dimension is “non-zero sum”, because hey, you don’t have to care about that dimension, now, do you!
Try again.
October 27th, 2006 16:56
Men can invent all the status hierarchies they want, like World of Warcraft, but women don’t have to be impressed by them. Ultimately, some status hierarchies (e.g., the Forbes 400) are higher status than others (e.g., nerd competitions) because the highest status male hierarchies in America are whichever ones attractive women are most impressed by.
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2006/10/status-competition.html
October 30th, 2006 21:21
Thank’s for sharing your idea on status. There is a really interesting (short) paper by a Russian student that captures you’re idea perfectly in a simple model. The title is:
High status for all?
Cheating the zero-sum mechanism of happiness.
you can download it here:
http://ideas.repec.org/p/wpa/wuwpmi/0501001.html
I think there is a problem with your idea, namely: not all status games are the same. Don’t you think there is a kind of meta-ranking of status games? If that’s true, you can’t just simple choose a status-game, and the zero-sum problem will be back.
Geert Holterman