Getting Status Right

There is the standard sociobiological model of status i.e. that there are two kinds, dominance and prestige, the increase of either gives one a testosterone boost (probably that is  what we call power-tripping) and so on, the relevant literature is fairly well known and I won’t hunt for links now. I just would like to point out one thing: “normally”, status ought to be a combination of both.

I mean, if you imagine a stereotypical aristocratic gentleman from the 18th century, he is dressed in expensive clothes, has a refined taste, reads and writes poetry, quotes the classics, talks in formal, elaborately polite ways and so on – and all this is prestige.

But on the other hand, he is fiercely proud, he challenges men who insult him to duels, he is expected to show intrepid courage in battle and charge cannons on horseback if need be, and has ways of teaching the peasants a lesson if they fail to respect him – and this is dominance. Not necessarily in the sense of dominating others, but at least in the sense of not letting others dominate him i.e. not being a “pushover”.

Dominance without prestige just gives a crude barbarian warlord or a thuggish crimelord. Prestige without dominance is something effete, weak and ridiculous – maybe the stereotypical “art fag” or Ginsberg-type intellectual.

It’s sort of obvious that any social structure and hierarchy, in order to function in as table way, has to have both. It’s basically carrot and stick. When the peasant asks why should I respect that lord, there is first the carrot answer – because the lord is smart, educated, and good and generally wishes the best to you. That is prestige. If the peasant isn’t happy with the answer, then there is the stick answer: because he has ways to force you to – that is dominance. Prestige is the good cop, dominance the bad cop, both maintain the social order. Elites try to be liked if they can, and if they fail, then they try to be feared.

However, before we think it all is just tools for justifying “oppression” we should consider human tribalism and group dynamics. People are generally more afraid of getting oppressed or otherwise harmed by the outgroup, like the neighboring country or the other ethnic group or religious group or something. Thus having strong, dominant, even intimidating leaders is at some level reassuring – because it suggests they are a good at kicking the outgroup’s butt and protecting you from them.

This is what goody-good liberals like Kevin can’t get right. Dominance is intimidation and bullying! And the judgement that it is therefore bad is between the lines. What is missing is the recognition of the fear from the outgroup. Imagine a bunch of Dothraki raping their way through the Lamb People and you have a pretty good account of most of human history and prehistory. Compared to that, oppression by your own landlord or king is a piece of cake really. You first and foremost want your own leader to be tough as nails and stand up to the invaders or potential invaders: to protect you from them, hence, dominate and press them out when they invade. This suggests you will trust only a leader who has generally a dominant and repressive personality. Only a guy who takes no lip from no one and never lets his authority get questioned seems tough enough to really stand up to the potential invaders. Thus people often actually like dominant and intimidating and oppressive leaders of their ingroup, in order to protect them from the outgroup! Because they reassure them: just obey me and I will protect you from the ugly, nasty orcs out there and all will be right. This is also how women tend to fall in love with bad  guys and alpha-males. Same story. Assholes demonstrate they have the guts to protect others – or at least are sufficiently good at fooling others into thinking so.

This masochism or inner submissiveness, that makes a lot of people actually like dominant, intimidating bullies because they make them feel safe, is something sort of a black pill about the darker aspects of human irrationality. As it suggests much of the mainstream narrative about the idea of oppression is wrong. People very often like to be oppressed, as long as it is not some sort of a faceless structure but an actual person doing the job. Movies about fictional fascism like Hunger Games, V for Vendetta, Children of Men or the Empire in Star Wars  portray the fictional dictators like this and never how they were really like because there is a danger some people might actually like that and that is not the intended purpose of the movie. Charismatic leaders are charismatic and much of that charisma is the reassuring kind of dominance that makes one feel protected.

But this is only an extreme. Modern dictators were extreme bullies because moderns were and are extreme in everything, but for a more moderate take on what the combination of prestige and dominance entails, just look at any random old painting of kings. The posture and the sword suggests dominance, the refined clothes suggest prestige. A barbarian warlord could be imagined with the same posture and sword, while similarly flashy clothes – toned down – could be imagined on a high-prestige, Voltaire-type noble intellectual. This is the essence of social structure. Swords and arts.

Social class interpreted thus as a combination of dominance and prestige went on hand in hand in the West up to the fifties, maybe up to the 1968 era, when then student revolutions changed everything. That is when the current streak of leftism began and signals got all confused. They were very often from wealthy and influential families who decided to dress and talk like the lowest of the lower class, according to some theories it was about differentiating themselves from the middle-class petit bourgeoise as nobody would have actually confused them with hobos and unskilled laborers no matter how hard they look like them, but I think this does not fully explain it all – why were they the first generation to do it, why was it always so before that that the higher you were on the social ladder, the more expensive your clothes were?

Looking like a hippie signals either a very Christian, hermit-pilgrim type moral holiness or a certain kind of intellectual exaltedness – above the worldly matters, so to speak.  But I think above all it suggests weakness and harmlessness. The signal is that you are not dominant, you are not strong – you are the victorious victim who prevails due to his subdued existence, his virtuous martyrdom – an old Christian theme actually. I see parallels between the John Lennon or Ginsberg types and St. Paul – a certain strength through weakness, victory through non-dominance, the opposite of the glorious, victorious Emperor or Germanic warlord. They acquired the highest status by pretending to not have status. And then  it all took off from there.

This is why the modern, leftist status-competition feels so unreal to me. It lacks the dominance element – they are of course in power: they just not flaunt it. They flaunt non-dominance, harmlessness, weakness, basically the lack of power. It just all feels so unreal and virtual and ultimately ridiculous, a status built upon nothing, because lacking the dominant elements, the meat of it, and having just the icing on the cake.  Outside the West it still works – in Russia for example status is still mostly wealth, and the idea is that wearing an expensive watch signals both prestige (good taste) and dominance and dangerousness (the ability to hire hit men or something of that sort).