I sometimes read Paul Rosenberg’s work, and I generally like it. Occasionally, I admire it. We both advocate panarchy, for example. I find his writing clear, and his writings are more or less consistent with my principles.
Recently, though, I came across his discussion of status. I thought it deserved further reflection, so I’ll respond to Rosenberg’s claims, presented here as block quotes.
Status poisons more or less everything it touches. Status is a person’s condition, position, or standing relative to that of others.
Right. So, one’s condition, position, or standing relative to others might be interpreted in light of facts or values. In the realm of facts, we can—by way of numbers—put my all-time stats playing basketball up against that of Michael Jordan. My standing, relative to Jordan’s, is pathetic. In the domain of values, we can—by way of fans—agree that Jordan’s status as a basketball legend is high.
Mine is not.
I’m not angry, though. That’s just the way it is. I wouldn’t say Jordan’s status as a legend “poisons more or less everything it touches.” No pun intended, but I think Rosenberg overshoots here.
Let’s see what else he does with the ball.
So status automatically creates division and conflict. It forces us to think in terms of position, hierarchy, and dominance, and can’t possibly do otherwise; it is built solely upon our standing relative to others.
Automatically? It appears Rosenberg has a deeper, unarticulated definition of status besides relative condition, position, or standing. I can certainly admit that there are decidedly more arbitrary and less meritocratic notions of status—such as that in the ruler/ruled relationship—which has prompted me to ask:
Otherwise, plenty of other conceptions of status cause neither division nor conflict. A mentor might enjoy a certain degree of status. Proverbial status signals communicate more than an evolutionary advantage in potential mate sorting. They can communicate natural gifts and evidence of good performance. Indeed, I would expect a less egalitarian conception from Rosenberg, who knows that almost nothing and no one is equal, strictly speaking.
But how does status tend to make us feel?
To be very blunt about it, status is an primitive and barbaric model of seeing other beings. Not only does it poison our relationships, it poisons our self-image. It requires us, always, to think of ourselves as above or below every other person.
What’s your political type?
Find out right now by taking The World’s Smallest Political Quiz.
Status is certainly primitive in terms of its evolutionary origins, but it’s not clear it’s always a barbaric way of seeing others.
An aristocrat can look down his nose at those with less, but merely having more does not always determine how you got more. If that were the sum of status, we could acknowledge that it would be limited to the crude standards of a golddigger or playboy.
We can imagine the busy and productive entrepreneur enjoying a certain status relative to the playboy whose only job is to spend mommy and daddy’s money. The relevant station might be how either came to have wealth—where the entrepreneur is smart and hardworking; the playboy is dumb and lucky. Only the most vapid fool would fail to distinguish between excellence and inheritance, though I admit that legions of vapid fools use Insta.
Status stands before us as an evolutionary hurdle. If humanity is to rise as a species, we must transcend status. Until we do, humans will continue to think in conflict-centered terms, and human history will overrun with stupidity and with blood.
To require that humanity “transcend status” is like asking canines to transcend wagging. Such is not to argue from the naturalistic fallacy but to acknowledge that perceiving status can be natural, necessary, and good. As long as we develop status discernment, as in—How was so-and-so’s status earned?—or better—What forms of status are justified by the status-holder’s excellence?—we can regard status facts and values as more than yielding stupidity and blood.
While one can acknowledge that status can give rise to the stupid (the Kardashians) and the bloody (Stalin), so can vehicles. Range Rovers have a reputation for being expensive and difficult to maintain, and that’s arguably stupid. A Honda CRV driven straight into a family of four would be bloody. But the general class of things called cars is neither inherently stupid nor bloody.
Status may be something we’ve been trained in; it may be something that has influenced us all our lives; but it is not “us.” Rather it’s a dirty old habit, attached to some primitive biochemistry.
I would argue that status can be an intersubjective byproduct of admiration. It strikes me then that if status is a dirty old habit of biochemistry, then so is admiration. Yet admiration is essential to allowing others to inspire us with their excellence, especially so that we might be inspired to become more excellent.
In “Surround Yourself with Light,” I agree with the popular trope that you should surround yourself with five amazing people:
Constructive people are sometimes those we admire because they are better than us in some dimension. If I’m correct, envy would be the dirty old habit attached to primitive biochemistry, not admiration or status per se. Indeed, when we replace envy with admiration, we might find the very stuff of personal growth.
Max Borders is a senior advisor to The Advocates. See more of his work at Underthrow.
Advocates for Self-Government is nonpartisan and nonprofit. We exist to help you determine your political views and to promote a free, prosperous, and self-governing society.