Elizeer talks about humility as a mark of low status to avoid social conflicts, but what about religious leaders, who are considered sources of wisdom (and therefore high status) because of their humility, or politicians who try to seem humble/god-fearing. Social modesty, to me, seems more like a tool to increase your own status, not avoid conflicts.
what about religious leaders, who are considered sources of wisdom (and therefore high status) because of their humility, or politicians who try to seem humble/god-fearing
There is an old Jewish joke: During Yom Kippur, the rabbi is seized by a sudden wave of guilt, and prostrates himself and cries, “God, I am nothing before you!” The cantor is likewise seized by guilt, and cries, “God, I am nothing before you!” Seeing this, the janitor at the back of the synagogue prostrates himself and cries, “God, I am nothing before you!” And the rabbi nudges the cantor and whispers, “Look who thinks he’s nothing.”
I think that religious leaders claim to be humble before God, and then turn around and distribute claims about his will to everyone else.
So it seems like they’re acting in deference, but they’re acting in deference towards someone they never interact with, while expecting others to defer to them.
Status games are a continual process of escalation and co-option. They’re somewhat like military buildout in this sense.
One common pattern is that if there’s a way of genuinely signaling low status within a culture, often some people whose status is generally understood to be way higher than that will adopt the forms of that signal. Thus you get political leaders claiming to be public servants, wealthy people wearing denim pants with pre-torn holes in the knee, and similar things.
That can get confusing if I focus on just the signal, and assume it’s the same behavior motivated the same way in both cases.
I generally assume that this is meant, whether conscious-intentionally or not, as a way of increasing the contrast and making their actual status more salient. Roughly: “See? I’m so powerful that I don’t have to talk myself up, or display symbols of my status. I can give all of that away because I have abundance.”
(There are, of course, similar behavioral patterns around tangible stuff as well as symbolic stuff.)
Elizeer talks about humility as a mark of low status to avoid social conflicts, but what about religious leaders, who are considered sources of wisdom (and therefore high status) because of their humility, or politicians who try to seem humble/god-fearing. Social modesty, to me, seems more like a tool to increase your own status, not avoid conflicts.
Heh, reminds me of this:
I think that religious leaders claim to be humble before God, and then turn around and distribute claims about his will to everyone else.
So it seems like they’re acting in deference, but they’re acting in deference towards someone they never interact with, while expecting others to defer to them.
Status games are a continual process of escalation and co-option. They’re somewhat like military buildout in this sense.
One common pattern is that if there’s a way of genuinely signaling low status within a culture, often some people whose status is generally understood to be way higher than that will adopt the forms of that signal. Thus you get political leaders claiming to be public servants, wealthy people wearing denim pants with pre-torn holes in the knee, and similar things.
That can get confusing if I focus on just the signal, and assume it’s the same behavior motivated the same way in both cases.
I generally assume that this is meant, whether conscious-intentionally or not, as a way of increasing the contrast and making their actual status more salient. Roughly: “See? I’m so powerful that I don’t have to talk myself up, or display symbols of my status. I can give all of that away because I have abundance.”
(There are, of course, similar behavioral patterns around tangible stuff as well as symbolic stuff.)