Few traits that determine social status are easy to manipulate. Those that are tend to get universally manipulated away, and nobody even thinks about them much.
For example for some reasons in this culture strong natural body smell decreases social status significantly. And because it’s so easy to manipulate, virtually everyone fixes this problem with regular showers, deodorants and such, to the point where it’s rare to find a person who doesn’t.
After all the easy ones get manipulated by everyone, the only determinants of social status that differentiate people are those that are difficult to manipulate—like being poor, or short, or ugly, or black. The situation only changes when technology makes manipulation easier, or signals change for any reason.
Few traits that determine social status are easy to manipulate.
You appear to have a single-scale, and thus completely inaccurate, concept of social status. I’d hesitate to label anything as “offensive,” because I don’t really believe in offense, but you appear to be seriously naive and misinformed if your comments here are intended even slightly seriously.
One of the strongest markers of social status is diction and pronunciation. It is not a perfect indicator, but one can often deduce someone’s social status from two minutes of conversation, simply by what words they use, the quality of their grammar, if they use expletives in casual conversation, if they have an accent, and other related indicators.
Diction is fairly easy to manipulate, particularly in childhood. People are nonetheless extremely resistant to changing their diction. Try correcting the grammar of anyone over six and see how it goes. Changing diction is only beneficial within specific subgroups. If you speak like you went to Eton in the rural south, you are going have trouble fitting in with the local social order. If you speak like you’re from the rural South at Eton, you’re likely to have the same problem. Thus, there is clear evidence that there is a manipulable and powerful indicator of social status that does not get manipulated, principally because it is unlikely to improve social status within a selected peer group, and thus is seen as a part of a person’s identity.
This objection applies to your statement about race generally generally. An individual’s race does not affect their social status objectively or in a specific direction. Many non-whites derive higher status within their existing social circle due to their race. This is emphatically not confined to low-status individuals; I grudgingly use Clarence Thomas as a rather obvious demonstration of this fact—he would never have attained such an important and respectable position without being black.
The idea that an innate trait shared by millions of people that often forms a key part of their identities would be voluntarily altered were the opportunity provided suggests, first, that you do not know many black people, and, second, that you have an extremely oversimplified and naive view of race, culture, and social status.
Changing diction is only beneficial within specific subgroups.
Tangent: This can be played for laughs. I recall a scene in the TV show Weeds in which a black marijuana grower is asking a black friend for a favor in the latter’s business-y place of work. The friend’s white boss sticks his head in the room to ask for a report, and the friend’s accent subtly shifts when replying to the request. After the boss leaves, the grower snerks at his friend for talking white.
I appreciate the link, but this isn’t a matter of whether being black lowers social status—what I disputed is the original assertion that illness is defined by the effect on social status.
You’re right that most people will undergo procedures to eliminate undesirable traits and create or enhance desirable ones—your body odor example is apt—but that’s a lifestyle choice.
It seems there’s a misunderstanding here. I was talking about sufficient, not necessary conditions. There are obviously proper types of “illness” like cancer, flu, and such.
And on top of that, treatable things that lower social status, are very often added to the list. Can you think of many counterexamples?
To be quite frank, my chief objection was that expressions like “such-and-such is a disease” have been cover for prejudices in the past—for example, regarding homosexuality. But more to the point, race is seen as an intrinsic property of the person which cannot be eliminated even if the actual markers of race are eliminated (witness the one-sixteenth rules) - which would make it a genetic disorder which can only be managed, not eliminated. A “blackness” which is treatable is so different from the modern, Western sociological phenomenon we call “race” that it doesn’t make sense to talk about it.
So it’s a poor example that makes people uncomfortable, in sum.
Few traits that determine social status are easy to manipulate.
You appear to have a single-scale, and thus completely inaccurate, concept of social status. I’d hesitate to label anything as “offensive,” because I don’t really believe in offense, but you appear to be seriously naive and misinformed if your comments here are intended even slightly seriously.
One of the strongest markers of social status is diction and pronunciation. It is not a perfect indicator, but one can often deduce someone’s social status from two minutes of conversation, simply by what words they use, the quality of their grammar, if they use expletives in casual conversation, if they have an accent, and other related indicators.
Diction is fairly easy to manipulate, particularly in childhood. People are nonetheless extremely resistant to changing their diction. Try correcting the grammar of anyone over six and see how it goes. Changing diction is only beneficial within specific subgroups. If you speak like you went to Eton in the rural south, you are going have trouble fitting in with the local social order. If you speak like you’re from the rural South at Eton, you’re likely to have the same problem. Thus, there is clear evidence that there is a manipulable and powerful indicator of social status that does not get manipulated, principally because it is unlikely to improve social status within a selected peer group, and thus is seen as a part of a person’s identity.
This objection applies to your statement about race generally generally. An individual’s race does not affect their social status objectively or in a specific direction. Many non-whites derive higher status within their existing social circle due to their race. This is emphatically not confined to low-status individuals; I grudgingly use Clarence Thomas as a rather obvious demonstration of this fact—he would never have attained such an important and respectable position without being black.
The idea that an innate trait shared by millions of people that often forms a key part of their identities would be voluntarily altered were the opportunity provided suggests, first, that you do not know many black people, and, second, that you have an extremely oversimplified and naive view of race, culture, and social status.
In case you don’t believe being black lowers your social status in this culture, even four year old black children know it.
I’d like to see that experiment replicated in South-Saharan Africa, where “albinos” (white people) are persecuted as witches and said to have magical powers.
Being albino is completely unrelated to being “White”. “White” and “Black” are not skin albedo designations, it’s purely coincidental that they sound like that.
Few traits that determine social status are easy to manipulate. Those that are tend to get universally manipulated away, and nobody even thinks about them much.
For example for some reasons in this culture strong natural body smell decreases social status significantly. And because it’s so easy to manipulate, virtually everyone fixes this problem with regular showers, deodorants and such, to the point where it’s rare to find a person who doesn’t.
After all the easy ones get manipulated by everyone, the only determinants of social status that differentiate people are those that are difficult to manipulate—like being poor, or short, or ugly, or black. The situation only changes when technology makes manipulation easier, or signals change for any reason.
In case you don’t believe being black lowers your social status in this culture, even four year old black children know it.
You appear to have a single-scale, and thus completely inaccurate, concept of social status. I’d hesitate to label anything as “offensive,” because I don’t really believe in offense, but you appear to be seriously naive and misinformed if your comments here are intended even slightly seriously.
One of the strongest markers of social status is diction and pronunciation. It is not a perfect indicator, but one can often deduce someone’s social status from two minutes of conversation, simply by what words they use, the quality of their grammar, if they use expletives in casual conversation, if they have an accent, and other related indicators.
Diction is fairly easy to manipulate, particularly in childhood. People are nonetheless extremely resistant to changing their diction. Try correcting the grammar of anyone over six and see how it goes. Changing diction is only beneficial within specific subgroups. If you speak like you went to Eton in the rural south, you are going have trouble fitting in with the local social order. If you speak like you’re from the rural South at Eton, you’re likely to have the same problem. Thus, there is clear evidence that there is a manipulable and powerful indicator of social status that does not get manipulated, principally because it is unlikely to improve social status within a selected peer group, and thus is seen as a part of a person’s identity.
This objection applies to your statement about race generally generally. An individual’s race does not affect their social status objectively or in a specific direction. Many non-whites derive higher status within their existing social circle due to their race. This is emphatically not confined to low-status individuals; I grudgingly use Clarence Thomas as a rather obvious demonstration of this fact—he would never have attained such an important and respectable position without being black.
The idea that an innate trait shared by millions of people that often forms a key part of their identities would be voluntarily altered were the opportunity provided suggests, first, that you do not know many black people, and, second, that you have an extremely oversimplified and naive view of race, culture, and social status.
Tangent: This can be played for laughs. I recall a scene in the TV show Weeds in which a black marijuana grower is asking a black friend for a favor in the latter’s business-y place of work. The friend’s white boss sticks his head in the room to ask for a report, and the friend’s accent subtly shifts when replying to the request. After the boss leaves, the grower snerks at his friend for talking white.
I appreciate the link, but this isn’t a matter of whether being black lowers social status—what I disputed is the original assertion that illness is defined by the effect on social status.
You’re right that most people will undergo procedures to eliminate undesirable traits and create or enhance desirable ones—your body odor example is apt—but that’s a lifestyle choice.
It seems there’s a misunderstanding here. I was talking about sufficient, not necessary conditions. There are obviously proper types of “illness” like cancer, flu, and such.
And on top of that, treatable things that lower social status, are very often added to the list. Can you think of many counterexamples?
To be quite frank, my chief objection was that expressions like “such-and-such is a disease” have been cover for prejudices in the past—for example, regarding homosexuality. But more to the point, race is seen as an intrinsic property of the person which cannot be eliminated even if the actual markers of race are eliminated (witness the one-sixteenth rules) - which would make it a genetic disorder which can only be managed, not eliminated. A “blackness” which is treatable is so different from the modern, Western sociological phenomenon we call “race” that it doesn’t make sense to talk about it.
So it’s a poor example that makes people uncomfortable, in sum.
You appear to have a single-scale, and thus completely inaccurate, concept of social status. I’d hesitate to label anything as “offensive,” because I don’t really believe in offense, but you appear to be seriously naive and misinformed if your comments here are intended even slightly seriously.
One of the strongest markers of social status is diction and pronunciation. It is not a perfect indicator, but one can often deduce someone’s social status from two minutes of conversation, simply by what words they use, the quality of their grammar, if they use expletives in casual conversation, if they have an accent, and other related indicators.
Diction is fairly easy to manipulate, particularly in childhood. People are nonetheless extremely resistant to changing their diction. Try correcting the grammar of anyone over six and see how it goes. Changing diction is only beneficial within specific subgroups. If you speak like you went to Eton in the rural south, you are going have trouble fitting in with the local social order. If you speak like you’re from the rural South at Eton, you’re likely to have the same problem. Thus, there is clear evidence that there is a manipulable and powerful indicator of social status that does not get manipulated, principally because it is unlikely to improve social status within a selected peer group, and thus is seen as a part of a person’s identity.
This objection applies to your statement about race generally generally. An individual’s race does not affect their social status objectively or in a specific direction. Many non-whites derive higher status within their existing social circle due to their race. This is emphatically not confined to low-status individuals; I grudgingly use Clarence Thomas as a rather obvious demonstration of this fact—he would never have attained such an important and respectable position without being black.
The idea that an innate trait shared by millions of people that often forms a key part of their identities would be voluntarily altered were the opportunity provided suggests, first, that you do not know many black people, and, second, that you have an extremely oversimplified and naive view of race, culture, and social status.
I’d like to see that experiment replicated in South-Saharan Africa, where “albinos” (white people) are persecuted as witches and said to have magical powers.
Being albino is completely unrelated to being “White”. “White” and “Black” are not skin albedo designations, it’s purely coincidental that they sound like that.
I don’t know if “purely coincidental” is the right way to characterize that, but yeah, you can have an albino of any racial extraction.
Indeed.
Every time I look at those albino black people, I think how creepy! And realize again how race is wired into my mind.