That's interesting. I haven't seen social status linked to obedience before. Would organisations which enforce obedience (like the military for example) thus have a higher status than those which allow, for example, workers' collectives some decision making power?
Well, it depends what we mean by the word status.
If status means good manners, well spoken, etc then it doesn't matter who holds the power or influence.
However, if by status we mean people with power or have influence over those who exercise power, then yes, organizations which enforce obedience have a higher status vs other organizations, individuals, etc who have no access to such power, but are directly affected by such.
For example, let's take the police-civilian analogy. Let's assume that corruption is very low, thus the police-civilian power structure remains in place without coersion which would cause certain civilians to receive preferential treatment by the police.
Under such assumption, if you are driving on a road and after a while of driving at a steady speed you notice a police vehicle with a cop inside parked on the side of the road, the automatic reaction for you will be to check the speedometer, release your foot from the gas pedal and place it over the brakes pedal and perhaps press on it to slow down a bit.
In such situation, the police officer has control over you by his mere presence, which poses a threat to you and thus, you adjust your behavior.
On the other hand, let's say you are parked on the side of a road and a police officer is driving, in fact speeding down the same road. Guess what? The presence of your vehicle with you inside parked on the side of the road will have absolutely no effect on the behavior of the police, he will continue speeding and pass by you as if you are unimportant.
What's the difference? Why do you feel the necessity to adjust your behavior in the presence of a police officer while the police officer doesn't feel the same in your presence?
There are several factors at work, among them is included status.
The police officer is given respect, is obeyed, and in some cases feared by civilians. The police officer is at a higher status than the civilian, because the police is enforcing the laws on behalf of the state apparatus.
You, on the other hand, are a civilian. Your status vis-a-vis a police officer is lower. You are subject to his influence and power while he is not to yours.
What do people of higher status tend to do so others recognize their position? They distinguish themselves from the masses through various ways including consumption of certain types of goods. In the case of a police officer, he wears a uniform which immediately lets everyone knows that even though he is a human like everyone else, he is not in an equal position to everyone else at that moment in time.
Because of that, because of the differences in status, those who are below him give him respect, obey his orders, etc.
The few who challenge his authority will feel tremendous pressure to comply with what we can call the "status quo" between a police officer and a civilian.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
We can also use DR1 as an example. For example, why do people put attention to anything Robert or Dolores says here, particularly when its regarding what members are allowed to post? It's a similar class system at work. Robert and Dolores are the elites, the moderators are members of that elite who are chosen by the founders. Then there are the non-moderating members who are divided between influential members (those who have access to the "elite") and the uninfluential members (those who post, but regardless what they say, it will have no effect on how DR1 is run). Then there are the "low class" of DR1 which is composed of newbies, members who are not taken seriously, etc). Finally, there are the "excluded" who are the lurkers, they take absolutely no part on DR1 other than watching everything while not being engaged.
You will notice that if a moderator is dissatisfied with a member, such member will be given a notice and if he disobey the notice, he will eventually be banned or eliminated. However, if members are dissatisfied with a moderator, the removal of such is dependent on what the other moderators think of him. In both instances, the decision lies in the moderators (ie. the elites) while some DR1 members have some influence over some moderators while others have absolutely no influence. In either case, the moderators have the "power" and the rest of DR1 don't.
To become a member of the "moderators club", it depends on what Robert or other moderators think of such potential member. They hold the power to include and exclude whomever they want. In fact, Robert and Dolores hold the ultimate power and moderators come a close second, but under the watchful eyes of the founders. Everybody else is under the watchful eyes of the moderators.
Despite the obvious difference in status of various members on the DR1 community, this site is among the best and most efficient out there. There are more "egalitarian" sites out there with no moderators, in fact everybody is an equal and they function in a less civilized manner.
The same applies to societies at large, more or less.
-NALs
. i think it is an error to mistake power for status, either on a board or in real life. Mussolini had power but did he have status? Ditto Kim Jong Il.
