Is social status a real thing?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Is social status a real thing?
Why is it real?
Particularly, since some people may claim a status system of a different kind, but then again some may (through argumentation) recognize same status systems, then can social status systems be held as "objective"?
social-critique
asked 2 hours ago
mavavilj
914619
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Is social status a real thing?
Why is it real?
Particularly, since some people may claim a status system of a different kind, but then again some may (through argumentation) recognize same status systems, then can social status systems be held as "objective"?
social-critique
asked 2 hours ago
mavavilj
914619
Psychologically, for sure. It is much easier to do controversial things if you are a human in status rather than not, since in the first case it's harder to shame you.
– rus9384
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Is social status a real thing?
Why is it real?
Particularly, since some people may claim a status system of a different kind, but then again some may (through argumentation) recognize same status systems, then can social status systems be held as "objective"?
social-critique
asked 2 hours ago
mavavilj
914619
Is social status a real thing?
Why is it real?
Particularly, since some people may claim a status system of a different kind, but then again some may (through argumentation) recognize same status systems, then can social status systems be held as "objective"?
social-critique
social-critique
asked 2 hours ago
mavavilj
914619
asked 2 hours ago
mavavilj
914619
asked 2 hours ago
mavavilj
914619
asked 2 hours ago
mavavilj
914619
asked 2 hours ago
mavavilj
914619
914619
Psychologically, for sure. It is much easier to do controversial things if you are a human in status rather than not, since in the first case it's harder to shame you.
– rus9384
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
Psychologically, for sure. It is much easier to do controversial things if you are a human in status rather than not, since in the first case it's harder to shame you.
– rus9384
1 hour ago
Psychologically, for sure. It is much easier to do controversial things if you are a human in status rather than not, since in the first case it's harder to shame you.
– rus9384
1 hour ago
Psychologically, for sure. It is much easier to do controversial things if you are a human in status rather than not, since in the first case it's harder to shame you.
– rus9384
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
Whether social status is "real" would depend on the sense in which you think, say, rocks and stars are "real". There are important debates between realists and anti-realists in these questions, and there are people who occupy all four quadrants: both natural physical entities and social objects are unreal, both are real, natural objects are real and social objects are unreal, and vice-versa. In between these positions are the (perhaps more common) view that both are real, but one depends on the other and thus is "real" in derived, non-fundamental sense.
John Searle probably has the most robust realist argument; I think he gets to status in the more recent of his two books on the topic, The Construction of Social Reality. Searle's title refers to Luckmann and Berger's The Social Construction of Reality which in a sense also argues that social systems are objective although perhaps in a more radical sense than you have in mind. Ian Hacking's books are a good general introduction to the shape of the social construction debate in general.
answered 1 hour ago
guest1806
5018
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
Whether social status is "real" would depend on the sense in which you think, say, rocks and stars are "real". There are important debates between realists and anti-realists in these questions, and there are people who occupy all four quadrants: both natural physical entities and social objects are unreal, both are real, natural objects are real and social objects are unreal, and vice-versa. In between these positions are the (perhaps more common) view that both are real, but one depends on the other and thus is "real" in derived, non-fundamental sense.
John Searle probably has the most robust realist argument; I think he gets to status in the more recent of his two books on the topic, The Construction of Social Reality. Searle's title refers to Luckmann and Berger's The Social Construction of Reality which in a sense also argues that social systems are objective although perhaps in a more radical sense than you have in mind. Ian Hacking's books are a good general introduction to the shape of the social construction debate in general.
answered 1 hour ago
guest1806
5018
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
Whether social status is "real" would depend on the sense in which you think, say, rocks and stars are "real". There are important debates between realists and anti-realists in these questions, and there are people who occupy all four quadrants: both natural physical entities and social objects are unreal, both are real, natural objects are real and social objects are unreal, and vice-versa. In between these positions are the (perhaps more common) view that both are real, but one depends on the other and thus is "real" in derived, non-fundamental sense.
John Searle probably has the most robust realist argument; I think he gets to status in the more recent of his two books on the topic, The Construction of Social Reality. Searle's title refers to Luckmann and Berger's The Social Construction of Reality which in a sense also argues that social systems are objective although perhaps in a more radical sense than you have in mind. Ian Hacking's books are a good general introduction to the shape of the social construction debate in general.
answered 1 hour ago
guest1806
5018
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
Whether social status is "real" would depend on the sense in which you think, say, rocks and stars are "real". There are important debates between realists and anti-realists in these questions, and there are people who occupy all four quadrants: both natural physical entities and social objects are unreal, both are real, natural objects are real and social objects are unreal, and vice-versa. In between these positions are the (perhaps more common) view that both are real, but one depends on the other and thus is "real" in derived, non-fundamental sense.
John Searle probably has the most robust realist argument; I think he gets to status in the more recent of his two books on the topic, The Construction of Social Reality. Searle's title refers to Luckmann and Berger's The Social Construction of Reality which in a sense also argues that social systems are objective although perhaps in a more radical sense than you have in mind. Ian Hacking's books are a good general introduction to the shape of the social construction debate in general.
answered 1 hour ago
guest1806
5018
Whether social status is "real" would depend on the sense in which you think, say, rocks and stars are "real". There are important debates between realists and anti-realists in these questions, and there are people who occupy all four quadrants: both natural physical entities and social objects are unreal, both are real, natural objects are real and social objects are unreal, and vice-versa. In between these positions are the (perhaps more common) view that both are real, but one depends on the other and thus is "real" in derived, non-fundamental sense.
John Searle probably has the most robust realist argument; I think he gets to status in the more recent of his two books on the topic, The Construction of Social Reality. Searle's title refers to Luckmann and Berger's The Social Construction of Reality which in a sense also argues that social systems are objective although perhaps in a more radical sense than you have in mind. Ian Hacking's books are a good general introduction to the shape of the social construction debate in general.
answered 1 hour ago
guest1806
5018
answered 1 hour ago
guest1806
5018
answered 1 hour ago
guest1806
5018
answered 1 hour ago
guest1806
5018
5018
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f56682%2fis-social-status-a-real-thing%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Psychologically, for sure. It is much easier to do controversial things if you are a human in status rather than not, since in the first case it's harder to shame you.
– rus9384
1 hour ago