Status inconsistency

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article or section needs to be wikified to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.
Please help improve this article with relevant internal links. (October 2007)
This article or section includes a list of references or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks in-text citations.
You can improve this article by introducing more precise citations.

Status inconsistency is a situation where an individual's social positions have both positive and negative influences on his or her social status. For example, a teacher may have a positive societal image (respect, prestige) which increases his or her status but may earn little money, which simultaneously decreases his or her status. Status Inconsistency is a situation in which a person occupies two or more statuses of different rank. Another example, only on the opposite end would be someone who won the lottery. Or someone that was low middle class with maybe a high school diploma. Lottery winners shoot very high up the social ladder because of all the money they now have, but they still will not have the prestige that a teacher would.

Contents

[edit] General Description

All societies have some basis for social stratification. Industrializing societies, like Max Weber[1]'s Germany of the 1900's, are characterized by multiple dimensions on which status in society can be assigned. The notion of status inconsistency is simple: it occurs when people may occupy different positions in the status system when evaluated according to different criteria. That based on certain things, people are able to move up in a status level. For instance, teachers may have high levels of education, may receive high status on an occupational prestige[2] level, but have low status in terms of income and wealth. The complexity and dynamism of modern societies results in both social mobility, and the presence of people and social roles in these inconsistent or mixed status positions. Sociologists investigate issues of status inconsistency in order better understand status systems and stratification, and because some sociologists believe that positions of status inconsistency might have strong effects on peoples behavior. In this line of reasoning people may react to an inconsistent status position as problematic, and thus may change their behavior, their patterns of sociation, or otherwise act to resolve the inconsistent position. During the last fifty years social researchers have investigated and debated evidence about how, where, why, and to what extent status inconsistency affects social action. Status inconcistency is most commonly inconsistence between social status and economic class. The general status system you think would work as the higher economic position, the higher class. In a general sense status inconsistency often lies along the intersection of an individual's location in status and class hierarchies. Inconsistency primarily arises when an individual is ranked high in one dimension of power, class, or status and ranked low on another one of the dimensions. The discontent it creates is often expressed as feelings of not being treated with the respect one deserves or not receiving the amount of money one deserves to be paid.

[edit] Theory and its Development

Max Weber articulate three major dimensions of stratification in his discussion of class, power, and status. This multifaceted framework provides the background concepts for discussing status inconsistency. Status Inconsistency theories predict that people whose status is inconsistent, or higher on one dimension than one another, will be more frustrated and dissatisfied than people with consistent statuses. Gerhard Lenski was a major component in developing this theory. He explains that if people are ranked higher in one dimension than another, then they are going to emphasize their high rank on that other person. They are not going to bring much attention to their lower rank. This gives off that people think they should be judged according to their highest rank. But others who are trying to grow and expand their rank they are going to emphasize on the other persons lower rank. With this type of situation it is common that conflict will arise. People who are denied the social rank that they think they deserve, are more likely to move towards political actions, such as, liberals and radicals.

They say that status is defined as being apart of the stratification system. A stratification system refers to the unequal distribution of rewards among people of society. In this they fail to mention anything about the basis of what part of status that people fall in on the stratification system. So by not doing this it leaves that a particular position or status can be high or low on the basic three components of status inconsistency.(Stark, 237).

Even thought this particular topic is rather old, it is still very much apart of our societies today. There is still research going on today about status inconsistency and there are many more theories that been developed from this. It has also been shown how this can lead to other things such as, social mobility and role conflict. By looking at the "American Sociological Reviews" and "Annual Reviews of Sociology" show numerous articles on all the different research that is being done on Status Inconsistency. This is not even close to all the new research that is out there. This is a theory that will live on forever.

[edit] Weber's dimensions of stratification

*Property Weber's thought was groups of people with similar "life chances" as determined by their economic position in society-their material possessions and their opportunities for income. This is what modern social scientists refer to as property. This is one of the main components of how they determine class, which is also a key in Status Inconsistency as well. Although ownership is highly stressed and when talking about property. So just by having some type of property would not make you high status in this category.To be clear about property, ownership of property is absolutely important. Weber, like Marx, sees the primary determinant of class as ownership of property. In other words, when it comes to class its all about the haves and the have-nots. So even though teachers and police officers have very high prestige, they are still considered to be the "have-nots" because they may not have a lot of property or ownership to show for it.

*Power The ability to get one's way despite the resistance of others. People may still be very powerful and not have any property. Wealth is more stressed while talking about power. But some have been known to say that power can only be bought. Power comes into play when we talk about the rich and famous. They have about one of the highest incomes out of everyone in the country, for doing things as simple as making a movie. With all the money that they earn they are able to have a certain amount of power. Also another good example is politicians. Politicians are able to retire wealthy but only make modest income while in office. This why they normally say power can only be bought because those with the power normally are wealthy as well.

*Prestige This is known as social honor.Which is basically what is referred to when people talk about status. This is used to get economic power. People are known to have prestige but little or no property. These are people who are highly regarded and are known throughout but still may have little to show for it. Fire Fighters are a great example of this because after 9-11, I think we all had a greater appreciation for them. So even though they don't have the highest income they are still considered high prestige or high status because of the work they do.

[edit] Lenski's Status inconsistency Theory and Stratification

* Lenski's Theory The Status Inconsistency theory states that people whose status is inconsistent, or lower, than their believed status rank will become frustrated and dissatisfied more easily than individuals whose status rank is consistent. Those affected by Status Inconsistency, and unhappy with their current status rank, blame society’s rules for determining that status rank. As a result, they often turn their backs on their own social class interests and support the claims of the less privileged Gerhard Lenski supported this main theory of Status Inconsistency which predicted that people suffering from Status Inconsistency will favor political actions and parties directed against higher status groups. Lenski continues by stating that Status Inconsistency can be used to further explain the phenomenon of why status groups made up of wealthy minorities will tend to be liberal instead of the presumed conservative.

[edit] Four Principles for Status Inconsistency

These are four principles for status inconsistency that helps during task situations. Status inconsistency has been linked to many different things in life. These four principles will help declare what happens while people work together in working areas and how they think it could be resolved. They say that when people work together on a job or task, differences in their status will affect their interaction. Here are the four different hypothesis they came up with. http://www.jstor.org/view/00031224/di974410/97p01654/0

* Balancing Lenski says that people tend to focus on those characteristics on which they rank high and discount those on which they rank low. This is mainly explaining how people with high rank tend to go towards others who are ranked close to them.

* Majority Balancing This leads people to form a comparable definitions of the situations around them, which this is presumably conductive to create an effective interaction with those of the same rank.

* Canceling This is where they take the negative information away from the positive information.

* Positive and Negative This is where they actually take the negative and positive information into consideration. They take this information and sort it into very distinct and equal subsets. Then they base their expectations on this information.

[edit] Examples of Status inconsistency

The three main components or rewards are power, prestige, and property. There is also status characteristics that are able to determine status or status levels. Therefore, ethnicity and race are two factors that could determine status and this effects the influence on their position in society. This topic does not only deal with societies but effects individual people and people's jobs as well. It occurs in all different types of occupations around the world. The status levels still play a role in jobs today.

Status inconsistency is often represented by many different everyday occupations, like teachers for example, who have high prestige in their society. However, teachers do not earn a very high income considering their value and extreme importance. Other examples would include police officers and firefighters who put their lives on the line each day to help others. As greatly respected as these men and women may be in their communities, they do not receive a large amount of pay. Status inconsistency also includes those whose social rank and class are lower than their prestige or income. An example would be a drug dealer. Drug dealers are looked down upon in society. Their status is low due to people living nearby with clean lifestyles that want nothing to do with them because they themselves do not wish to lose respect or status. Besides having a low social rank, a drug dealer makes a large amount of money and therefore should have equally high prestige; this is where status inconsistency comes into play. From these examples, status inconsistency can be represented by someone with a great deal of respect but is receiving a low rate of pay; or by someone with little or no respect but receiving a large income.

[edit] Research and Debates Concerning Status Inconsistency Theories

Our article includes a few opinions of sociologists and their beliefs on what Status Inconsistency can lead to. Theories help give a better understanding of our topic in everyday life. The following article will help show how people who are effected by Status Inconsistency can cause further effects to say, politics as well. It also gives a look into race and ethnicity, and helps show that Status Inconsistency does not only effect societies but individuals too. When Status Inconsistency occurs it doesn't only make them think about their occupation, race, or ethnicity but it can also effect their political views. This helps us show that Status Inconsistency deals with all types of situations and can be found in places that you may have never thought possible?

Lenski says, "When people rank higher on one status dimension than on another, they will emphasize their highest claim to rank and deemphasize their lowest (Stark, 238)." This leads people with higher rank to think that they should be judged on their highest status. But for those who are trying to build and establish their own status they are more likely to focus on other's lower status and position. This will help to show their weaknesses in places where you might be quite strong. Lenski also states that: "Persons who are denied the social rank that they believe they deserve become antagonistic toward the rules governing status in their society (Stark, 238)." This will cause them to lead towards political groups that are against upper-status groups, such as, liberals and radicals. This theory became very important in helping to explain why people of considerable social rank often seem to turn their backs on their own status or class, and tend to support the less privelged. Gary Marx stated that in the 1960's all famous, wealthy, and well educated African Americans has suffered from status inconsistency. So this shows that even though you might be considered to be in the upper-class or high status group, there are still many different levels of scrutteny that people can face under status inconsistency. For example, high class African Americans still go through this system because status inconsistency does not only deal with occupation. These theories show that race, culture, religion, and many other things play a role in how people are characterized into status inconsistency. "Therefore, according to the theory, upper-status African Americans ought to be more militant about changing radical conditions than were African Americans with consistently low statuses (Stark, 238)." So for this to be true then more African American doctors and bankers would be more likely to support radicals than African American janitors and housekeepers. After research down throughout many nations he came to find out that this was true. This theory is true throughout all ethnic minorities, such as, Jewish bankers in North America are also more likely to support the liberals and radicals. People who are suffering from status inconsistency tend to place the blame on the system. This is typically for those who have inconsistency in result from group characteristics such as race, religion, or ethnicity. For these characteristics the individual person has no control,(Stark, 238). This notion of status inconsistency is only possible if we accept Weber's view that there are multiple bases for rank in societies, (Stark, 238). No matter how we accept or believe in the system, the same question will always arise about how people gain their positions, and when getting into this discussion it will lead to you to the topic of social mobility. Status inconsistency has so many different types of branches. Many other topics could and will relate to this, simply because this has to deal with a society and nation as a whole.

  • Status and Class
  • Marx, Weber, and Lenski
  • Arguments and Theories

[edit] References

  1. Berger, J.; Blackwell, J.W., Norman, R.Z., Smith, R.F, (1992). Status Inconsistency in Task Situations: A Test of Four Status Processing, Vol. 57., American Sociological Review: American Sociological Association.  http://www.jstor.org/view/00031224/di974410/97p01654/0
  2. Hope, K. (Dec., 1975). Vol. 38, No. 6. Models of Status Inconsistency and Social Mobility Effects. American Sociological Review, pg.322-343: American Sociological Association http://www.jstor.org/view/00031224/di974305/97p0178b/0
  3. Macke, A.S., Stryker, S., (1978). Status Inconsistency and Role Conflict. Annual Review Sociology: Annual Reviews http://www.jstor.org/view/03600572/di974050/97p0056d/0
  4. Stark, R. (2007). Sociology, 10th Edition, Thomson Wadsworth. ISBN 0-495-09344-0. 

[[Category:Sociology