Adam Smith wrote about being “loved and lovely” in his Theory of Moral Sentiments. Smith was writing about the two halves of self-esteem—being self-efficacious and being worthy of admiration. I think that men of dominance and rank pursue being loved with different views of self-esteem.
The men of dominance don’t understand the second half (being lovely); they are driven by only power for its own sake. The men of rank want both parts but only some truly deserve to be loved and to be found lovely. Most view their rank as the actual value or object of their journey. Only a select few accept their rank as a deserved status, a byproduct of their admirable works.
Many men of prestige will only be known by a small number of people (their families, friends and local communities). Some get elevated to a rank, not by design or intention, but by the insistence of those who admire their values. Some will never fully appreciate how important their lives were and are to not only the smallest group but to the world—How many great parents are responsible for producing good human beings who go on to advance their local communities and by extension the greater society.
As a professor I sometimes illustrate this point by telling a student in class to move to another seat, no explanation given. Invariably they do it. Then I have them imagine their response if another student told them to move without offering an explanation. (I haven't quite had the nerve to actually stage this with another student as confederate.) This is not just pure dominance, and of course it only works in the classroom , where I can exercise my role as instructor. If I told a student to move when I ran into them in. a movie theater, I probably wouldn't get the same result. This much is Sociology 101: we interact with others not just as individuals, but as occupants of social roles, which is what enables us – alone among primates – to construct functioning societies of millions of members.
“. . . we are embarrassed to chase rank, precisely because it is mediated.” Well, that depends on the epistemic status of the mediator. It is not dishonorable to seek the *imprimatur* of a mediator who really know who deserves prestige (and who acts accordingly). For example, it is all right to seek promotion in academic rank, if the rank will be conferred by colleagues who know who deserves such recognition for his scholarship and pedagogy, and who award it accordingly; otherwise the seeking would be at best questionable.
And note that nowadays prestige is usually mediated: often the performance of experts or specialists cannot well be evaluated by ordinary people; they have to rely on the testimony of other experts, who thus serve as mediators.
Rank is dominance status - the behavior of others is changed by the threat of causing harm (costs). It is based on submission of the other party in the hope of avoiding costs, in this case not using muscles or weapons but an institution = by a membiont organized gang of people. "Rank" creates sub-ordinates exactly like other forms of dominance status. People do not openly strive for it as they do not openly pursue other forms of dominance - it was penalized for a very long time . Cultural hierarchical structures, such as organizations, confer dominance &prestige status on the individuals who fill them. Prestige status can be also inter personally transferred thanks to money:
"126. Money enables the transfer of personal prestige status to non-human structures - organizations and institutions (culture membionts) that use money for self-sustenance and replication. Similarly, dominance status is transferred from individuals to rank or function in an organization" https://www.jurajkarpis.com/moneyisstatusmemory/
no, because a general can give orders to a private, a lawyer orders to an associate, a doctor orders to a nurse. gov is a separate dominance distribution structure
The dominance-prestige dichotomy, although useful, is certainly missing something. It’s also difficult to accurately characterize sociality across macro categories, eg hunter-gatherers do X but chiefdoms do Y, at least with broad strokes.
Adam Smith wrote about being “loved and lovely” in his Theory of Moral Sentiments. Smith was writing about the two halves of self-esteem—being self-efficacious and being worthy of admiration. I think that men of dominance and rank pursue being loved with different views of self-esteem.
The men of dominance don’t understand the second half (being lovely); they are driven by only power for its own sake. The men of rank want both parts but only some truly deserve to be loved and to be found lovely. Most view their rank as the actual value or object of their journey. Only a select few accept their rank as a deserved status, a byproduct of their admirable works.
Many men of prestige will only be known by a small number of people (their families, friends and local communities). Some get elevated to a rank, not by design or intention, but by the insistence of those who admire their values. Some will never fully appreciate how important their lives were and are to not only the smallest group but to the world—How many great parents are responsible for producing good human beings who go on to advance their local communities and by extension the greater society.
Rank is a form of dominance. It's less directly threatening, but the looming power of the institution is still power.
It can also be seen as a form of prestige.
I think the pre-GPT version of this post was better.
As a professor I sometimes illustrate this point by telling a student in class to move to another seat, no explanation given. Invariably they do it. Then I have them imagine their response if another student told them to move without offering an explanation. (I haven't quite had the nerve to actually stage this with another student as confederate.) This is not just pure dominance, and of course it only works in the classroom , where I can exercise my role as instructor. If I told a student to move when I ran into them in. a movie theater, I probably wouldn't get the same result. This much is Sociology 101: we interact with others not just as individuals, but as occupants of social roles, which is what enables us – alone among primates – to construct functioning societies of millions of members.
“. . . we are embarrassed to chase rank, precisely because it is mediated.” Well, that depends on the epistemic status of the mediator. It is not dishonorable to seek the *imprimatur* of a mediator who really know who deserves prestige (and who acts accordingly). For example, it is all right to seek promotion in academic rank, if the rank will be conferred by colleagues who know who deserves such recognition for his scholarship and pedagogy, and who award it accordingly; otherwise the seeking would be at best questionable.
And note that nowadays prestige is usually mediated: often the performance of experts or specialists cannot well be evaluated by ordinary people; they have to rely on the testimony of other experts, who thus serve as mediators.
Rank is dominance status - the behavior of others is changed by the threat of causing harm (costs). It is based on submission of the other party in the hope of avoiding costs, in this case not using muscles or weapons but an institution = by a membiont organized gang of people. "Rank" creates sub-ordinates exactly like other forms of dominance status. People do not openly strive for it as they do not openly pursue other forms of dominance - it was penalized for a very long time . Cultural hierarchical structures, such as organizations, confer dominance &prestige status on the individuals who fill them. Prestige status can be also inter personally transferred thanks to money:
"126. Money enables the transfer of personal prestige status to non-human structures - organizations and institutions (culture membionts) that use money for self-sustenance and replication. Similarly, dominance status is transferred from individuals to rank or function in an organization" https://www.jurajkarpis.com/moneyisstatusmemory/
You are saying that the rank of doctor or lawyer is dominance because the government can harm you by limiting who you can hire as a doctor or lawyer?
no, because a general can give orders to a private, a lawyer orders to an associate, a doctor orders to a nurse. gov is a separate dominance distribution structure
I think there are around 10 ranks between homeless person and US president.
Is it clear there are discrete ranks instead of a noisy continuum?
I think in the minds of people - yes. We said Billionair as clear rank without actually looking on exact number of net worth.
I think the whole rank levels look like:
President
CEO of large company like Musk
Generic billionaire
Generally well-known person like scientist or successful blogger
Business owner
Office manager
Salary man (Mcdonalds kassier)
Homeless man
Interesting discussion!
The dominance-prestige dichotomy, although useful, is certainly missing something. It’s also difficult to accurately characterize sociality across macro categories, eg hunter-gatherers do X but chiefdoms do Y, at least with broad strokes.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/ecology-of-minds/202509/the-many-faces-of-leadership
Some claim that all these resources can be categorized as dominance or prestige. So helps to show things that don't fit very well in either category.