In his
book The Status Game (1), Will Storr argues – and I partially agree with
him - that human behaviour is driven by an on-going game to gain social rank
and status. Historically, having high status meant better access to better
food, mates and safety. Storr describes three types of status games:
a) dominance games: forcing or
intimidating others to submit, using fear and power.
b) virtue games: proving moral superiority, duty or selflessness within a
group.
c) success/competence games: achieving prestige through skills, knowledge or
achievements.
The quest for status – especially but not limited to dominance
games - is often measured in terms of one’s rank in comparison to others, and it
can be very destructive. The Talmud states that envy, lust and the pursuit of
honour cause people to be removed from the world (2). Status anxiety can cause
illness. Often, the stress involved in status-related conflict – where people
are fighting to be seen as the “good one” and the victim and to position the
other as the villain – can have serious health impacts.
It is really important to mitigate the harm of one person gaining
status at the expense of others. At this roundtable, participants were asked to
stand near a poster with the name of a value that they would be prepared to
sacrifice. The values were based on the Schwartz Theory of Basic Values (3).
The values we used were Achievement, Benevolence & Loyalty (to the people
close to you), Change, Conformity, Hedonism, Humility, Self-Direction/ Self-Expression,
Peace, Power, Security, Tradition, Universalism and Dignity for all. Some
participants stood at Tradition as something they would trade in favour of Change,
others at Conformity that they saw as destructive. I stood at Power, because I
am concerned that the exercise of power by one person is often at the cost of
the dignity of another.
In our work in Together for Humanity, we recently invited young
people to consider the trade-offs between values to make better choices. One
group of girls reflected that their value of power made them act like “control
freaks” at the expense of their values of respect for others and cooperation. I
told participants at the roundtable that preaching respect is not enough to
defeat hatred and discrimination. Perhaps, thinking more deeply about values
trade-offs can lead to better results.
Fortunately, in cases where a win-win is possible, there is no
need for trade-offs. One insight about this is the Jewish teaching, “Who is
respected? Those who respect all people.” (4) Starr points out that there are multiple ways to play the “status game”, in some of these approaches, we can spread high status around.
One way of understanding the story of Cain and Abel is as a
catastrophic status game. The siblings’ rivalry began with arguments about
which of their occupations – farming or being a shepherd – was more worthy (5).
The offerings the two brothers brought to God (6) were an attempt to get God to
referee their status game (7). The enduring shame (8) and anger that Cain felt
in seeing his brother recognised by God while he and his offering were rejected
led him to murder his brother. This is therefore a cautionary tale about the
harmful aspects of the status game and an invitation to play it differently.
Going back to the roundtable I mentioned at the start of this
blog, among the participants were an Aboriginal elder, a female academic who is
both Muslim and a migrant, a passionate feminist, representatives of the Ethics
Centre, people of Jewish heritage and someone working on Anzac Day remembrance.
It was wonderful to see the dignity of all participants and the communities
they represent affirmed on this occasion. We might not all have had pins in our
lapels,
but the body language of all participants made it clear that the status
of all was recognised.
1)
Storr, W. (2021). The Status Game: On
human life and how to play it. William Collins.
2)
Pirkey Avot – Ethics of the Fathers,
4:21
3)
Schwartz, S. H. (2012). An overview of
the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Readings in Psychology and
Culture, 2.1
4)
Pirkey Avot – Ethics of the Fathers,
4:1
5)
Abarbanel’s commentary on Genesis 4:1-8,
Chorev Edition, p. 221
6)
Genesis 4:3
7)
Abarbanel, p. 222
