Author David Wann refers to Congressman Kucinich who suggested that “status – a universal human need –should be based on service, not consumption”.

In reference to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs – Self Actualization and Self Esteem being at the top of his Needs Pyramid how is status achieved and how important is it? What is status?

Status might be achieved through wealth, power or celebrity but less so through service. Some degree of status is accorded to ‘service achievers’ such as many Australians of the Year however the core of status still sits in the area of wealth accumulation. Status in poorer tribal communities might have come from who can bag the biggest elk.

Many downshifters speak about differences in the way they are treated –based on position rather than values, work ethic or value as a human being (to some extent).

I also found this difference in status quite marked, however much later, I no longer cared and now enjoy the freedom and peace in that lifestyle choice. I wonder if caring too much about status can be more an impediment to satisfying needs.

What do others think? Is status important to self-esteem or is it when we no longer worry about these mundane matters, we reach a higher level of Maslow’s Self-actualization or Self-transcendence?

Would (theoretically) shifting values of status to the idea of service “change the very nature of the economic game we are destructively playing” (Wann) and address some of the disconnects (family time, divorce rates, pace, healthy eating) characterised by our obsession with growth and productivity?

excellent topic

""Self Actualization and Self Esteem
being at the top of his Needs Pyramid""

never trust any pyramid
they are all ponzie scemes

""how is status achieved""

by doing good things for others
by service to your fellow man

its not about mortal fame..or having the most
these are burdens..that darken our soul
meert only the material temporary need

true status is the fruit of the good we did
[and thus are expected to keep doing..FOR OTHERS]

as jesus said what are the utterances and honours of man
[the mortal material honours..how is the dust of histry filled with honours that now mean nothing...not even to those stuck in this realm]

better the highest honours from those who serve with honour
in the after realms...from your peers..who like you EARNED the true honours..by honouring that good and true..by serviong others in good and in truth

""and how important is it?""
it is as nothing..to the honouable..they know it in their heart
[what are the hounors respects of fools or those who honour your vile>?

""What is status?""

true staus is reflected upon our soul
those of the darkside with material honour
find that materialist honour darkens their soul

it can be said to be a human need

but if every one loves you
how much does that bind you to their honour
the demons in hell love honours..but what are the honours of fools

[its easy to love thy own
see the greatness in other's

to love those clones of you
is too easy..its like loving yourself

harder is the love you earn
from those you barely know
or loving others..because they arnt you

try loving neighbour
seeing the honour in us all
[for within the lowerrst dishonourable
there still lies the supreem good [god]..within..sustaining them their life too

goodness radiates *from within
honours only cover over..your inner light being

think of how many 'earned'..the honours
of the nobel peace prize...only to find their honours
ended with dishonour

peace not pieces
ghonour others not thyself

Interesting viewpoint pelican.

>>Status might be achieved through wealth, power or celebrity<<

Or by posting an entry on Facebook?

Because there are different categories of status, are there not.

The sort of status achieved through wealth, for example, differs widely in the community of the wealthy. Bill Gates' status, for example, is of a different nature to Bernie Madoff's - even before the latter was found out. (And most definitely since, of course).

Similarly, "he/she has celebrity status" covers a broad church, from Paris Hilton to Bert Newton.

Which gives rise to the thought that notoriety is a form of status, albeit a negative one.

Is it a "universal human need", though?

I suspect not.

Clearly, celebrity has enormous value to politicians - in fact, for them, it might even be actuarially determinable on a sliding scale.

But to normal folk (whoever they might be) with normal aspirations (whatever they might be), social status is not something that can be actively sought-after. If you earn it by being who you are, great. But the minute you turn it into an aspiration - a "need", if you will - you are in danger of obsessing about unimportant stuff.

Or alternatively, turning into a politician.

Hi Pelly,

Most of us refer "status," to prestige.

However everybody occupies a number of statuses - positions such as -
student, carpenter, son, old person, senator, and so on. A person's status determines where the individual "fits" in society and how he or she shoudl relate to other people. The ststus of daughter, for
exemple, determines the occupant's basic relationships with other family members, the status of corporation president determines the
occupant's basic relationship with employees, shareholders, or
presidents of other corporations.

Naturally, a person can have several statuses simultaneously. but one
of them, usually an occupational status, tend to be the most significant. This position is most important in establishing a
person's social identity.

Of course we do have social inconsistnecies. A situation in which aspects of a person's individual's status or statuses appear
contradictory. For example, black professionals in the US find that they sometimes receive honor for their occupational status but at other times suffer prejudice because of their racial status. Successful blacks who move into white affluent suburbs sometimes find
that visiting white salespeople assume they are hosuehold servants.

Then there's ascribed status. One that's attached to people on grounds
over which they have nocontrol. And there's achieved status - those
achieved by individuals who presist through personal effort.

The status fo the Queen of Great Britain is an ascribed status. Elizabeth II has the status because she was next in line of succession to her father, the late king. The status of Prime Minister
of Australia is an achieved one. Julia Gillard has the status
because she won the leadership of her party and a national election.

In most societies there is considerable inequality among different statuses. The person who has the status of Supreme Court justice, for example, enjoys more power, wealth, and prestige than the person who has the status of janitor. Which of the two however enjoy more
personal happiness - is another matter altogether. Happiness is so
subjectivev - and its based on our personal goals and aspirations.
Some people are satisfied with less material things - others not.

OUG
The idea of status in service is an altruistic viewpoint and might indeed lead to many good works. I was more taken by the idea of status being a universal human need - like Pericles I don't think it meets that standard absolutely.

I can see the Congressman's point on one hand but in another way status through service might diminish the act of service. An oxymoron if you like. Without digressing too much, surely the point of service is not to do it for personal status - but maybe that is naive - there is some sense of self-fulfilment in service that may be described as selfish which is not necessarily a bad thing, it is just the reality.

Even with that selfish motive in mind the end result might be infinitely better than status for faux celebs and the like. A greater emphasis on service as an achievement may have a greater positive impact. On discussing this with a friend she impolitely suggested the idea might be counterproductive and create groups of self-righteous w*kers. She failed to see the big picture obviously. :)

Politicians might have status but not respect - that would not meet the needs of self-esteem.

Pericles

Turning into a politician. Heaven forbid.

It is more an observational discussion Pericles. Respect is earned I am not sure that status always is as you rightly pointed out, status can mean different things including notoriety. There may be some people who satisfy needs through notoriety such as those 'underbelly' types who dwell on the dark side.

It was reading the David Wann extract that got me thinking.

The idea of status around service is not something that can be controlled of course. Respect can only be given not taken-not sure about status. Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan might have status but not respect and maybe just a bit of sympathy.

Yes it is possible I have too much time on my hands being housebound with flu this week but obsessing? You wound me. :)

Lexi
Good points. I wonder if the quote Wann used from his Congressman might fit better with 'respect' rather than 'status'. But I do get the essential message that status conferred purely by the act of wealth accumulation or celebrity might be symptomatic of modern societies emphasis on growth and productivity.