>Bill:
>
>So yes, in our society, the desire to have more things than others
>probably isn't pathological, yet. But in the context of the kind of
>society I've been talking about talking about in this thread it would
>probably be regarded as a symptom of mental illness rather than a
>measure of social status.
>
>[WS:] I would say that it is only true of societies in which accumulation of
>any sort is not possible, like in hunting and gathering societies. I think
>it is highly probable that these societies had status hierarchies as most
>mammal species do, but it was based on something else than accumulation of
>material goods.
No mystery there either. One of the popular ways of gaining status in such societies was in giving away things. For hunter gatherers of course, we know status came from bringing home enough game to feed the whole tribe. As the tribe settled, that evolved into the custom of wanting to throw a big party for everyone, slaughtering as many fatted pigs as you could lay your hands on so everyone could stuff their faces and have a good time. That sort of thing afforded the benefactor tremendous prestige.
Only a small step from that is the sort of public entertainment put on around the ancient Roman empire, at massive personal expense to various prominent Patricians. With the sole purpose of increasing the individual status of those benefactors.
Giving away stuff still remains the most important way of increasing status, even today. Charity foundations, public facilities and medical research, libraries, heaps of things. In that sense, you can see that actual accumulation is not the real point, the final aim is to give stuff away, to contribute to society. Even the ruling class in a capitalist society retain their humanity and so seek to achieve the status and prestige of contributing socially. Freely giving to society is the ultimate way of developing real social status as opposed to mere power over others, which is just a means to an end.
That will never change and no-one is suggesting it will. Only the means will change. Though even now, the people who achieve the greatest social status of usually not those who contribute materially. But those who contribute great ideas and art.
> Perhaps on the conspicuous consumption of perishables - as
>the case of potlatch among Northwesters American Indians demonstrates.
>
>Of course, there are countless other things outside accumulation or
>consumption of goods that can be the basis for social status, anything from
>physical or sexual prowess (often observed in low class males) to a certain
>look, shape of the body or the face, to skin color and to certain lineage.
>Given these choices, however, I would go with accumulation or consumption of
>goods, because these are the only ones that individuals can do something
>about. They are born with the other ones.
>
>So paradoxically, wealth accumulation seems to be the most egalitarian way
>to social status achievement and display.
What an odd conclusion. Not even consistent with your own arguments, let alone being at odds with the obvious reality that the ability to accumulate wealth varies widely between individuals. Different people have hugely differing natural advantages and disadvantages. I take it this must have been an attempt at humour?
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas