The role of social relationships

[Tahuti]

I would like start a discussion on the impact of social relationship, especially in how (I believe) it forms social hierachies.

It is common knowledge that with the right connections, one can climb up in the social ladder. This fact led to me thinking that the intensity of social hierachies could in fact be linked to the amount of interclass social interaction, i.e. the more the rich and poor interact with eachother, the more social coherence there is and the less social position is defining in spite of the clear economic disparity. This rule also applies to politics.

 

[Cutlass]

I'm not really sure where you're going with this. Perhaps if you could describe your idea in greater depth you could get a discussion going a bit better.

 

[Tahuti]

Well, I think that class differences are effaced if there is more interclass social interaction, and likewise are accentuated if there is less of such.

 

[Cutlass]

I think you can make a case for that. The upper class mostly does just interact with the upper class. The lower class does just mostly interact with the lower class.

 

[Disgustipated]

Are you proposing to force social interaction between the classes? Maybe thinking that both groups would be able to understand each other better and we don't have this 1%/99% battle.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

If you are trying to say that social interactions are based largely on social hierarchy, then you would be right. Those of the upper class associate with the each other, the middle with themselves, and the lower with themselves. It is still rare to have inter-class interaction, and then it is only under strict necessity and not friendship. There are still class divisions but they are not as fixed as they used to be, not being as determined strictly by birth but by some measure also merit. Birth does give advantage, though.

 

[Traitorfish]

What do you mean by "social relationship", exactly? Do you mean personal relationships, business relationships, or just any sort of interaction? It's not really self-evident from your post.

I'm also confused by your juxtaposition of "coherence" and "hierarchy"; the two do not seem self-evidently contrary. If anything, they can act as mutual guarantors, the hierarchical structure keeping people in their place, and the cohesiveness of a community allowing it to act as a basis for social hierarchies. A provincial example would be the way in which the retention of patriarchal-communitarian social structures among some South Asian immigrants in the United Kingdom has allowed them to function as and to interact with the state as unified "communities", in way which isn't seen among more individualised immigrant communities such as Afro-Carribeans, Turks, Poles, etc.

 

[Cheetah]

I would like start a discussion on the impact of social relationship, especially in how (I believe) it forms social hierachies.

It is common knowledge that with the right connections, one can climb up in the social ladder. This fact led to me thinking that the intensity of social hierachies could in fact be linked to the amount of interclass social interaction, i.e. the more the rich and poor interact with eachother, the more social coherence there is and the less social position is defining in spite of the clear economic disparity. This rule also applies to politics.

Well, yeah. If you get people to interact more between the classes, then you would increase the social coherence. That's a given.

Hierarchies are formed regardless though: Even within each class or subclass, there are always those who are more equal than others.

This post did remind me a bit about something I heard about football though. (In Norway at least,) It used to be that when people went to a game to support their city's team, nobody really cared about social class. Whether one was rich or poor, they all still sat on the chairs next to each other, and rooted for their team. I'm sure it must have given some increased social cohesion across the classes. However, as we've gotten richer and the stadiums have become more luxurious and with special VIP areas, this common ground seems to have faded away as well...

There really aren't that many places where people from different classes can get along anymore.

I think that you're assuming correlation from causation. Are the rich rich because they know rich people, or do they know rich people because they are rich themselves? You seem to assume the former, but neither of them are at all self-evident.

It's both of course. Rich people seek each other out because they have something to gain from it. And friends tend to help friends, no matter the social class. When some people have means, they can increase their means by helping each other. Of course, the same is true for the lower classes. People are more likely to help out people they identify with than to help out strangers.

Edit: Will you stop ninjaing!?

 

[Traitorfish]

It's both of course. Rich people seek each other out because they have something to gain from it. And friends tend to help friends, no matter the social class. When some people have means, they can increase their means by helping each other. Of course, the same is true for the lower classes. People are more likely to help out people they identify with than to help out strangers.

Edit: Will you stop ninjaing!?

Yeah, sorry, I realised after I posed that I'd misinterpreted Kaiserguard's post, and was replying to something he didn't actually say. Good points none the less.

 

[warpus]

I used to think that it's strange that famous actors usually end up marrying other famous entertainers and vice versa.

But then it dawned on me.. If you're an actor who makes millions of dollars your social circle is likely to include.. other rich and famous people, a lot of whom will be entertainers. I made that realization in highschool

I wish I had something a bit more substantial to add to this thread (not really)

 

[Cheetah]

It seems pretty clear that people identify with the people they socialize with. It's really a no-brainer.

But to drive the thread forward: Can anyone come up with arenas where people of different social classes do come together?

I brought up football fans who root for their teams. I could also say that while hiking or cross-country skiing (the long trips in the mountains, not the I'm-practicing-to-compete-in-some-fashionable-amateur-ski-competition-where-mostly-middle-aged-business-leaders-and-famous-people-compete) people tend to be quite down-to-earth and friendly with whoever they come across. Though the actual time to converse and get to know strangers during those trips isn't very long.

 

[Core Imposter]

Right here on this forum you have people of different social classes interacting.

The military another and the church, but both to degrees only.

The great example of force was desegregation of the schools and, swiming pools and such.

I am not sure that any of this was beneficial in the net.

 

[Cheetah]

This forum is a good one. I had totally forgotten about that!

Church could also be I suppose, but that would depend a bit on the denomination, wouldn't it? In "the good old days", the rich and powerful were always seated in the front, and the poor in the back. That convention has disappeared, but I'm still not sure how much socialising there is between the classes during and after a sermon...

And the military seems even less so. I could be totally off here, but isn't most of the privates in most militaries from worker- or possibly middle-class backgrounds? How likely is it that high-ranking officers come from the working class?

Desegregation of schools is a big thing of course, but from what I know it's not like people started to mix the different school cliques after desegregation. You just had people going to the same school, and not necessarily socialising.

Swimming pools you've got to explain to me.

 

[Traitorfish]

Church could also be I suppose, but that would depend a bit on the denomination, wouldn't it? In "the good old days", the rich and powerful were always seated in the front, and the poor in the back. That convention has disappeared, but I'm still not sure how much socialising there is between the classes during and after a sermon...

There's also the fact that congregations in large settlements will reflect the socioeconomic background of local residents, rather than taking a cross-section of society as a whole. In a small town you'll get the local bigwigs and the plebs in the same church, but in an even medium-sized town the bigwigs and plebs will have their own separate churches.

 

[Artifis]

This forum is a good one. I had totally forgotten about that!

Church could also be I suppose, but that would depend a bit on the denomination, wouldn't it? In "the good old days", the rich and powerful were always seated in the front, and the poor in the back. That convention has disappeared, but I'm still not sure how much socialising there is between the classes during and after a sermon...

And the military seems even less so. I could be totally off here, but isn't most of the privates in most militaries from worker- or possibly middle-class backgrounds? How likely is it that high-ranking officers come from the working class?

Desegregation of schools is a big thing of course, but from what I know it's not like people started to mix the different school cliques after desegregation. You just had people going to the same school, and not necessarily socialising.

Swimming pools you've got to explain to me.

I think that religious settings are true to a certain extent, and I suppose that one good thing about certain religious teachings is that peoples of different classes mix together because they believe it's good to do so.

With regard to the military, it really depends on the specific characteristics of the country at hand. First... What's "high-ranking"? Is it at least a lieutenant-colonel?

I'm all for desegregation of social classes. Too often people manage to separate themselves into different groups that just end up stereotyping each other, regardless of race/ethnicity/culture. We're winning the war on racism (although with quite a bit to go), it's time to start the war on socio-economic stratification.

 

[Tahuti]

Are you proposing to force social interaction between the classes? Maybe thinking that both groups would be able to understand each other better and we don't have this 1%/99% battle.

That depends on what you define as forcing. In the US for example, replacing property-tax funded education with school vouchers combined with banning non-government regulated education such as homeschooling could turn education into an avenue for interclass socialization. Many would consider it "forcing", but I think it is a relatively subtle method.

If you are trying to say that social interactions are based largely on social hierarchy, then you would be right.

Well, that's exactly what I was saying.

What do you mean by "social relationship", exactly? Do you mean personal relationships, business relationships, or just any sort of interaction? It's not really self-evident from your post.

Any sort of social interaction, be it romantic, business or cordial.

I'm also confused by your juxtaposition of "coherence" and "hierarchy"; the two do not seem self-evidently contrary. If anything, they can act as mutual guarantors, the hierarchical structure keeping people in their place, and the cohesiveness of a community allowing it to act as a basis for social hierarchies. A provincial example would be the way in which the retention of patriarchal-communitarian social structures among some South Asian immigrants in the United Kingdom has allowed them to function as and to interact with the state as unified "communities", in way which isn't seen among more individualised immigrant communities such as Afro-Carribeans, Turks, Poles, etc.

That coherence and hierarchy are not mutually exclusive and can be (and indeed, usually are) mutually beneficial is a given. Considering the way it confused you, I shouldn't have mentioned it. I just mean that hierachies are less relevant when social classes keep less to themselves and mingle more which is basically what you discerned from me to begin with..

 

[Traitorfish]

That coherence and hierarchy are not mutually exclusive and can be (and indeed, usually are) mutually beneficial is a given. Considering the way it confused you, I shouldn't have mentioned it. I just mean that hierachies are less relevant when social classes keep less to themselves and mingle more which is basically what you discerned from me to begin with..

Well, that's what I'm disputing- as in my example of patriarchal-communitarian forms in some British Asian communities, frequent personal interaction can in fact re-enforce hierarchies by giving them a concrete, everyday form. In fact, most of the truly comprehensive forms of social hierarchy depend on this sort of interaction, because only by forcing all social relationships through the terms of hierarchy is it maintained as a total rather than specific system; your employer is an employer from 9-5, but the "community leader" is a "community leader" 24/7. It's much easy to dissent from a largely abstract heirarchy, the assumed primary of some distant elite, than it is to dissent from one that plays a major role in determining your actions on a day to day basis.

 

[Cheetah]

Hierarchies always exist. Both between and inside each social class. If the social classes have more interaction, then the hierarchy will not disappear: It will simply manifest itself as the hierarchy that exists within the total social group.

But increased contact between the social classes will, by its very nature, create an environment where it is easier to move between the classes - or at least increase the pressure for such movements. And it will definitely create a stronger sense of identity for the whole community, as opposed to an identity that is focused primarily on one's social class within that community.

But it seems all of us would accept these as more or less facts, doesn't it?

What exactly are we debating?

 

[Tahuti]

What exactly are we debating?

Whether social interaction as equals decreases - but not necessarily eliminates - the relevance of hiearchies. And whether, the importance of particular social relations largely overlap with social hierachies and if so, for what reason?

Well, that's what I'm disputing- as in my example of patriarchal-communitarian forms in some British Asian communities, frequent personal interaction can in fact re-enforce hierarchies by giving them a concrete, everyday form.

Good point. But are these friendly relations? And most importantly, is for example a business relationship between an employer and an individual employee as important as the relationship between the employer and the one who employs him or his personal friends? That would somewhat would make a good case for the idea that stressing importance to particular social interaction lead to social hierachies, since appearently there can be no hierarchy if the two persons involved have do not deem the ineraction more important than all the other interactions.