Social Hierarchy: A Comprehensive Overview

Social hierarchy refers to a ranking system that organizes society, placing individuals or groups in higher or lower positions of social status. These systems can manifest in various forms and are influenced by diverse factors.

Types of Social Hierarchies

Social hierarchies can be categorized into various types, including:

• Caste SystemsRigid social systems where individuals are assigned specific roles and jobs within their caste and are restricted from marrying or associating with members of other castes.
• Social Class HierarchiesSystems based on wealth, profession, and cultural tastes, typically consisting of upper, middle, and working classes.
• Gender HierarchiesSystems that favor men over women, leading to gender inequality and discrimination.
• Racial and Ethnic HierarchiesSystems that privilege certain racial or ethnic groups over others, resulting in disparities in opportunities and treatment.

Factors Determining Hierarchy

Social hierarchies can be established based on various factors such as:

• GenderSocieties may exhibit gender hierarchies, with men often holding more power and status than women.
• Race and EthnicityRacial and ethnic hierarchies can lead to discrimination and marginalization of minority groups.
• Income and WealthClass-based societies may exhibit hierarchies based on income and wealth, with the wealthy enjoying more privileges.
• EducationSocieties that value educational attainment may have hierarchies where individuals with higher levels of education hold higher social status.
• OccupationCertain occupations may be accorded higher status and prestige compared to others.

Ascribed and Achieved Status

Social hierarchies can be based on either ascribed or achieved status:

• Ascribed StatusThis is a status assigned at birth and remains relatively stable throughout life. Examples include gender, ethnicity, or being born into royalty.
• Achieved StatusThis is a status earned through education, occupation, or wealth accumulation.

Privileges and Status

Individuals higher up in the social hierarchy tend to have greater privileges and status compared to those lower in the hierarchy. This includes access to resources, opportunities, and decision-making power.

Social Dominance Orientations

Individuals higher in the social hierarchy often exhibit higher social dominance orientations, which refers to their desire for power and dominance over others.

Meritocracy

Societies that value achieved status over ascribed status in their hierarchies are often seen as more meritocratic. However, social mobility may still be limited in any form of hierarchy.

Conclusion

Social hierarchies are complex systems that organize societies and distribute privileges and roles among members. They can be based on various factors and have significant implications for individuals’ life chances and opportunities. Understanding social hierarchies is crucial for addressing inequalities and promoting social justice.

References

1. Altemeyer, B., & Hunsberger, B. (1992). Authoritarianism, religious fundamentalism, quest, and prejudice. The international journal for the psychology of religion, 2(2), 113–133.
2. Aronson, E., & Mills, J. (1959). The effect of severity of initiation on liking for a group. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 59(2), 177–181. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0047195.
3. Axte, J. R., Ebersole, C. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2014). The rules of implicit evaluation by race, religion, and age. Psychological Science, 25(9), 1804–1815. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614543801.
4. Buck, S., & Tiene, D. (1989). The impact of physical attractiveness, gender, and teaching philosophy on teacher evaluations. The Journal of Educational Research, 82(3), 172–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1989.10885887.
5. Campbell, K. E., Marsden, P. V., & Hurlbert, J. S. (1986). Social resources and socioeconomic status. Social networks, 8(1), 97–117.
6. Caricati, L., & Monacelli, N. (2010). Social hierarchies and intergroup discrimination: The case of the intermediate status group. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49(3), 637–646. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466610X489876.
7. Crandall, C. S., D’Anello, S., Sakalli, N., Lazarus, E., Wieczorkowska, G., & Feather, N. T. (2001). An attribution-value model of prejudice: Anti-fat attitudes in six nations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(1), 30–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201271003.
8. Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J. L., Abrams, D., Masser, B., … & Annetje, B. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of personality and social psychology, 79(5), 763–775. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.763
9. Gottner-Abendroth, H. (1999). The structure of matriarchal societies. Revision, 21(3), 31.
10. Hannon, L. (2014). Hispanic respondent intelligence level and skin tone: Interviewer perceptions from the American national election study. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 36(3), 265–283.
11. Ho, A. K., Sidanius, J., Kteily, N., Sheehy-Skeffington, J., Pratto, F., Henkel, K. E., & … Stewart, A. L. (2015). The nature of social dominance orientation: Theorizing and measuring preferences for intergroup inequality using the new SDO7 scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(6), 1003–1028. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000033.
12. Jost, J. T., Pelham, B. W., Sheldon, O., & Sullivan, B. N. (2003). Social inequality and the reduction of ideological dissonance on behalf of the system: Evidence of enhanced system justification among the disadvantaged. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 13–36.
13. Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25, 881–919.
14. Katz-Wise, S. L., & Hyde, J. S. (2012). Victimization experiences of lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sex Research, 49(2–3), 142–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2011.637247.
15. King, R. D., & Johnson, B. D. (2016). A punishing look: Skin tone and Afrocentric features in the halls of justice. American Journal of Sociology, 122(1), 90–124. https://doi.org/10.1086/686941.
16. Krendl, A. C., Magoon, N. S., Hull, J. G., & Heatherton, T. F. (2011). Judging a book by its cover: The differential impact of attractiveness on predicting one’s acceptance to high- or low-status social groups. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(10), 2538–2550. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00824.x.
17. Lee, I., Pratto, F., & Johnson, B. T. (2011). Intergroup consensus/disagreement in support of group-based hierarchy: An examination of socio-structural and psycho-cultural factors. Psychological Bulletin, 137(6), 1029–1064. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025410.
18. Leone, L., Desimoni, M., & Chirumbolo, A. (2012). HEXACO, social worldviews and socio-political attitudes: A mediation analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(8), 995–1001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.07.016.
19. Levin, S. (2004). Perceived group status differences and the effects of gender, ethnicity, and religion on social dominance orientation. Political Psychology, 25(1), 31–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00355.x.
20. O’Brien, K. S., Latner, J. D., Ebneter, D., & Hunter, J. A. (2013). Obesity discrimination: The role of physical appearance, personal ideology, and anti-fat prejudice. International Journal of Obesity, 37(3), 455–460. https://doi.org/10.1038/ijo.2012.52.
21. Olatunji, B. O. (2008). Disgust, scrupulosity and conservative attitudes about sex: Evidence for a mediational model of homophobia. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(5), 1364–1369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2008.04.001.
22. Parker, K., Horowitz, J., & Mahl, B. (2016). On views of race and inequality, Blacks and Whites are worlds apart. Retreived from http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2016/06/27/on-views-of-race-and-inequality-blacks-and-whites-are-worlds-apart/.
23. Price, M. E., Brown, S., Dukes, A., & Kang, J. (2015). Bodily attractiveness and egalitarianism are negatively related in males. Evolutionary Psychology, 13(1), 140–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/147470491501300109.
24. Sibley, C. G., Wilson, M. S., & Duckitt, J. (2007). Antecedents of men’s hostile and benevolent sexism: The dual roles of social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(2), 160–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206294745.
25. Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139175043.
26. Snellman, A., & Ekehammar, B. (2005). Ethnic hierarchies, ethnic prejudice, and social dominance orientation. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 15(2), 83–94. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.812.
27. Srinivasan, M., Dunham, Y., Hicks, C. M., & Barner, D. (2016). Do attitudes toward societal structure predict beliefs about free will and achievement? Evidence from the Indian caste system. Developmental Science, 19(1), 109–125. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12294.
28. Swami, V., Frederick, D. A., Aavik, T., Alcalay, L., Allik, J., Anderson, D., & … Zivcic-Becirevic, I. (2010). The attractive female body weight and female body dissatisfaction in 26 countries across 10 world regions: Results of the international body project I. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(3), 309–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209359702.
29. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (2004). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In J. T. Jost, J. Sidanius, J. T. Jost, & J. Sidanius (Eds.), Political psychology: Key readings (pp. 276–293). New York: Psychology Press.
30. Whitley, B. J. (2009). Religiosity and attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: A meta-analysis. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 19(1), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508610802471104.
31. Wu, J. (2016). Racial/ethnic discrimination and prosecution: A meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(4), 437–458. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854815628026.
32. Zou, L. X., & Cheryan, S. (2017). Two axes of subordination: A new model of racial position. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112, 696. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000080.

FAQs

What is social hierarchy?

Social hierarchy is a system of ranking individuals or groups within a society, where some individuals or groups hold higher positions of social status than others.

What are the different types of social hierarchies?

Social hierarchies can be based on various factors such as gender, race, ethnicity, income, education, occupation, and more. Some common types of social hierarchies include caste systems, social class hierarchies, gender hierarchies, and racial and ethnic hierarchies.

What are the characteristics of social hierarchies?

Social hierarchies are characterized by unequal distribution of power, resources, and opportunities among different individuals or groups. Those higher in the hierarchy typically have greater access to resources, privileges, and decision-making power, while those lower in the hierarchy may face discrimination, marginalization, and limited opportunities.

What are the consequences of social hierarchies?

Social hierarchies can have significant consequences for individuals and society as a whole. They can lead to social inequality, discrimination, and conflict. Social hierarchies can also affect individuals’ life chances, opportunities, and well-being.

How do social hierarchies change over time?

Social hierarchies are not static and can change over time due to various factors such as economic, political, and social changes. Social movements, technological advancements, and changes in cultural values can all contribute to the transformation of social hierarchies.

What are the theories that explain social hierarchies?

There are various theories that attempt to explain the origins and persistence of social hierarchies. Some common theories include social dominance theory, social identity theory, and conflict theory. These theories provide different perspectives on the psychological, social, and economic factors that contribute to the formation and maintenance of social hierarchies.

How can social hierarchies be challenged or dismantled?

Social hierarchies can be challenged and dismantled through various strategies, including education, advocacy, policy changes, and social movements. Raising awareness about the harmful effects of social hierarchies, promoting equal opportunities, and implementing anti-discrimination laws are some of the ways to work towards reducing social inequality and creating a more just and equitable society.

What are the alternatives to social hierarchies?

Some alternative visions of social organization challenge the idea of hierarchical structures. These alternatives, such as egalitarian societies or horizontal organizations, aim to create more平等 and just societies where power and resources are distributed more equitably among individuals and groups.