One of the drivers of conflict in divided societies is the denial of social status for some groups and their quest for rectification. What follows is an explication of the subject by the “Beyond Intractability” group. “Social status can be understood as the degree of honour or prestige attached to one’s position in society. Social stratification is associated with the ability of individuals to live up to some set of ideals or principles regarded as important by the society, or some social group within it. Although there are a few societies around the world that ascribe everyone (at least adults) equal status, most societies do have some form of social hierarchy; with some people in stronger, more dominant positions, and other people in weaker, lower positions.
“In some cases, the inequality in resources and authority may be so great that those dominated go along with it with little self-awareness. But where resistance arises, social conflict results. Domination conflicts are conflicts about who is on top (and bottom) of the social, economic, and/or political hierarchy. Such conflicts may occur between individual people (for example, between siblings, schoolmates, or co-workers); between groups (for instance, between different racial or ethnic groups), or between nations.
“Various characteristics can be at play in determining one’s social status. These include, but are not limited to, an individual’s race, ethnicity, gender, age, skin colour, economic class, religious sect, and regional grouping. In stratified social systems, one group is materially and/or politically dominant over another group or groups.
“Social Dominance Theory suggests that most forms of group conflict and oppression can be regarded as different manifestations of the same basic human predisposition to form group-based social hierarchies. Ironically, stratification systems have been used by some societies to try to reduce overt conflicts over the distribution of valued goods and services in those societies. For a time, this distribution of awards may not be contested, and the power of those at the top will not be challenged; but, eventually, conflicts of interest may very well rise to the surface. While those on top of the social hierarchy tend to get what they want, those on the bottom tend to have less access to material awards, freedom, recognition, services from others, etc.
“In addition, once a group gains dominance, it will monopolise resources in an attempt to maintain and perpetuate its privileged status. Because the ability to attain one’s goals is deeply connected to one’s social status, those of lesser status may find it in their interest to challenge the status quo that assigns them a low position. Especially in cases where there are not enough resources to go around, parties are likely to engage in intense competition for positions of social status and privilege.
“These social status struggles often are not just about who gets what. Status conflicts also tend to involve subjective assessments of an individual’s or group’s “goodness” or “social worth.” Because nobody wants to be on the bottom of the social hierarchy and few are willing to share the top, such conflicts tend to be very difficult to resolve. Invariably, the people on the bottom want to reverse the relationship, while the people on the top want to maintain it. This leads people to want to dominate others, and to compete with others for position. The result is that parties feel threatened, and sense a need to retaliate in order to defend themselves.
“Unless the top people are willing to share their top position with everyone else (thus eliminating many of the benefits of being on the top), the conflict will most likely continue. Moreover, even if those on the bottom are able to reverse the situation and become the leadership group, a new conflict is likely to arise, as those now on the bottom begin their attempt to climb to the top. Thus the social system itself is not altered, as people struggle for social status.
“It is only people’s roles that are reversed.”
