Social power and valuation

tl;dr: Much of our everyday reality is constructed via social agreement. However, the influence an individual can have on the shared ontologies varies, dependent on the social value assigned to them on average. Social value, in turn, is determined by status markers, creating hierarchies that hurt everyone. Despite its stability, we can and should work towards more equitable societies.

Epistemic state: I don’t have an education in social science. My brain, however, occasionally strays into such topics. I have spun this theory about social power quite a while ago, but I never wrote it down, because I am afraid of it: I find it quite accurate, even predictive at times, but that doesn’t mean it’s good, ethically desirable, to run around with it in mind. Quite the opposite, I wish human societies would operate differently; and expecting a better world is the first step to create it.

A good chunk of the reality we perceive as undeniably true is actually socially constructed. Imagine an ant hill. Every single ant just follows instinctively a small set of rules, but somehow, in the collective work of many many, they are able to build huge hills, traverse complex trails, even fight wars. There is a collective layer emerging that allows each individual to be better off by being part of it. That is, ants are social animals, in a comparatively rudimentary form. Humans, in contrast, are 300x larger, we behave individually in vastly more complex ways, and interact with each other using highly information-dense language and signals. However, just like ants we are evolutionarily not very well equipped to survive, let alone thrive, as individuals. We also can do extraordinary things as a collective organism (try building a skyscraper without interacting with others, good luck). We have developed a body and an emotional machinery that ensure we stay close to each other, don’t hurt each other, and cooperate fruitfully. (And if these don’t happen we can’t help but pay discomforted attention, ideally to correct it.) Most importantly, we collect and share knowledge, even construct a whole social reality − on top of the physical one − that we use to navigate the patterns of the organism we are: society, with its roles, rules and institutions.

As a social animal, a human’s power mostly relies in how much we can convince others to join in doing something we want to see be done. That’s what I call social power: The influence on the shared social reality within a given group. How much the other members of the group are willing to pay attention and update their beliefs based on what an individual conveys. If power is concentrated at a small minority, that means they are the ones setting the narratives; in other words, they can define what is real. An interesting corollary from this: If you want someone to have less power, don’t pay them attention, don’t repeat their talking points in any way.

Social power is commonly mediated by a mostly subconscious, automatic process I call social valuation. In every interaction, and in particular at the first time someone appears in our reality, we automatically assess their social value. This assessment happens based on markers of social value, properties of individuals that serve as signals for social value within a given group, usually collectively agreed on¹. Markers of value vary in how clearly they are communicated. Explicit markers are often institutionalized, like a job role, wealth or official membership’s. Others are signalled more implicitly, like social connections, achievements, or body properties (facial symmetry, skin color, composition, ability, etc.). Again others are virtually hidden and work subconsciously, like social roles, homophily, or the halo effect. Our assessment of someone, in turn, tells us how much we will want to pay attention to them (and thus give our bit more power) and want be affiliated with them in future (to increase our own value)². The effective social value emerges then as the cumulative judgements, whether the picture is formed through direct encounters or second-hand narratives. Subsequently, the collective appraisal is giving rise to the effective social power someone holds in society, next to other preferential treatment like access or protection. This is the underlying mechanism producing inequality within a social group.

This inequality, whether based on property ownership, organizational hierarchies, or identity, is harmful. To be clear, I do not condemn the idea of leadership per se – which at times is indispensable – but the idea of permanent hierarchies; when subgroups can stay so long in power that they let the status quo simply feel like the undeniable, natural order. In particular for the ones considered lesser-than, it keeps their needs unmet and the constant devaluation becomes internalized as shame experience (which should be reserved for people that actually repeatedly cause harm). Criticism (or praise) that superficially talks about behavior, is often triggered by markers; it’s not actually about what you do, but who others perceive you are. The less valuable, the higher the standards to be given the same treatment (if at all). Most markers are hard to change, and the ability to change them, if possible at all, is often unequally distributed, too. Poverty, for example, while seeming from the outside so obviously changeable, is in reality an emotional trap. It is in particular cruel how this system ties the constructed markers of social value emotionally to our intrinsic value, as if where in society’s hierarchies we get sorted would decide how moral our existence is (and through the resulting social power, how real we are). It is even more cruel how people on the devalued ends aren’t immune to the shared social reality either, so they also tend to devalue themselves and each other. On the worst end are people that aren’t even given a space in the shared ontology in the first place and thus are systemically erased and excluded by default. However, even for people that are valued highly, this system isn’t easy: They have to constantly create the narratives, are subject to much outside pressures trying to access their power, and can fall deep from power anytime. And the rare times you see your privilege from that position, it doesn’t feel great either; it evokes guilt − because you know it’s not right.

However, really, the worst part is how stable this system is, even though it just keeps everyone worse off. As soon as a hierarchy is naturalized it becomes subconscious; and as a consequence it becomes hard, even seemingly insane, to question it, let alone change the underlying ontology. And even if questioning surfaces, most people are not in the position to shape the social narratives to a degree that would nullify a marker, and are even punished for trying. Furthermore, people who could influence the workings of this system the most (or at all) and would receive the least social punishment, also tend feel the least friction. Privilege is invisible if you have it. But even if you see it, it feels self-destructive to advocate for a more equal system. In short, it is so stable because it reproduces itself, rewarding who fits and conforms while marginalizing who doesn’t.

That leads me to the question how a better social reality would look like, in which everyone is better off because they are treated more equally by default − and how to get there. Most historical “revolutions” were caused, or at least eventually captured by, people already in power fighting out their hierarchies. The rest of the population − despite at times costing many lives − merely received the regime change, being sedated by retroactive grand narratives of success. That is to a good extent even true in democracies. We can’t count on the people the system rewards and moves to the top to break it. If they tried, the system would instantly try to remove them. We shouldn’t aim for a different version of the same system, however seductive it seems to conserve what already works. But we can’t simply replace the system either, since society wouldn’t survive the gap until we figure out how to function on the new one. We need gradual change. It is like the ant colony, where no single ant really has an overview, but if enough react to a signal, the emergent collective behavior can qualitatively shift. The difference is that we can choose what kind of society we want to end up living in. I genuinely don’t know “the solution”, especially when it comes to institutional design, but here is a direction that did well for me on the individual level: The process of social valuation happens pervasively; it is the water in which we swim. Thus, we need to make it visible, so we can change it. We need to see what is happening, notice the automatisms, and then consciously choose a different lens to interact from. A lens that allows us to meet others as equals on first sight. A lens in which we can express on even ground what we think is right. A lens in which we know we’ll be heard, just because we exist. Choose again and again, until it eventually becomes the default how we connect with each other. More openly, and more deeply. And when the core changes enough, the structures around it will start to change, too.

Some parts of the process of social valuation may be so deeply embedded in human functioning that we won’t be able to entirely eradicate it. However, we certainly can do a lot better than what we have right now. I think it is worth trying.