Achieved status remains heavily dependent on ascribed group membership

Evidence

By the term “group-based social hierarchy” we mean something quite distinct from an individual-based social hierarchy. In an individual-based social hierarchy, individuals might enjoy great power, prestige, or wealth by virtue of their own highly valued individual characteristics, such as great athletic or leadership ability, high intelligence, artistic, or political or scientific talent or achievement. Group-based social hierarchy, on the other hand, refers to that social power, prestige, and privilege that an individual possesses by virtue of their ascribed membership in a particular socially constructed group such as a “race,” religion, clan, tribe, lineage, linguistic/ethnic group, or social class. … Even in modern, “democratic,” and multigroup societies, the “achieved” component of social status is, to a very significant degree, dependent upon one’s the social status and power of one’s ascribed group membership. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 3161

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines group-based vs. individual-based social hierarchy, the central conceptual distinction of social dominance theory.
• XREF: connects to: Online communities reproduce status hierarchies that limit who can participate — Alice E. Marwick, Status Update: Celebrity, Publicity,…, 173; Habitus derives from group membership as much as from class — Nina Eliasoph, Avoiding politics: how Americans…, 1066; Status congruence across capital forms entrenches inequality despite meritocracy — W. David Marx, Status and Culture: How Our Desire for…, 90 (+6 more)