Ascribed VS Achieved Social Status in Modern Democracy

In the modern world the prevailing systems of government (and in turn prevailing systems of ideals a population is engendered with) are those based on democracy or democratic concepts. Chief among those concepts we would list as democratic is equality of all members of a democratic society- because of this sacred democratic principle a democratic society can be expected to value each individual person's rights equally, and can furthermore be expected to believe in the idea that each citizen has equal potential from birth. It is because of this enduring democratic idea that democratic societies seem to put much more emphasis on achieved status, to show that the individual can overcome adversity and discover wealth or happiness, and why metaphorical 'rags to riches' stories tend to be popularized and sensationalized by democratic press. The societal effects of telling and retelling these uplifting stories, and upholding the idea that all people are born equal is most often a positive one- however in recent years in the United States the veracity of the idea has been challenged by the existence of the Bush and Kennedy political empires.

It is important to note that while American society has evolved rapidly over the past several decades due to the beginning of the Information Age, historically political empires and the idea of an 'American Aristocracy' have almost always existed in American urban society. The existence of these empires and the aristocracy have not always shown a positive light on their members, either; more often than not affiliation with one or both of the groups (whichever the case may be) leads to comparison and mental association. For example, former Governor Jeb Bush will always be associated in the minds of the American people with his father, George Bush, and his brother, George W. Bush. This association can poorly affect former Governor Bush, if his father and brother continue to be thought of badly by the majority of the American public. However, people will also associate him with a family of political know-how, and might recognize that he is more intelligent and level-headed than his father or brother, and may view him as the 'pick of the litter'. The name Kennedy is immediately recognized and instinctively trusted by many older Americans; President John F. Kennedy recognized for 'saving America' from the threat of nuclear war, his brother remembered for bringing justice to criminals, and Senator Ted Kennedy remembered for valiant crusades in congress. However, the Kennedy name has tarnish to it as well- Kennedys are often thought of as womanizing playboys, or alcoholics.

When a person is confronted with someone who has an ascribed social status (a Bush, a Kennedy, e&.), the person tends to make a first impression of them based on the family's reputation. Comparison plays a large part, but most Americans will appreciate the individual's right to be themselves, and eventually try and evaluate a person's achieved status- in which case an ascribed status might undermine an achieved status. For example, if John Doe Kennedy is elected to the senate, people may discount his personal effort in forming a political career and simply regard him as a politician who was 'born into the system'.

While persons with ascribed status clearly exist in modern democracies, even the United States, none are particularly known for stealing the limelight of the media and democratic press away from the stories about 'self-made men and women'. In America more people will instinctively respect multi-billionaires such as Bill Gates, Donald Trump, or Oprah Winfrey because of the fact that they have earned their wealth and class by overcoming adversity, and from beginnings no less humble than the vast majority of American citizens. It is the practice of modern politicians such as John Edwards to appeal to their lower-middle class voters by explaining that they have a common social and economic background, and can much more easily empathize with one another than a lower-middle class voter and a millionaire trial-lawyer turned senator who was 'born with a silver spoon in his mouth'. The idea of social drift, and the ability to change one's social and economic class drives this country's workers, and drives the democratic focus on achieved status- so long as a person's work can improve their station, those who have 'worked themselves up' will always be the focus of a democratic society.