What John is saying about ascribed status is now lulling me into submission.
However...
John:
>There are exceptions. Status in social insects is hormonal, and is >not
>achieved.
>[...] social classes have existed possibly only six thousand years >or so.
>It did not exist before then. It is still fairly recent (which is why it
>has not yet been "bred" into us in the way in which >castes of workers are
>bred into ants and bees.
Thus, perhaps "ascriptive"? By how you define "ascriptive status",
why should it not be considered as such just because of hormones? Are these
hormones really "bred" into these insects or is the Queen Bee/Ant
administering the hormones to her subjects in order to affect their
development from birth? If so, the basis of rejecting ants or bees as having
ascriptive status becomes unfounded.
What's more interesting is whether "ants" and "bees" could be considered a
potential model of the future of our society (Back to the hive mentality
again). They've certainly had this superior level of organization long
before humans could ever walk on twos or talk about twos and this
organizaion is probably due to the large population of ants/bees that had to
sustain themselves together. Thus ascribed status might then be considered
to be something used by societies that need greater organization in order to
succesfully handle larger co-habitating populations?
There's always a chance I might be offending someone in this type of topic
so I want to stress that I personally am an egalitarian at heart. Peace.
- gLeN
______________________________________________________