Aggregation, status competition and levelling mechanisms in prehistoric Chulmun, Korea

This article discusses the aggregation and dispersion of the Chulmun hunter-gatherers (c. 8000–1500 bce) in prehistoric Korea. The following observations are made from settlement datasets. First, large numbers of houses do not necessarily imply aggregation, as they can be palimpsests of dwelling structures from different phases. Second, aggregation settlements were segmented and contained multiple discrete subunits. Individual residential clusters typically had fewer than 60 inhabitants. Third, there are some indications of social hierarchy in nucleated settlements such as Unseo-dong. Fourth, despite some evidence of emergent elites and social differentiation, social complexity did not intensify over the long run. Levelling mechanisms (e.g. group fission) were in operation and they suppressed the institutionalization of social hierarchy.

Avoiding competition: the effects of rankings in the food waste field

Ranks are often seen as drivers for competition. This chapter critically examines the link between ranks and competition by investigating the actors’ actual desire for the highest positions. Empirically, the author examines the role of the food waste hierarchy in establishing status competition in the food waste field. This discrete ranking creates ‘winners’ at the top (the challengers that prevent food waste by generating demand for it), who respond enthusiastically to the food waste hierarchy to benefit from status gains. In contrast, the ‘losers’ at the bottom (biogas plants) show very little interest in improving their position. They do not see themselves as players in such a competitive game and direct their attention towards other competitions outside the field. The chapter argues that ranks do not necessarily induce competition, since the actors may be involved in multiple competitions and decide whether it is worth pursuing high status within each one.

Status in Early Modern and Modern World Politics

In this article, Ramy Youssef compares historically varying structures and semantics of world political status competition. Early modern and modern rankings that represent the world political status of royal titles, or modern states, respectively, serve as empirical material. It is shown that status competition in the early modern period can neither semantically nor structurally be distinguished from conflicts, whereas in modern world politics competition is framed as a distinct social relationship and as an alternative to conflicts. Methodological and epistemological conclusions are drawn from the findings, suggesting that more caution should be taken when applying modern terms to historical contexts.

Status in Early Modern and Modern World Politics: Competition or Conflict? A Comparative Analysis of Early Modern Ceremonial Rankings and Modern Nation-State Rankings

Based on Simmel's sociology of competition, the article compares historically varying structures and semantics of world political status competition. Early modern and modern rankings that represent the world political status of royal titles, or modern states, respectively, serve as empirical material. It is shown that status competition in the early modern period can neither semantically nor structurally be distinguished from conflicts, whereas in modern world politics competition is framed as a distinct social relationship and as an alternative to conflicts. Methodological and epistemological conclusions are drawn from the findings, suggesting that more caution should be taken when applying modern terms to historical contexts.

Questioning Suffering, Rethinking the World

Suffering provokes theodicy, the search for meaning and dignity. Blockade theodicies had two key logics: causation and community of suffering. Social and symbolic distance shaped both. The Germans were the prime cause, but the Allies were viewed with suspicion. Party and state officials were closer and more visible; civilians could read into them incompetence and coldness, but also some humanity, leaving a fuzzy picture. Leningraders also asked how Soviet culture and human nature, closest to home, could cause suffering. For the suffering community, the city was a key anchor that bred contradictions. Civilians knew soldiers suffered, suggesting a broad national community. Yet this created status competition: Leningraders as the superior soviets. Competition emerged inside the city in politics of authenticity. Dystrophics were possibly shirking duties, and for some, Jews were inauthentic sufferers deserving exclusion. Blockade theodicies grounded identities in the city experience, in which USSR and Red Army had status, but Stalin and Moscow less.