Can Status Inequality Organize Cooperation in Multi-leader Systems? An Evolutionary Theory

Status hierarchies often emerge in small collective task groups. In these groups, clearly defined hierarchies facilitate and stabilize structured cooperative interactions among group members, supporting their evolutionary function in the real world. What the existing research in this field has failed to consider, however, is that cooperation matters in these hierarchies with clear status inequality, as well as in other more realistic, multiple-leader groups with less clear hierarchies. Multi-leadership is ubiquitous but, by definition, flattens status inequality and may, in turn, jeopardize its capacity to sustain cooperation. Leveraging the relationship between multi-leadership and cooperation, our evolutionary game model reveals that hierarchies, in general, promote cooperation in groups with multiple leaders, but these hierarchies only do that up to a point, after which multi-leadership backfires. Accordingly, the model provides not only a theoretical account for how multi-leadership coexists with cooperation but also the conditions under which the coexistence would break.

Esteem, Social Norms and Status Inequality

When we appraise others as talented or virtuous, we esteem them: we register admiration of their traits and virtues. It is generally believed that, unless they involve a violation of respect, distributions of esteem are not a concern from the point of view of justice. In this paper, I want to dispute this commonly-held view. I will argue that attributions of esteem can become problematic when a particular trait becomes such a uniquely relevant source of social esteem in a community that its absence becomes a reason to regard others as less than full members of the community. For instance, in contemporary capitalist societies those perceived as lacking certain socially valued traits and unable or unwilling to make certain kinds of contribution to the community, such as those who are unemployed or have committed criminal offences, are widely disesteemed and also regarded as inferior qua members of the community by others. From the fact that they fail to possess particular qualities a broader negative judgment of their ability to contribute to the community is inferred. Moreover, their failure to gain esteem in these pervasive domains eclipses their possession of other esteem-worthy traits as well as other positive contributions they might have made to society. This perception of inferiority renders it impossible for them to live on equal terms with other citizens. I argue that as egalitarians we should oppose these distributions of esteem.

A Seasonal Comparison of the Effectiveness of Parent Engagement on Student Literacy Achievement

Parent engagement is often promoted as a remedy for reducing achievement gaps between students from high socio-economic and low socio-economic backgrounds. However, researchers have found mixed results when examining parent engagement and student outcomes. Drawing on a study investigating the effectiveness of summer literacy camps offered by schools in Ontario, I compare the influence of parent engagement on two outcomes: (1) spring snapshot of cumulative learning, and (2) summer literacy growth/loss. In considering summer learning in regression analysis, I aim to investigate the effect of parent engagement without the influence of schools during the academic year. Out of 14 parent engagement measures, I find only three (parents’ aspirations, home resources, discussions of school with children) are positive predictors of spring literacy outcomes and that none predict summer literacy growth/loss. Family socio-economic status remains a powerful predictor of achievement for both outcomes. I interpret my findings within three proposed mechanisms of parent engagement: cultivation ethic, realist reaction, and expressive logic. Keywords: parent engagement, literacy achievement, socio-economic status, inequality, summer learning, summer literacy camp(s)

Justice and Egalitarian Relations

Why does equality matter, as a social and political value, and what does it require? Relational egalitarians argue that it does not primarily require that people receive equal distributive shares of some good, but that they relate as equals. This book develops a liberal conception of relational equality, which understands relations of non-domination and egalitarian norms of social status as stringent demands of social justice. First, it argues that expressing respect for the freedom and equality of individuals in social cooperation requires stringent protections against domination; develops a substantive, liberal conception of non-domination; and argues that non-domination is a particularly important, but not the only, concern of social justice. These features set it apart from, and provide it with crucial advantages over, neo-republican accounts of non-domination. Second, the book develops an account of the wrongness of inegalitarian norms of social status, which shows how status-induced foreclosure of important social opportunities is a social injustice in its own right, over and above the role of status inequality in enabling domination, and the threats it poses to individuals’ self-respect. Finally, it works out the implications of liberal relational egalitarianism for political, economic, and health justice, showing that it demands, in practice, far-reaching forms of equality in all three domains. In so doing, the book draws on, and brings together, several different literatures: on social justice and liberalism, distributive and relational equality, the distinct value of social equality, and neo-republicanism and non-domination.

Distributive Justice

This chapter develops the implications of liberal relational egalitarianism for the distribution of goods produced by social cooperation. It shows that there are not only strong instrumental reasons to set stringent limits to inequality of income, wealth, and opportunity, on grounds of both non-domination and social status, but, contrary to what both many critics and proponents of relational equality argue, strong non-instrumental, expressive reasons to do so, as well: since participants in social cooperation are equals, all inequalities in social goods need to be justified by justice-relevant reasons even where they do not lead to domination or social status inequality. Rightly understood, relational egalitarianism thus requires a concentric attack on material inequality in society as well as on its sources in power inequality, through a plurality of rationales.

Social status inequality and depression in Europe

It is theorized that income inequality is an indicator of status inequality and should therefore be associated with adverse health outcomes. In this article, we propose a novel way to capture status inequality more directly by measuring the distribution of self-perceived status in a society. We investigate whether status inequality in a society is associated with depression in the population. We show, first, that there is only a moderate association between subjective social status inequality and income inequality. Second, we provide evidence that depression is higher in countries with higher status inequality and that our novel measure of status inequality is more strongly associated with depression than the conventionally used income inequality measure. However, results are susceptible to influential country cases.

Survey on early career travel support shows geographic, career stage, and indigenous status inequality in access to polar science events

Scientific meetings, conferences, field schools and workshops provide essential networking and training opportunities for early career researchers, but in highly international fields like polar sciences, attending these events can involve extensive travel. We surveyed Association of Polar Early Career Scientists members and other early career members of the polar science community to investigate the geographic and international variability in travel support relative to costs across the early stages of a researcher's career (Masters students, PhD students, post-docs and those in faculty or permanent research positions). 190 respondents from 38 countries answered questions on the perceived availability of different types and sources of travel funding and described up to three events they attended over the last two years. We found that the cost of attendance prevented nearly three-quarters of respondents from participating in at least one career-relevant events in the preceding two years. Due to insufficient research funding, early career researchers frequently have to top up partial support with personal funds. Increased event-based travel support would help to reduce out of pocket expenses, as would the timely notification of a travel award to benefit from early bird registration and cheaper travel and accommodation. Replacing the more common practice of travel reimbursement with a travel advance would remove another barrier to attendance. Large disparities in what kinds of expenses are covered exist between geographic regions and funding mechanisms. Addressing the disparities in travel support for career-relevant events will promote diversity and foster inclusion in the next generation of polar scientists.

Do the Rich and the Poor Have Different Conceptions of Democracy? Socioeconomic Status, Inequality, and the Political Status Quo

In this study, we investigate how socioeconomic status is related to people's commitment to liberal democracy. Based on sociological and psychological theories of social conflict and dominance, we argue that those who enjoy a more privileged position in the social hierarchy tend to develop stronger preferences for the existing social and political order. Conversely, people in underprivileged positions tend to be less supportive of that order. Hence, we expect the relationship between socioeconomic status and commitment to liberal democracy to be context-specific: positive in liberal democracies but negative in autocracies. Furthermore, we argue that income inequality amplifies these dynamics, widening the gap between low and high status individuals. We test our hypotheses using the fifth wave of the World Value Surveys.