The problem with “status games” as an explanation is that it’s a bit like saying “physics” - it explains too much, and doesn’t help distinguish sport from all cultural activities. To say sport is not about beauty is to imply that fine art isn’t also a status competition, which it certainly is. And what about science? Just the selfless pursuit of knowledge for its own sake? Unmotivated by the desire for status/prestige? Neither art nor science can be explained away by saying they are merely status competitions, and the same is true about sports.
Thanks Frank for that comment. I agree with you that sport is not unique in being a status game. Art and science are very much the same in that sense: people compete for prestige, only on different dimensions. In sport, the contest is physical prowess, in art it’s creativity and skill, and in science it’s intelligence and rigour.
What I find useful in thinking of them as status games is not that it "explains them away," but that it highlights the common engine behind why these activities attract attention and why people devote so much energy to them. Seeing the status game at work helps make sense of features that otherwise look puzzling, such as why small differences in performance matter so much.
Each domain has its own dimension of competition, and those differences shape the culture of the field. But the underlying logic of competing for prestige is the same. And of course, we don’t usually talk about it this way, because chasing status is something people do but don’t like being seen as doing. As David Pinsof puts it here https://www.everythingisbullshit.blog/p/status-is-weird, the reality of status games is often masked behind more glowing narratives.
The original "cheerleaders" in US college sports were men, playing the same role as the Capos you mention.
The problem with “status games” as an explanation is that it’s a bit like saying “physics” - it explains too much, and doesn’t help distinguish sport from all cultural activities. To say sport is not about beauty is to imply that fine art isn’t also a status competition, which it certainly is. And what about science? Just the selfless pursuit of knowledge for its own sake? Unmotivated by the desire for status/prestige? Neither art nor science can be explained away by saying they are merely status competitions, and the same is true about sports.
Thanks Frank for that comment. I agree with you that sport is not unique in being a status game. Art and science are very much the same in that sense: people compete for prestige, only on different dimensions. In sport, the contest is physical prowess, in art it’s creativity and skill, and in science it’s intelligence and rigour.
What I find useful in thinking of them as status games is not that it "explains them away," but that it highlights the common engine behind why these activities attract attention and why people devote so much energy to them. Seeing the status game at work helps make sense of features that otherwise look puzzling, such as why small differences in performance matter so much.
Each domain has its own dimension of competition, and those differences shape the culture of the field. But the underlying logic of competing for prestige is the same. And of course, we don’t usually talk about it this way, because chasing status is something people do but don’t like being seen as doing. As David Pinsof puts it here https://www.everythingisbullshit.blog/p/status-is-weird, the reality of status games is often masked behind more glowing narratives.