Introduction
Status anxiety is the perception that somebody is socially inferior because of their background. Status anxiety is further complicated by the idea of the American dream and the desperate way in which we strive to achieve it. Those who have not achieved it are deemed inferior. Coping with status anxiety is imperative, and it is even more important to have a positive outlook on life despite the negativity around.
Status anxiety in the social network
Facebook was designed for the elite, and only those who had Harvard e-mail addresses could get access. At its inception at Harvard University, it was already a case of exclusivity and an attempt to keep up with the elite.
The film, ‘The Social Network’, depicts Mark Zuckerberg as a loser who falls short of the elite club and makes desperate attempts to get social acceptance which eventually destroys his friendship and he also loses his girlfriend. The pain of a loss and the status anxiety that came with being inferior to other students at Harvard instigated the urge to revenge and brought a desire to achieve success. He decided to seek solace and had ambition that resulted in having a million dollar business.
This film describes a case of an individual who suffered status anxiety but used the negativity as a motivation. It is psychologically proven that our reaction to negative social comparison exceeds the negativity in reality. It is important to learn how to reframe these negative perceptions and as much as being concerned, it is unavoidable it should never be our personal rating. Negative perceptions are self-destructive and should be curbed but still maintain motivation (Curley, Yates and Abrams 230).
Socrates reaction
Socrates reacted to negative perception and status anxiety by standing out of the crowd and subjecting himself to more ridicule. This resulted in a ricocheting effect of his exaltation as one of the greatest Greek philosophers. This action shows freedom from status anxiety; he does not care what other people thought about him. Instead he had his own view of himself which was positive and deeply engraved in his judgement and rating of himself. It is possible to say that Socrates was the best friend to himself.
The compulsion to compare oneself with others disappears with time, and the older ones grow less status anxiety than they had before (Horowitz, 212). Dealing with status anxiety by subjecting himself to ridicule, Socrates depended on the overcoming power of time. He took the risk and accepted the shame of losing his social status. Socrates was wise to choose his competitive realms; the people criticising him were merely low class citizens who were not worth being envious to.
When publicly called a gadfly, Socrates showed his acceptance of the new status. He reinforced his undeterred nature by saying that the gadfly only annoys mules. With this comparison Socrates had indicated the low social status of his critics and showed that they were both in the same social status. This is a psychological strategy of adapting to criticism by demeaning the opponent to make you feel better. The resilience with which Socrates faced his critics stands out and is a major factor for his status as an icon.
Conclusion
Status anxiety is a negative view of oneself when compared to other people. It is common to be judged based on financial status or other dimensions, but the reality of one’s judgement should be positive as we are all superior in our own ways. Motivation can be derived from the envious nature of status anxiety and this will drive us to prove superiority. It is possible to counter the destructive nature of status anxiety by having positive attitude as Socrates did. In some time, the comparative nature diminishes and status anxiety lessens.
Works Cited
Curley, Simon, Yates Fredrick, and Abrams Richard “Psychological sources of ambiguity avoidance.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 15 (2006): 230. Print.
Horowitz, Frances Degen. “The relationship of anxiety, self-concept, and sociometric status among fourth, fifth, and sixth grade children.” The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 65.3 (1962): 212. Print.