The Price of Prestige

44 chapter two

rather than global comparison, construct alternative hierarchies based on

specific capabilities, or, as in the case of the Soviet bloc, seek to block or

manipulate information regarding unfavorable comparisons. Thus, while

actors cannot generally choose their strengths or weaknesses, they can, to

an extent, choose a more flattering comparison group, a league in which

they are best suited to compete. Therefore, when possible, actors will prefer

not to stay in groups in which they are low­ ranking members.^8

This process leads to the formation of relatively uniform groupings.

Frank refers to these voluntary groupings as leagues, Festinger calls them

comparison groups, and for the purpose of this study, I will follow Goff­

man and refer to them as classes (Frank 1985 a; Festinger 1954 ; Goffman

1951 , 296 ). Goffman defines classes as clusters of actors that share simi­

lar prestige levels. These clusters create distinct strata, each defined by a

complex set of qualifications. Discrete and well­ guarded classes operate

like a club, restricting access to club membership as a form of invidious

comparison. The process of class formation is important for and inher­

ent to the creation of social stratification. Goffman’s definition of class

focuses on an observable set of entry qualifications, mostly in the form of

status symbols, which identify each class. In this sense, Goffman follows

the Weberian view, which defines class in terms of consumption rather than

the more familiar Marxist definition, which focuses on processes of pro­

duction (Burke 2005 , 62 ).^9

The process of class formation is not unproblematic. Class distinction — a

discrete discontinuity in prestige structures — while inevitable, brings with

it potential tension: “The cessation of comparison with others is accom­

panied by hostility or derogation to the extent that continued comparison

with those persons implies unpleasant consequences. The process of mak­

ing others incomparable [through the creation of discrete classes] results in

status stratification” (Festinger 1954 , 131 ). Hence, the process of hierarchy

formation is often accompanied by competition, tension, and conflict. For

Veblen, this interclass tension plays an important role in the interplay be­

tween pecuniary emulation and invidious comparison. Here again, the no­

tion of interclass competition should not be equated with Marxist variants

of class warfare (Diggins 1999 ).

A consumption­ based understanding of class emphasizes the role of

taste and acquisition decisions as class markers.^10 Such class markers, or

status symbols, vary vertically along social hierarchies and temporally or

spatially across prestige spaces. Indeed, status symbols are where this ab­

stract discussion of prestige, hierarchy, and class translates into observ­

able political decisions.