I've just cracked Alain de Botton's latest book, Status Anxiety. I'm sure you can guess what it's about. The title intrigued me. Would he try to deny that status anxiety exists? Would he try to offer a cure?
I'm still reading the first part, which reminds me of a history textbook. It's interesting in the same way Humanities 101 was in its better moments, when we covered such innovations as body odor and urban sanitation in historic societies (great stuff to use while playing Trivial Pursuit). But, reading about past societal stratifications, I can't help thinking to myself, "No Duh!" Does it really take a book to prove that people don't like to play well together unless someone's the bigger cheese? "Equals" are two people vying for position with no distinct winner.
According to de Botton, people in certain societies felt their station in life was predestined, thus they never aspired to raise their position; to do so would have been questioning God's will. This provides me with some comfort actually; watching historical fiction films I always feel sorry for the peasants--weren't they miserable having to live in village slums with dirt under their fingernails, knowing that there was nothing more for them? Their only hope was getting some disease and dying young.
It's wrong to impose this view on a historic population, I deducted from de Botton's book. The lower strata had much more acceptance of their situation than, say, America's contemporary urban poor. Why? because America offers the option of having more. Granted, not everybody exercises the option, but as Americans adore their rags to riches stories and always tout that ANYONE can make something of themselves, more pressure exists to "better oneself".