Ascribed and Achieved Status

Ascribed and achieved status tends to be a critical discussion in social science courses, especially sociology due to Ralph Linton, a sociologist who coined the term when discussing social structures. I’ve incorporated a short you tube video that discusses the basic meanings to supplement the article, "A Clarification of 'Ascribed Status' and 'Achieved Status' " by Irving S. Foladare.

Foladare's article concerns the misrepresentation of these terms to represent "individual variation" rather then the representation of social structure as a whole, which may be culturally variant but not individually subjective. Thus, he states that "the concepts of 'ascribed status' and 'achieved status' are designed to indicate structural properties of social systems" and individuals cannot determined if their status will be shifted (Foladare 54). Therefore, what he is ultimately saying is it is not up to the individual to give themselves a self-ascribed status because it is not socially recognized; the 'ascribed' or 'achieved' status muse be recognized by the given social structure. Foladare brings to light the misuse of Leo F. Schnore's further development of these terms in his use of 'reversible status' and 'irreversible status'. Schnore has deviated from Lipton's terminology because according to Foladare his "conceptualization is both empirically inaccurate and an additional source of departure from the social structural significance of the concepts (Foladare 54)." With this in mind though I have found comparative themes between Foladare's explanation of 'achieved status' and 'ascribed status' and Schnore's concept of 'reversible status' and 'irreversible status' to compliment "Medicalizing Homosexuality" and "Regulated Passions: The invention of inhibited sexual desire and sexual addiction."

The medicalization of homosexuality and experiences such as inhibited sexual desire (ISD) and sexual addiction are applied by medical authority, the historical context and theoretical approach have changed but the similar theme is that the medicalization has often reverted to an explanation of social status as well as self-identity. In the case of "Medicalizing Homosexuality" medical practitioners have been interested in homosexuality because of the 'abnormal desire' man had for another man (41), furthermore the homosexual body has been seen for centuries as "like savage bodies (40-41)." Ulrichs explained homosexuality as a "inborn benign anomaly" or as a third sex. Terry noted that his concept of homosexuality "was an attribute of a particular type of person, marked by the paradoxical presence of characteristics of both sexes (Terry 43). She also noted that the scientific approach he offered would be helpful in decriminalizing homosexuality because it was "inborn." Ulrichs concept represents ascribed status in the sense that he argues homosexuality is assigned prior to living in a given environment. According to Schnore biological sex is ascribed irreversible however he doesn't present sexuality or gender which in Ulrichs understanding of homosexuality would be ascribed reversible (Foladare Figure 1, 55).

Furthermore, the concept of nervous degeneration represents achieved status and how homosexuality can be achieved and reversible with increased maturity. According to Krafft-Ebing "The medical investigator is driven to the conclusion that this manifestation of modern life [homosexuality] stands in relation to the predominating nervous condition of later generations, in that it begets defective individuals (Terry 45)." The homosexual in this case has presented a achieved reversible status because with the struggles of modern life they have supposedly turned to homosexuality but have a means of reversing this sexual orientation. Foladare confirms that " 'Achieved statuses' are those in categories of statuses for which the society accepts change by individuals and, in many cases, expects efforts toward change in given directions (58)."

Krafft-Ebing correlates homosexuality with primitive human beings who are have not evolved as modern human beings (Terry 46). Terry states that to Krafft-Ebing "sexual dimorphism and monogamous procreative heterosexuality were taken to be indicators of evolutionary progress and maturity (46)" Likewise, Foladore states that " 'Achieved statuses' are those in categories of statues for which the society accepts change by individuals and, in many cases, expects efforts toward change in given directions (58)." A key term used in this statement is "expects" because as society expects these changes that are in term accepted by society, it is also expected that homosexuals eventually mature into acceptable human beings, in Krafft-Ebing's concepts.

Foladore's discusses in depth the change and fluidity of status with collective societies approval, he comes to the conclusion that "the essential point is that in their status categories change is not acceptable to the society. People are expected to be heterosexual males or heterosexual females, assigned one or the other on the basis of their biological characteristics (59)." Deviant statuses therefore illustrate a contradiction between societies ascribed status to the individual (Foladore 58-59). Therefore what is acceptable and unacceptable is determined collectively by the society however it is also decided by the popular authority. In the case of "Regulated Passions" it is the medical practitioner that assigns authority and meaning; "...The discursive elaboration of disease is shaped by myriad and complex factors, including the ideological and economic imperatives of the defining professions (Irvine 317)."

In Irvine's article he argues that "Diseases are artifacts with social history and social practice (314)" and they have created "medically legitimated boundaries of acceptable contemporary sexual experience (315)." These statements have forced me to turn to the concept of achieved status and how whole populations can be transformed due to class labeling and/or medicalization of experiences. The disease described in "Regulated Passions" as inhibited sexual desire and sexual addiction are admitted as being subjective to the individual and unable to medically define and apply universally (Irvine 322). With this in mind, subjective diseases correlate more so with the individualized theme behind "irreversible" and "reversable" statues to compliment "ascribed" and "achieved". Foladore argues that the first noted states are dependent on "individual variation" (53) rather then part of social structures.

The main point that I have strived to achieve is that according to Foladore "achieved statuses" and "ascribed statuses" are fundamental to understanding human behavior and therefore this may be the reasoning behind ascribing homosexuality to a type of status (i.e. primitive). These statues also represent the concept behind medicalization, and that is attempting to apply a universal notion to a very diverse population. On the individual level, which is subjective, it should be looked at after considering "reversible" and irreversible" statuses because it does not properly incorporate the social structures in place. In order to understand why these theories were formed and how even passion was medicalized it is essential to look a social structures in place.