Will Storr’s book The Status Game, explores the role of status in human behaviour and society. It examines the universal nature of status games, the different types (dominance, virtue, and competence games), and their evolutionary, psychological, and social impacts. Storr gives an account of the cultural context of these games, particularly how different cultures shape and value status, referencing Michele Gelfand’s research on tight and loose societies. Additionally, it highlights the contemporary relevance of status games in modern contexts such as social media, politics, and cultural conflicts, and offers insights into avoiding status traps and navigating status and virtue games effectively.
Human Desire for Status
According to Will Storr a status game is a fundamental aspect of human behaviour in which individuals seek to gain, maintain, or improve their status within a group. These games are driven by the inherent human desire for recognition, respect, and a sense of worth, and they influence our actions, decisions, and relationships. Storr identifies three main types of status games:
- Dominance Games: Status is achieved through power, force, or intimidation.
- Virtue Games: Status is awarded based on moral goodness, adherence to group norms, and ideological conformity.
- Competence or Success Games: Status is attained through the demonstration of skill, talent, or achievement in specific areas.
Storr argues that these status games are universal, often unconscious, and play a crucial role in social dynamics, affecting our psychological well-being and societal interactions.
We can see these status games played out in our politics and the way political ideas are grouped and arranged between different groups of activists and advocates of forms of social and political organisation. Storr contrasts the New Left and the New Right, two broad ideological movements that emerged in the late 20th century and influenced many aspects of culture, economics, and governance. He argues that both groups play these ‘meta-games’ as they are part of the process by which change is understood, social stability is secured, and how social in-groups and out-groups are defined. The New Left and the New Right have different views of what constitutes virtue, competence, or success, and they compete for status and influence by appealing to their respective audiences and challenging their opponents.
Characteristics of Status Games
According to Will Storr, human beings are constantly playing status games, which are social competitions that determine who has more or less respect, admiration, and influence in a given group. However, status is not absolute; it depends on the context, the criteria, and the players of each game. There are three main types of status games: dominance games, where status is based on physical power or intimidation; virtue games, where status is based on moral values or conformity; and success games, where status is based on achievements or skills. These games can have different outcomes and trade-offs for the players, as one can excel in one game but fail in another, or gain status in one group but lose it in another. Therefore, status is a complex and dynamic phenomenon that shapes human behaviour and relationships.
Universality: Status games are ubiquitous and an inherent part of human social interaction. Everyone engages in various forms of status games, often unconsciously.
Relativity: Status is relative and local; it depends on how much other players in a specific group have. One can have high status in one game and lower status in another.
According to Storr, the three main types of game are:
- Dominance games: Status is imposed by force or fear.
- Virtue games: Status is awarded for moral behaviour and adherence to group norms.
- Success/competence games: Status is given for skill, talent, or achievement.
Status games operate largely on an unconscious level, as we are influenced by a complex cognitive and psychological process that we do not fully comprehend, but that manifests itself through the symbols, stories, and rituals that we use to express and negotiate our status, as well as the more observable cues of speech and body language. We are often unaware of how status games affect us, because they are part of a hidden cognitive and psychological process that shapes our perception and behaviour. But we can recognise some indicators of status, such as the cultural symbols we display, the narratives we construct, and the rituals we engage in, as well as the more visible signs of speech and body language.
One of the ways that status games can affect one’s well-being is by creating a sense of social comparison and relative deprivation, where we feel dissatisfied with our own status compared to others who have more. This can lead to feelings of envy, resentment, inferiority, and depression, as well as increased stress and anxiety. Low status can also reduce one’s access to resources, opportunities, and social support, which are essential for physical and mental health. Moreover, low status can undermine one’s sense of self-worth, autonomy, and belonging, which are key psychological needs for well-being. Thus, status games can have a negative impact on one’s well-being, especially if one perceives oneself as having low status or being unfairly treated by others.
One of the reasons why the drive for status is such a powerful motivator of human behaviour and achievement, according to Will Storr, is that being perceived to be high-status changes the parameters of what an individual can achieve and undertake. High-status individuals have more influence, respect, and recognition from others, which can enable them to pursue their goals, interests, and passions more effectively and confidently. They also have more access to resources, opportunities, and social support, which can facilitate their success and well-being. Thus, status games are not only about gaining social approval, but also about expanding one’s possibilities and potential.
One of the strategies that people use to play status games is copying high-status individuals, hoping that by imitating their appearance, behaviour, or opinions, they will gain some of their status for themselves. This is a phenomenon that we can observe in the world of social media influencers, where millions of followers try to emulate the lifestyle, fashion, or values of celebrities and online personalities. However, this strategy can also backfire, especially if the status game changes and the high-status individuals lose their legitimacy or popularity. For example, after the liberation of France from Nasi occupation in 1944, many people who had collaborated with or supported the Vichy regime faced public humiliation, violence, and ostracism, as they were seen as traitors and enemies by the new authorities and the majority of the population. Thus, copying high-status individuals can be a risky move, depending on the stability and acceptability of the status game.
One of the challenges of playing status games is that they often have restrictive rules and codes of behaviour that limit the access and advancement of certain players, especially those who lack the required forms of social capital. Social capital refers to the resources and benefits that one can obtain from one’s social networks, such as trust, cooperation, information, or support. Depending on the nature and goals of the status game, different forms of social capital may be valued and rewarded, such as education, wealth, charisma, talent, or loyalty. Those who do not possess or display the appropriate forms of social capital may face barriers or discrimination in gaining admission to groups or rising within them. Thus, status games are not only driven by individual motivations, but also by regulating principles and functions that shape the inclusion and exclusion of players, according to the interests and concerns of the existing participants in the status game.
One of the implications of the rule-based nature of status games is that players need to assimilate and follow the rules of each game they participate in, if they want to achieve and maintain their status. However, not all status games are transparent and accessible to everyone. Some status games, especially those that are exclusionary and elitist, may deliberately keep their rules opaque and ambiguous, making it harder for outsiders or newcomers to learn and adapt to them. This creates a barrier of entry and a source of distinction for those who are already in the game, as they can use their knowledge and mastery of the rules to assert their superiority and legitimacy. Thus, the opaqueness of some status games can serve as a means of protecting and enhancing the status of the existing players, while discouraging or disadvantaging those who challenge or threaten their position.
Therefore, status games are not only a source of motivation and recognition for individuals, but also a potential source of conflict and division within groups. Storr argues that the competitive nature of status games can be counterproductive if it results in a closed network that cannot assimilate new information or account for change. For example, he cites the case of the Catholic Church, which resisted the scientific discoveries and reforms of the Renaissance and the Reformation, losing credibility and influence in the process. According to Storr, status games can become rigid and dogmatic, preventing players from learning and adapting to new situations and challenges. Thus, status games can sometimes hinder rather than foster innovation and creativity.
Storr suggests that the psychological impact of status games is determined by how one perceives oneself as a winner or a loser in the game. Winning can boost one’s self-esteem, confidence, and happiness, while losing can lower them and cause frustration, resentment, and depression. Therefore, status games can have significant effects on one’s mental and emotional well-being, depending on how one evaluates one’s own performance and position in relation to others.
One of the ways that status games cope with the inherent instability and insecurity of their players’ positions is by seeking ego reinforcement from various sources. Ego reinforcement can be defined as any form of validation, affirmation, or support that boosts one’s self-image and sense of worth. Ego reinforcement can come from within oneself, such as by rationalising one’s actions or achievements, or from external sources, such as by receiving praise, recognition, or rewards from others. Ego reinforcement can also come from creating or exaggerating a sense of threat or enemy, either within the group or outside of it. This can serve to increase the cohesion and loyalty of the group members, as well as to justify their actions and claims against their rivals or opponents.
Storr gives the example of Stalin, who used the tactic of demonising various groups and individuals in Soviet Russia, accusing them of being traitors, spies, or saboteurs. This created a climate of fear and paranoia, which enabled Stalin to eliminate his potential challengers and critics, as well as to mobilise his supporters and followers. By portraying himself as the defender of the revolution and the people, Stalin reinforced his own ego and status, while undermining and destroying those of others. Thus, ego reinforcement can be a powerful tool for maintaining and enhancing one’s position in a status game, but it can also have harmful and destructive consequences for oneself and others.
These characteristics highlight how status games are deeply ingrained in human social behaviour and play a crucial role in shaping our interactions, motivations, and social structures.
Characteristics of Virtue Games
Virtue games can be articulated through a hierarchy of interpolated mannerisms by the players of these virtue games, meaning that they adopt and express certain behaviours, gestures, symbols, or language that signal their conformity and commitment to the group’s values and norms. These mannerisms can range from wearing specific clothing or accessories, to using certain jargon or slogans, to performing certain rituals or ceremonies, to displaying certain emotions or attitudes. These mannerisms serve to communicate one’s status within the group, as well as to differentiate oneself from outsiders or enemies. They also serve to reinforce the group identity and cohesion, as well as to exert social pressure and control over the members. By interpolating these mannerisms, the players of virtue games seek to gain recognition and approval from their peers and leaders, as well as to avoid criticism or punishment for deviating from the group’s expectations. Thus, virtue games are based on the premise that status is not inherent or fixed, but rather conferred and contested by the group.
Storr outlines the main characteristics of virtue games as follows:
- Moral Purity: Status is awarded to players who are seen as dutiful, obedient, and morally good. The emphasis is on being perceived as righteous or virtuous.
- Rule Adherence: Status is given to those who best respect and follow the established rules of the group or community.
- Ideological Conformity: Virtue games often operate within closed communities with shared beliefs, such as faith communities, cults, or ideological movements.
- Extreme Positions: Participants may compete to assert extreme or uncompromising positions to gain recognition as the most virtuous within their group.
- Reputational Attacks: Enhancing one’s status in virtue games can involve attacking the reputations of those with opposing views, leading to what Storr calls “reputational death.”
- Group Validation: Status in virtue games depends on the recognition and approval of other group members who share similar values.
- Potential for Collective Delusion: Virtue status games can sometimes lead groups to believe in false narratives or conspiracy theories, as people’s status becomes tied to maintaining these beliefs despite a lack of evidence.
- Moral Superiority: Players in virtue games often experience a strong sense of moral superiority, which Storr describes as a prevalent form of positive illusion.
- Signalling: Participants engage in public displays of virtue or goodness to enhance their status within the group.
- Resistance to Contradictory Evidence: Once a person’s status is tied to a particular belief or position, they may become resistant to information that contradicts their stance.
These characteristics highlight how virtue games operate on principles of moral and ideological alignment rather than physical dominance or measurable competence. One possible consequence of playing virtue games based on moral and ideological alignment is that the participants may form echo chambers, where they only interact with and listen to those who share their views and values. Echo chambers can reinforce the hierarchy of attributes that Storr identifies as crucial for virtue games, such as authenticity, empathy, compassion, and selflessness. However, these attributes may not be objectively verified or challenged by external sources, but rather echoed back by the members of the group. This can create a false sense of validation and security, as well as a lack of openness and curiosity to alternative perspectives and evidence.
Tight and Loose Norms
One way to understand the role of ‘tight’ and ‘loose’ descriptors for societies and social groups is to consider how they relate to the degree of conformism or non-conformism that is expected and rewarded within a culture. Conformism refers to the tendency to align one’s beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours with those of the dominant or majority group. Non-conformism, on the other hand, refers to the tendency to express one’s individuality or dissent from the prevailing norms. Depending on the context and the nature of the status and virtue games, conformism or non-conformism can be seen as either desirable or undesirable traits.
For example, in tight societies, where social norms are rigid and deviations are punished, conformism may be a way to gain status and virtue by showing loyalty and obedience to the group’s values. In loose societies, where social norms are flexible and diversity is tolerated, non-conformism may be a way to gain status and virtue by demonstrating creativity and originality. However, these patterns are not fixed or universal, and may vary depending on the situation and the audience.
Moreover, conformism and non-conformism are not mutually exclusive, and may coexist or alternate within the same culture or group. The dynamic nature of these societies and communities are where the status games are played out, producing different responses and results in each of the different circumstances. Therefore, ‘tight’ and ‘loose’ descriptors are useful tools to analyse how cultural dimensions shape the rules and rewards of status and virtue games, but they are not sufficient to capture the complexity and diversity of human social behaviour.
These cultural dimensions, as described by cultural psychologist Michele Gelfand, can influence the nature and dynamics of status and virtue games:
Strength of Social Norms
Tight Societies: These societies have strong social norms and low tolerance for deviant behaviour. Status and virtue games in tight societies are likely to emphasise strict adherence to established rules and norms. Individuals gain status by closely following these norms and demonstrating their commitment to the group’s standards.
Loose Societies: These societies have weaker social norms and are more permissive of deviant behaviour. Status and virtue games in loose societies may place more value on creativity, individuality, and moral flexibility. People can gain status through unique or innovative contributions and by challenging existing norms.
Conformity Expectations
Tight Societies: High emphasis on conformity means that virtue games will reward those who exhibit high levels of obedience and alignment with group values. Non-conformity can lead to a loss of status or ostracism.
Loose Societies: Greater tolerance for individual expression allows for more diverse ways to achieve status. Virtue games might reward those who can navigate multiple perspectives and demonstrate inclusivity and open-mindedness.
Response to Threats
Tight Societies: Often develop strong norms in response to external threats. In such contexts, status games may become more competitive and aggressive as individuals strive to prove their loyalty and resilience.
Loose Societies: With fewer perceived threats, these societies may foster a more relaxed approach to status, valuing adaptability and change. Virtue games might involve a broader acceptance of different moral and ethical viewpoints.
Socialisation Processes
Tight Societies: Broad socialisation through institutions that enforce conformity (e.g., autocracies, strict media regulations). Status games in these societies are likely to be more hierarchical, with clear and rigid pathways to gaining status.
Loose Societies: Narrower socialisation allowing for diverse influences. Status games here may be more fluid and dynamic, with individuals able to move between different status hierarchies more easily.
Psychological Orientations
Tight Societies: Individuals may have stronger prevention-focused self-guides, valuing safety and structure. Virtue games might prioritise preventing harm and maintaining order.
Loose Societies: Promotion-focused self-guides, valuing innovation and ambiguity. Virtue games might prioritise progress, new ideas, and moral relativism.
Overall, the tightness or looseness of a society shapes how status and virtue games are played by influencing the value placed on conformity versus individuality, the response to social norms, and the pathways through which individuals can achieve and demonstrate their status.
Stories and Symbols
Stories shape how dominance games are played by defining the sources and indicators of power, prestige, and influence. They also justify or challenge the existing hierarchies and distributions of resources. Dominance stories can be explicit or implicit, depending on the level of consensus and contestation within the group. Symbols manifest the dominance stories in various ways. They can be used to assert authority, display wealth, mark territory, intimidate rivals, or inspire followers. Symbols can also be used to resist or subvert the dominant structures by mocking, defying, or exposing them. Dominance symbols tend to be recurrent and recognisable, reflecting the symbolic importance of conformity or non-conformity.
Symbols are the tangible expressions of the stories that groups tell. They can be words, gestures, objects, rituals, or any other sign that conveys meaning. Symbols help reinforce the group identity and signal the status and virtue of the members. They also communicate the acceptance or rejection of the dominant narratives by displaying conformity or non-conformity. Stories and symbols play a crucial role in how these games are understood and enacted. Here are the key roles of stories and symbols in this context:
Creating Shared Narratives
- Stories: Stories provide the shared narratives that groups use to define their values, norms, and what constitutes virtuous behaviour. They help establish the rules of the game by delineating what is considered morally good or bad within the group.
- Symbols: Symbols act as tangible representations of these narratives and values. They can be objects, gestures, or rituals that embody the group’s ideals and principles.
An example of a symbol acting as a tangible representation in a status game is a diploma or certificate that signifies one’s educational achievement and qualification. Such a symbol can convey the message that one has acquired certain skills and knowledge that are valued by the group or society. A diploma or certificate can also boost one’s self-esteem and social recognition, as well as open new opportunities and access to resources.
Reinforcing Group Identity
Stories: By telling and retelling certain stories, groups reinforce their identity and cohesion. These stories often highlight exemplary individuals who embody the group’s values, serving as role models for others to emulate.
Symbols: Symbols serve as constant reminders of the group’s shared identity and values. Wearing or displaying symbols can signal one’s allegiance to the group and commitment to its values.
An example of how telling stories is part of a process of social identification that brings about social cohesion because they embody the collective values of the people within the community. For example, the founding myths of nations or ethnic groups. These stories often narrate the origins, struggles, and achievements of the group, highlighting its distinct identity, culture, and values. For example, the American Revolution, the Exodus of the Israelites, or the Rama and Sita epic of India.
Alternatively, the legends of heroes or saints are stories that celebrate individuals who exemplify the virtues, ideals, and faith of the group, inspiring others to follow their example. For example, the stories of King Arthur and his knights, Joan of Arc, or Gandhi.
Moreover, tales of folklore or tradition are stories designed to preserve the customs, beliefs, and wisdom of the group, passing them on from generation to generation. They often contain moral lessons, warnings, or advice that guide behaviour and expectations. For example, the fables of Aesop, the parables of Jesus, or the proverbs of Confucius.
Guiding Behaviour and Expectations
One of the functions of stories is to guide behaviour and expectations of attitudes towards maintaining one’s status within the community. Stories can illustrate the rewards and consequences of following or breaking the group’s norms, values, and rules. They can also show how different groups interact and cooperate or compete with each other, and what challenges or opportunities they face. Stories can help individuals learn how to navigate the social hierarchy, avoid conflicts, and resolve disputes. By telling stories, the group can reinforce its identity, cohesion, and culture, and transmit them to future generations.
Stories are also often used to moderate or regulate status within and between different groups. Stories can challenge or question the existing power structures, expose injustices or inequalities, and advocate for change or reform. Stories can also empower or inspire marginalised or oppressed groups, giving them a voice and a platform to express their views and experiences. Stories can foster empathy, understanding, and dialogue among different groups, promoting social harmony and diversity. By using stories, the group can critique, transform, or celebrate its social reality, and influence the opinions and actions of others.
- Stories: Stories provide a framework for understanding appropriate and inappropriate behaviour. They often include moral lessons that guide individuals on how to act in order to gain or maintain status within the group.
- Symbols: Symbols can guide behaviour by indicating membership, status, and adherence to the group’s values. For example, medals, badges, or specific attire can signal one’s rank or role within the group.
Facilitating Virtue Signalling
Stories and symbols are powerful tools for creating and sustaining a shared identity among a group of people. They can also be used to signal one’s virtue and moral alignment with the group, as well as influence how others perceive and judge the group. Here are some ways that stories and symbols can serve these functions.
Stories provide a framework for understanding appropriate and inappropriate behaviour. They often include moral lessons that guide individuals on how to act in order to gain or maintain status within the group. Stories can also create a sense of belonging and loyalty by highlighting the common values, goals, and enemies of the group. By aligning their actions with the moral narratives of the group, individuals can signal their virtue and gain status. Telling stories about one’s own virtuous deeds or aligning oneself with the heroes of these stories can elevate one’s status. Stories can also shape how others perceive and judge the group, by portraying the group as morally superior, righteous, or victimised, and the out-group as immoral, evil, or oppressive.
Symbols can guide behaviour by indicating membership, status, and adherence to the group’s values. For example, medals, badges, or specific attire can signal one’s rank or role within the group. Symbols can also convey a sense of identity and pride by distinguishing the group from others and expressing its uniqueness and distinctiveness. Displaying symbols associated with virtue can act as a form of virtue signalling. For example, wearing a cross, a badge for charity work, or using specific language can signal to others one’s moral alignment and commitment. Symbols can also shape how others perceive and judge the group, by creating an impression of unity, solidarity, or authority, and by eliciting respect, admiration, or fear.
Therefore, stories and symbols can be used to signal the virtues of a group of people, and the moral narrative that they have adopted and wish to project to others. However, stories and symbols can also be manipulated, contested, or challenged by different actors, and may have unintended or negative consequences for the group or its members. Thus, it is important to be aware of the power and limitations of stories and symbols, and to critically examine their use and impact in various contexts.
- Stories: By aligning their actions with the moral narratives of the group, individuals can signal their virtue and gain status. Telling stories about one’s own virtuous deeds or aligning oneself with the heroes of these stories can elevate one’s status.
- Symbols: Displaying symbols associated with virtue can act as a form of virtue signalling. For example, wearing a cross, a badge for charity work, or using specific language can signal to others one’s moral alignment and commitment.
Shaping Perceptions and Judgments
Managing perceptions and judgments is crucial for the success of status and virtue games, as they determine how individuals are rewarded or punished by the group. By using stories and symbols to signal and shape perceptions and judgments, individuals can manipulate their social position and influence the behaviour of others. Therefore, being aware of the stories and symbols that define virtue and status in each context can help individuals navigate the complex dynamics of these games.
Stories: Stories shape how individuals perceive each other and make judgments about status and virtue. They provide context for understanding who deserves admiration and who should be ostracised.
Symbols: Symbols quickly communicate complex ideas about status and virtue, allowing group members to make snap judgments about each other’s standing within the group.
Maintaining Social Order
Stories can also shape the moral framework of a group, by providing examples of virtuous and sinful behaviour, and the rewards or punishments that follow. Stories can inspire group members to align their actions with the moral imperatives of the community or warn them of the consequences of transgressing them.
Symbols can also convey the moral values and beliefs of a group, by representing abstract concepts or sacred entities. Symbols can remind group members of their connection to a higher purpose or power, or motivate them to adhere to the norms and rituals of the group. Some religions emphasise the inward relationship with a deity, while others expect a ritualistic and performative set of observances that are externally practiced as a demonstration of a person’s adherence to the moral order.
- Stories: By promoting certain narratives, groups can maintain social order and cohesion. Stories often justify the status hierarchy by linking it to the group’s shared values and historical narratives.
- Symbols: Symbols can enforce social order by clearly marking status boundaries and expectations. For example, uniforms or titles can delineate roles and responsibilities within the group.
Enabling Manipulation and Control
One way to understand the role of stories and symbols in status and virtue games is to look at how they are used by political leaders to demonstrate their control over a group of people and shape their collective sense of virtue. For example, in the 2024 General Election in the UK, former Prime Minister Boris Johnson used stories and symbols to appeal to the values and emotions of his supporters and present himself as a charismatic and populist leader who could deliver Brexit and restore national sovereignty. He used symbols such as the Union Jack, the red bus, and the slogan “Get Brexit Done” to convey his message and mobilise his base. He also used stories to create a narrative of us versus them, portraying himself as a defender of the people against the elites, the media, and the EU.
On the other hand, Sir Keir Starmer, the leader of the Labour Party, adopted a more managerialist tone and focused on presenting himself as a competent and pragmatic alternative to Johnson. He used symbols such as the flag and the slogan “A New Leadership” to signal his patriotism and his break from the previous Labour leadership. He also used stories to highlight his achievements as a human rights lawyer and a former Director of Public Prosecutions, as well as his plans to rebuild the economy and the public services after the pandemic. However, these stories and symbols did not resonate with the voters as much as Johnson’s, and Starmer failed to win the election.
- Stories: Those in power can manipulate stories to maintain their status and control over the group. By controlling the narrative, they can define what is considered virtuous and who is seen as a moral exemplar.
- Symbols: Controlling the use and meaning of symbols can be a way to maintain power. Restricting access to certain symbols or imbuing them with specific meanings can reinforce the existing status hierarchy.
In summary, stories and symbols are integral to Storr’s concept of status and virtue games. They help create and maintain the shared values and norms that underpin these games, guide behaviour, signal virtue, and reinforce group identity and social order.
Storr’s Seven Principles for Game Playing
Derived from Storr’s broader analysis, he proposes a seven-tier list of responses that he believe offers the potential for developing practical strategies for navigating the complex dynamics of status and virtue games effectively and ethically. Storr’s recommendations, while not a specific set of rules for playing status and virtue games, can be used as a set of guidelines about how to navigate these games effectively. Here are the seven rules:
- Diversify Your Status Investments: Engage in multiple status games across different social groups or activities. This reduces the risk of losing status in one area and helps maintain a balanced sense of self-worth.
- Know Your Audience: Adapt your status signals to the expectations and norms of the group you are interacting with. This increases your chances of being perceived as virtuous and competent by the relevant judges.
- Be Authentic: Align your status signals with your true values and beliefs. This avoids the cognitive dissonance and psychological stress that comes from pretending to be someone you are not.
- Be Flexible: Be willing to change your status signals and strategies when the rules of the game change. This allows you to adapt to shifting social contexts and avoid being left behind or ostracised.
- Be Aware: Recognise the biases and blind spots that affect your status judgments and perceptions. This helps you avoid falling prey to illusions, stereotypes, and prejudices that distort reality and harm your relationships.
- Be Humble: Acknowledge your limitations and mistakes and seek feedback and improvement. This shows that you are open to learning and growth, and that you respect the opinions and contributions of others.
- Be Generous: Share your status and resources with others and support their achievements and goals. This demonstrates that you are not selfish or greedy, and that you care about the well-being and happiness of others.
These rules are relevant to media democratisation in the UK because they can help media practitioners and consumers navigate the complex and diverse landscape of media platforms, audiences, and messages. By following these rules, media actors can enhance their credibility, trustworthiness, and influence, while also respecting the diversity and autonomy of others. Media democratisation can benefit from a culture of mutual recognition, collaboration, and dialogue, rather than a culture of domination, competition, and conflict.
Myths and Archetypes
It is worth noting as a conclusion, that Carl Jung, the influential Swiss psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, would likely have a nuanced response to Will Storr’s conclusion that “we don’t live in a world of stories but of games.” Jung’s theories emphasised the importance of stories, myths, and archetypes in shaping human psychology and culture. Here is a detailed analysis of how Jung might respond to this idea.
Jung believed that archetypes—universal, primordial images and themes—reside in the collective unconscious and profoundly influence human behaviour and experiences. These archetypes manifest in myths, dreams, and stories that help individuals understand themselves and their place in the world. Jung might argue, therefore, that even if we engage in status and virtue games, these games are still deeply informed by underlying archetypal stories. The roles we play in these games (e.g., hero, martyr, sage) are expressions of these archetypes.
Jung’s concept of individuation involves integrating different aspects of the self, including the shadow (unconscious, repressed aspects) and the persona (socially acceptable mask), to achieve psychological wholeness. Jung might suggest that status and virtue games are part of the process through which individuals navigate their social worlds and develop their personas. However, he would emphasise the importance of moving beyond these games to achieve true self-understanding and individuation, which involves recognising and integrating the deeper stories and myths that shape our inner lives.
Jung placed great importance on symbols as carriers of deep psychological meaning. He believed that engaging with symbols through art, dreams, and rituals helps individuals connect with the unconscious and find meaning. Jung might contend that while status games are a surface-level manifestation of human interaction, the symbols and rituals associated with these games (e.g., medals, titles, moral accolades) carry significant meaning rooted in archetypal stories. Thus, we cannot entirely separate the concept of games from the symbolic and narrative structures that give them meaning.
Jung used storytelling and mythology in therapy to help patients understand their psychological struggles and facilitate healing. He believed that personal and collective myths provide frameworks for making sense of life’s experiences. Moreover, Jung might argue that stories are essential for making sense of the games we play. He would likely view Storr’s games as narratives in themselves—structures that we create and participate in to navigate social hierarchies and find our place in the world.
In summary, Carl Jung would likely acknowledge the significance of status and virtue games in human social interaction, as described by Will Storr. However, he would emphasise that these games are deeply intertwined with the stories and archetypes that reside in the collective unconscious. For Jung, understanding and integrating these deeper stories is crucial for personal growth and psychological well-being. Therefore, while we may live in a world of games, these games are underpinned by and infused with the rich tapestry of human stories and myths.
Storr’s argument is well founded and useful as a practical tool for understanding and providing development strategies. He offers valuable insights into how humans construct their identities and values through status and virtue games, and how these games shape social and political realities. However, there remains a mechanical or transactional nature to the way Storr connects these ideas and sees them as an inter-operative process. He seems to assume that human needs and motivations are constant and universal, and that status and virtue games are merely different expressions of the same underlying drives.
This may not be the case, as status and perceptions of status are suited to their times, and that human consciousness is not fixed, but is itself part of a developmental process. Comparing needs and motivations across epochs and social situations will require a nuanced and grounded understanding of the intercultural contexts they are enacted in. Therefore, while Storr’s framework is useful, it may not capture the full complexity and diversity of human stories and myths.