Those discriminated against on the basis of their race unified against “racism.” Women targeted “sexism,” and the elderly took aim at “ageism.” By analogy, the term “rankism” denotes abuses of power associated with rank.
The coinage “rankism” is related to the colloquialisms "pulling rank" and “ranking on” someone, both of which bear witness to the signal importance of rank in human interactions. It is also worth noting that as an adjective, “rank” means foul, fetid, or smelly, and the verb “to rankle” means to cause resentment or bitterness. Although there is no etymological relationship between these usages and “rank” in the sense of position in a hierarchy, it’s fitting that the word “rankism” picks up by association the malodor of its sound-alikes.
Rank can refer to either rank in society generally (social rank) or rank in a more narrowly defined context (e.g., an organization or family). Thus rankism occurs not just between and within the familiar social identity groups but in schools, businesses, healthcare organizations, religious institutions, the military, and government bureaucracies as well. Indeed, since most organizations are hierarchical and hierarchies are built around gradations of power, it comes as no surprise that they are breeding grounds for rank-based abuse.
Examples of rankism from everyday life include a boss harassing an employee, a doctor demeaning a nurse, a professor exploiting a graduate student, and students bullying each other. On a societal scale are headline-making stories of political and corporate corruption, sexual abuse by members of the clergy, and the maltreatment of elders in nursing homes.
Photos of the humiliation of Iraqi prisoners by their guards gave the entire world a look at rankism’s arrogant face. Hurricane Katrina made visible its most common victims. The wealthy and connected got out of New Orleans ahead of time. The poor, the sick, prisoners, the elderly, and those lacking a means of transportation were trapped by nature’s fury and then left to cope on their own during days of inaction by government officials and agencies.
In addition to its universality, rankism differs from the familiar trait-based abuses because rank is not fixed the way race and gender generally are, but rather changes depending on the context. For instance, someone can hold high rank in one setting (e.g., at home) and simultaneously be low on the totem pole in another (at work). Likewise, we can feel powerful at one time and powerless at another, as when we move from childhood to adulthood and then from our “prime” into old age, or when we experience the loss of a job, a partner, or our health. As a result, most of us have been both victims and perpetrators of discrimination based on rank.
In summary, rankism occurs when those with authority use the power of their position to secure unwarranted advantages or benefits for themselves at the expense of others. It is the illegitimate use of rank and, equally, the use of rank illegitimately acquired or held. The familiar isms are all examples of this latter form. They are based on the construction and maintenance of differences in social rank that violate constitutional guarantees of equal protection under the law.
The relationship between rankism and the specific isms targeted by identity politics can be compared to that between cancer and its subspecies. For centuries the group of diseases that are now all seen as varieties of cancer were regarded as distinct illnesses. No one realized that lung, breast, and other organ-specific cancers all had their origins in a similar kind of cellular malfunction.
In this metaphor, racism, sexism, homophobia, and other varieties of prejudice are analogous to organ-specific cancers and rankism is the blanket malady analogous to cancer itself. The familiar isms are subspecies of rankism. Just as medicine is now exploring grand strategies that will be applicable to all kinds of cancer, so too it may be time to raise our sights and attack rankism itself rather than focusing on its individual varieties one by one.
Diminishing returns and outright backlash are threatening the hard-won gains of the firmly established civil rights and women’s movements as well as the movement for people with disabilities. The divisiveness inherent in identity politics suggests that to complete the eradication of the familiar isms, we will have to include everyone—somebodies and nobodies alike—and redirect our attack to the rankism that afflicts us all.
Rank and rankism are often confused, and differentiating them is crucial. Unless rank is inherently illegitimate—as are for example, the social rankings that have made second-class citizens of various identity groups—then the problem is not with rank per se but rather the abuse of rank. This distinction goes to the heart of many of the most vexing issues that arise in our personal lives, society, and national politics.
The confusion occurs because rank is so commonly misused that many people mistakenly conclude the only remedy is to abolish it. This makes about as much sense as attempting to solve racial problems by doing away with all races but one, or addressing gender issues by eliminating one gender. Ignoring differences in aptitude, ability, and performance and attempting to eradicate the differences of rank which reflect them has repeatedly failed those who have tried it. “Levelers” in seventeenth-century Britain, Socialists in nineteenth-century Europe, and Communists of the twentieth century all disappointed their supporters. And when egalitarian ideologies did prevail, those leaderships typically imposed even worse tyrannies than the ones they replaced.
Abolishing distinctions of rank that facilitate cooperation can also weaken a society to the point that it becomes vulnerable to existing enemies or invites new ones. History suggests that political and social models that try to do away with rank altogether are naïvely utopian and that societies that adopt them court catastrophe. As the nineteenth-century French statesman Chateaubriand noted, “Equality and despotism have secret connections.”
When legitimately earned and properly used, rank is an important—often indispensable—organizational tool for accomplishing group goals. The more central rank is to achieving an organization’s mission—for example, in the military—the more critical it is to distinguish it from rankism and to honor the former while eliminating the latter. Not every assertion of rank is rankist—only those that put the dignity of the high-ranking above that of those they serve.
We rightfully admire and love authorities—parents, teachers, bosses, political leaders—who hold their rank and use the power that comes with it in an exemplary way. Accepting their leadership entails no loss of self-respect or opportunity on the part of subordinates. It is when people abuse their power to demean or disadvantage those they outrank that seeds of indignity are sown. Over time, indignity turns to indignation and smarting victims may be left thirsting for vengeance. The consequences can range from relatively benign foot-dragging all the way to genocide.
The coinage “rankism” is related to the colloquialisms "pulling rank" and “ranking on” someone, both of which bear witness to the signal importance of rank in human interactions. It is also worth noting that as an adjective, “rank” means foul, fetid, or smelly, and the verb “to rankle” means to cause resentment or bitterness. Although there is no etymological relationship between these usages and “rank” in the sense of position in a hierarchy, it’s fitting that the word “rankism” picks up by association the malodor of its sound-alikes.
Rank can refer to either rank in society generally (social rank) or rank in a more narrowly defined context (e.g., an organization or family). Thus rankism occurs not just between and within the familiar social identity groups but in schools, businesses, healthcare organizations, religious institutions, the military, and government bureaucracies as well. Indeed, since most organizations are hierarchical and hierarchies are built around gradations of power, it comes as no surprise that they are breeding grounds for rank-based abuse.
Examples of rankism from everyday life include a boss harassing an employee, a doctor demeaning a nurse, a professor exploiting a graduate student, and students bullying each other. On a societal scale are headline-making stories of political and corporate corruption, sexual abuse by members of the clergy, and the maltreatment of elders in nursing homes.
Photos of the humiliation of Iraqi prisoners by their guards gave the entire world a look at rankism’s arrogant face. Hurricane Katrina made visible its most common victims. The wealthy and connected got out of New Orleans ahead of time. The poor, the sick, prisoners, the elderly, and those lacking a means of transportation were trapped by nature’s fury and then left to cope on their own during days of inaction by government officials and agencies.
In addition to its universality, rankism differs from the familiar trait-based abuses because rank is not fixed the way race and gender generally are, but rather changes depending on the context. For instance, someone can hold high rank in one setting (e.g., at home) and simultaneously be low on the totem pole in another (at work). Likewise, we can feel powerful at one time and powerless at another, as when we move from childhood to adulthood and then from our “prime” into old age, or when we experience the loss of a job, a partner, or our health. As a result, most of us have been both victims and perpetrators of discrimination based on rank.
In summary, rankism occurs when those with authority use the power of their position to secure unwarranted advantages or benefits for themselves at the expense of others. It is the illegitimate use of rank and, equally, the use of rank illegitimately acquired or held. The familiar isms are all examples of this latter form. They are based on the construction and maintenance of differences in social rank that violate constitutional guarantees of equal protection under the law.
The relationship between rankism and the specific isms targeted by identity politics can be compared to that between cancer and its subspecies. For centuries the group of diseases that are now all seen as varieties of cancer were regarded as distinct illnesses. No one realized that lung, breast, and other organ-specific cancers all had their origins in a similar kind of cellular malfunction.
In this metaphor, racism, sexism, homophobia, and other varieties of prejudice are analogous to organ-specific cancers and rankism is the blanket malady analogous to cancer itself. The familiar isms are subspecies of rankism. Just as medicine is now exploring grand strategies that will be applicable to all kinds of cancer, so too it may be time to raise our sights and attack rankism itself rather than focusing on its individual varieties one by one.
Diminishing returns and outright backlash are threatening the hard-won gains of the firmly established civil rights and women’s movements as well as the movement for people with disabilities. The divisiveness inherent in identity politics suggests that to complete the eradication of the familiar isms, we will have to include everyone—somebodies and nobodies alike—and redirect our attack to the rankism that afflicts us all.
Rank and rankism are often confused, and differentiating them is crucial. Unless rank is inherently illegitimate—as are for example, the social rankings that have made second-class citizens of various identity groups—then the problem is not with rank per se but rather the abuse of rank. This distinction goes to the heart of many of the most vexing issues that arise in our personal lives, society, and national politics.
The confusion occurs because rank is so commonly misused that many people mistakenly conclude the only remedy is to abolish it. This makes about as much sense as attempting to solve racial problems by doing away with all races but one, or addressing gender issues by eliminating one gender. Ignoring differences in aptitude, ability, and performance and attempting to eradicate the differences of rank which reflect them has repeatedly failed those who have tried it. “Levelers” in seventeenth-century Britain, Socialists in nineteenth-century Europe, and Communists of the twentieth century all disappointed their supporters. And when egalitarian ideologies did prevail, those leaderships typically imposed even worse tyrannies than the ones they replaced.
Abolishing distinctions of rank that facilitate cooperation can also weaken a society to the point that it becomes vulnerable to existing enemies or invites new ones. History suggests that political and social models that try to do away with rank altogether are naïvely utopian and that societies that adopt them court catastrophe. As the nineteenth-century French statesman Chateaubriand noted, “Equality and despotism have secret connections.”
When legitimately earned and properly used, rank is an important—often indispensable—organizational tool for accomplishing group goals. The more central rank is to achieving an organization’s mission—for example, in the military—the more critical it is to distinguish it from rankism and to honor the former while eliminating the latter. Not every assertion of rank is rankist—only those that put the dignity of the high-ranking above that of those they serve.
We rightfully admire and love authorities—parents, teachers, bosses, political leaders—who hold their rank and use the power that comes with it in an exemplary way. Accepting their leadership entails no loss of self-respect or opportunity on the part of subordinates. It is when people abuse their power to demean or disadvantage those they outrank that seeds of indignity are sown. Over time, indignity turns to indignation and smarting victims may be left thirsting for vengeance. The consequences can range from relatively benign foot-dragging all the way to genocide.
Comments
Comments are disabled for this knol.
Write New Comment ▼
Write New Comment