It’s an academic term used in anthropology circles, studying primitive, ancient, or even non-human social structures.
In ape or chimpanzee social groups, high-status individuals (male or female) may have more mating opportunities, be able to eat first, insist on the best spots to sit, whatever. The specific benefits can vary from culture to culture, species to species.
It doesn’t mean low-status individuals are shunned at all. They’re still part of the group. But for whatever reason, they aren’t given as much trust, opportunity, or maybe respect, as others in the group.
In our modern social world, it would be the correct scientific or academic term for people who are unable to attract a sexual partner, or make many friends, or build much “social capital”, for any of several possible reasons.
People who have a job, or even a career, but wouldn’t be considered for management, would also be considered low-status in that context.
It’s an academic term used in anthropology circles, studying primitive, ancient, or even non-human social structures.
In ape or chimpanzee social groups, high-status individuals (male or female) may have more mating opportunities, be able to eat first, insist on the best spots to sit, whatever. The specific benefits can vary from culture to culture, species to species.
It doesn’t mean low-status individuals are shunned at all. They’re still part of the group. But for whatever reason, they aren’t given as much trust, opportunity, or maybe respect, as others in the group.
In our modern social world, it would be the correct scientific or academic term for people who are unable to attract a sexual partner, or make many friends, or build much “social capital”, for any of several possible reasons.
People who have a job, or even a career, but wouldn’t be considered for management, would also be considered low-status in that context.
In short, yes. It’s the correct terminology.