But neither of these involves rank. Neither does "snafu", AFAIK, outside of the Discordian Principle...
Except that it's a term of military origin, coined specifically to describe the problems that arise from a hierarchy of ranks. See the OED's meaning A.
There's also another common meaning, which [info]howeird seems to have taken and which also makes sense to me: people who are of equal ability, standing, etc. (in this case, education).
But neither of these involves rank...
In civilian terms, I would equate "standing" with "rank," and there is certainly a hierarchy of ranks, or "standings," in civilian life just as in the army. In particular I would equate the artificial assumption that being more expensively educated improves your "standing" with the artificial assumption that having a bit of bird doings on your shoulder makes you capable of commanding other men.
"Ability" is a far fuzzier concept, and does mean different things to different people. The inarticulate homeless man who's lived under a bridge for three years on dustbin scavengings can do more than I can do (quite apart from the fact that he might be a brilliant oboist), and his abilities are relevant to his situation. My abilities, considerable though they might be, are not even relevant to my current situation, let alone what will happen if I don't find a job in fairly short order. At that point my education will become completely irrelevant and my "standing" will change drastically, and people who judge respectability by such criteria will cease to respect me even as much as they do now. Not that that will be among my chief concerns...
What I'm saying, and I don't think I'm disagreeing with either howeird or you, is that "ability" (including education) and "standing" are just as artificial and false as those other criteria I mentioned. Respect, equality, should not depend on these things. That's why that sentence boggled me. howeird lives in America: *how* can he encounter people who aren't his equals?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
Re: Anatomy of a snafu in communication
Date: 2009-03-29 10:05 am (UTC)Except that it's a term of military origin, coined specifically to describe the problems that arise from a hierarchy of ranks. See the OED's meaning A.
There's also another common meaning, which [info]howeird seems to have taken and which also makes sense to me: people who are of equal ability, standing, etc. (in this case, education).
But neither of these involves rank...
In civilian terms, I would equate "standing" with "rank," and there is certainly a hierarchy of ranks, or "standings," in civilian life just as in the army. In particular I would equate the artificial assumption that being more expensively educated improves your "standing" with the artificial assumption that having a bit of bird doings on your shoulder makes you capable of commanding other men.
"Ability" is a far fuzzier concept, and does mean different things to different people. The inarticulate homeless man who's lived under a bridge for three years on dustbin scavengings can do more than I can do (quite apart from the fact that he might be a brilliant oboist), and his abilities are relevant to his situation. My abilities, considerable though they might be, are not even relevant to my current situation, let alone what will happen if I don't find a job in fairly short order. At that point my education will become completely irrelevant and my "standing" will change drastically, and people who judge respectability by such criteria will cease to respect me even as much as they do now. Not that that will be among my chief concerns...
What I'm saying, and I don't think I'm disagreeing with either