Peer status and peer relationships study reveal that these components (conformity, expansible, social associations, and inalienable) have powerful impacts on the behavior, identity and development of teenager, the future course of their life as well as the extent and condition of social change. The impact of peer status and peer relationship tend to be particularly strong in the adolescents. Milner, in his early work devised a theory of status systems which provides explanation for the condition of peer relationships in high school environment in the United States. In this paper, therefore, drawing from Milner, explanations are given on how status systems work among the youths in schools. In addition, similarities and differences on high school from the late 1990s to early 2000s are discussed.
Status Systems Theory
Status is described as the amassed disapprovals and approvals which individuals display towards an object or actor. Though dishonor, honor, esteem and preside have connotations that are slightly different, they are nearly synonymous with status. Key elements are explained by the theory on social relations with status being the core resource besides being covered from, and not being reducible to, political and economic power (Comas & Milner, 1998) . There are four components in the theory.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
First, status is fairly in-expansible, that is ranking is relative. In case every student gets an A, their become worthless. Due to in-expansibility, when a person moves down, another moves up. Accordingly, in settings where the central resource is status, movement seems to be restricted and controlled. As a result, the only means of moving up or remaining on top is to push other people down. It is evident in youth putdowns and gossip, intellectual critique, negative campaigning and racism.
Second, status is fairly inalienable. Mostly this is situated in the mindset of people and as such it not possible to be apportioned. Parents, robbers and conquerors may remove you from an office or social position or even grab away your property, however, to alter your status, they will have to change other people’s opinions. As a result, status is considered a resource that is desirable. People having political power or wealth virtually always try to change some of the resources to status in order to achieve greater legitimacy and security.
Third, the central source of status is conformity to group’s norms. It is no surprise that people with status that are high incline to explain and complicate the norms so that it becomes difficult for upstarts to be rivals. Normally, elaboration is on items which are not easy to copy like demeanor and accent. The American youth groups frequently require conformity in aspects such as body demeanor, slag and clothing style. Thus, only the ones having high status often change with changing trends in fashion so as to stay afloat.
The fourth source of status is associations. Relating with the people of high status enhances the status of an individual. On the other hand, status decreases when relating with the lowly. For intimate and expressive relationships, this inclination is particularly very powerful. The classic forms of intimacy are eating and sex. Subsequently, the most common feature in many status groups is the restriction of who associates with who, for example who dines with who or marries who. This tendency preoccupies most of the American teenagers and thus determining how they associate.
According to the theory, it is difficult for a person to be a top performer or relate with high status people if stats system becomes even larger (Comas & Milner, 1998) . The ones who are not able to cope up develop counter cultures or alternatives having different criteria and norms for gaining status. A number of these processes are witnessed substitute cultural forms like primitive art, hip-hop, rock, and country music. It is noteworthy to recognize that when the status system becomes larger, the high the chances relatively and distinctive inalienable variations like ethnicity are likely to propagate pluralism. The status system theory aids in explaining the crucial aspects when status is the key resource, thus, assisting to explain a number of the features of peer cultures in high schools.
Comparison Between High School from Late 1990s to Early 2000s with the fictitious Woodrow Wilson High School (WWHS)
The school settings vary in terms of participation. For the fictitious Woodrow Wilson High School (WWHS), one aspect of status is racial pluralism. Social participation occurs as two different groups, that is the whites and the black. The status is classified based on ethnicity. In WWHS, there are two lunch rooms segregated by race (Comas & Milner, 1998) . The other form of status is lifestyle pluralism. It is identified that both the white and blacks have predominant subgroups with specific norms that define their group cultures. On the other hand, high school from late 1990s to early 2000s vary in terms of extracurricular participation whereby racial pluralism is relatively reduced or almost extinct and students derive benefits of participation. However, the level of participation varies by depicting differences across the ethnicities. The differences encompass variations in the form of activities which students regard to be high status. In addition, in high school from late 1990s to early 2000s gender pattern of participation differs. That is, boys and girls have opportunities that are not equal in accumulating cultural capital. Further, the school tends to have peer status structure that is more pluralistic with more paths to gain popularity.
Reference
Comas, J., & Milner, M. (1998). From Hierarchy to Pluralism in American High Schools: Changing Patterns in Status Distinctions and Racial Segregation.
