We are living through a battle over status and storytelling. Social media has reshaped influence, allowing influencers to challenge legacy media, while political movements rise and fall based on strategic framing (e.g., “woke” as an insult vs. a rallying cry). Platforms like TikTok are accelerating cultural shifts, reframing everything from fashion trends to climate activism. In an age where viral trends and political rhetoric dominate discourse, it is crucial to understand the mechanisms that shape influence, define power, and determine which narratives become dominant. This essay argues that status hierarchies and linguistic framing shape power by determining what is valued, who is heard, and which ideas dominate public discourse. Those who control language and status markers control the trajectory of culture and politics.
While we might sense that status and culture shift over time, we often don’t understand how and why certain ideas become dominant. But there are powerful mechanisms behind these shifts, showing that status change is about cultural adoption and rejection (e.g., streetwear becoming luxury) and framing change is about ideological shifts (e.g., climate change vs. global warming). Through this lens, we can uncover forces that allow for political and cultural movements to gain traction, discover why certain groups hold power, and how we can challenge dominant narratives or status systems.
Very few discussions currently focus on the intersection between status dynamics and political framing. I argue that language and status function in the same way: shaping who has power, what is considered “truth,” and what behaviors are deemed high- or low-status. There are hidden forces all around us shaping our behavior – our political beliefs, speech patterns, and consumer choices are all influenced by status and framing tactics we might not even notice.
Of course, existing research covers linguistic framing, as well as status and culture, independent of one another, but there has not been much exploration of their combined influence on cultural evolution and public discourse. Through linguistic framing, scholars have extensively studied how language shapes thought and behavior. For instance, research on framing effects shows that specific linguistic features influence our response to messages. Studies have also explored how social hierarchies and status influence cultural practices and access to resources. Pierre Bourdieu’s work, for example, on social and cultural capital examines how these forms of capital reinforce class distinctions and contribute to the reproduction of social hierarchies, often leading to societal inequities.
Despite the rich body of work in these areas, there’s a noticeable gap when it comes to analyzing how status hierarchies and linguistic framing intersect to shape cultural norms and public discourse. This essay aims to fill that gap by demonstrating how those in power use both status signals and strategic language to maintain influence, and how these mechanisms can be deconstructed to foster social change. Here, I bridge interdisciplinary research of sociology, linguistics, and cultural studies, with relevant current events and practical implications, in order to address an under-explored intersection of status and linguistic framing. By examining status signaling and cultural drift alongside political framing and ideological influence, we can better understand how language both reinforces and disrupts social hierarchies.
How Status and Framing Shape Culture and Power
The words we use and the cultural behaviors we adopt aren’t neutral or reflections of personal preference – they’re shaped by deeper forces of power, status hierarchies, and ideological framing. Status and linguistic framing are interwoven forces that determine what is considered prestigious, persuasive, and powerful in society. And while status dictates cultural norms, framing dictates ideological norms. By analyzing these two frameworks together, borrowing from the thinking of W. David Marx and George Lakoff, we gain a deeper understanding of how culture and ideology are shaped, maintained, and disrupted.
Status shapes culture through imitation, distinction, and signaling. As W. David Marx writes in Status and Culture: How Our Desire for Social Rank Creates Taste, Identity, Art, Fashion, and Constant Change, “Status shapes our aspirations and desires, sets standards for beauty and goodness, frames our identity, creates collective behaviors and models, encourages the invention of new aesthetic sensibilities and acts as an automated motor for permanent cultural change.” What’s more, where we stand in the status hierarchy shapes our everyday interactions and experiences. Marx argues that status hierarchies drive cultural evolution by shaping individual behavior, taste, and social norms. Culture, then, is an aggregation of behaviors that signal status, influencing everything from language to fashion cycles. Understanding how status shapes culture helps explain a parallel phenomenon: the way language constructs political reality. Just as high-status groups shape cultural norms, political actors use linguistic framing to define ideological battles.
Cultural evolution is a continuous process shaped by several key mechanisms. Status acts as a social framework, influencing aspirations, behaviors, and identity while reinforcing existing hierarchies. As trends shift, cultural drift occurs, with language, fashion, and tastes cycling in and out of favor depending on who embraces or rejects them. At the core of this process are social conventions and regulations – customs, norms, traditions, fads, and fashions – that define acceptable behavior and shape group identity. High-status individuals further distinguish themselves through status signaling, using exclusivity, effort, and cost as markers of their position. Meanwhile, cultural capital and social stratification serve as gatekeeping forces, where knowledge, refined taste, and mastery of elite language determine who is considered an insider. Together, these forces ensure that status remains a powerful driver of cultural influence and production.
Language and framing, on the other hand, structure thought and public discourse. In Don’t Think of An Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate, George Lakoff explores framing theory, emphasizing that language does more than communicate facts – it shapes thought, ideology, and action. Conservatives have effectively dominated political discourse through strategic linguistic shifts, while progressives struggle to reframe narratives to their advantage. Lakoff writes, “Thinking differently requires speaking differently.” And thus, it’s imperative that progressives craft and construct language that reflects our values, making our worldview more intuitive and persuasive over time. After all, “reframing is social change.”
The process of linguistic framing operates through several fundamental principles. Framing shapes reality, influencing how people interpret issues and respond to them. While conservatives effectively employ moral framing, progressives often rely too heavily on facts, without embedding them within a compelling narrative. To counter this, Lakoff emphasizes the importance of strategic initiatives, in which shifting the framing of one key issue can have ripple effects across multiple debates. However, many progressive movements suffer from hypocognition, a term from cognitive science meaning they lack the necessary language or conceptual frames to effectively communicate their positions. This is an urgent issue to tackle. Another challenge lies in understanding direct vs. systemic causation – people intuitively grasp immediate, tangible effects, but complex issues like climate change require new linguistic tools to explain gradual, systemic forces. Lakoff also highlights the fundamental difference in conservative vs. progressive framing, where conservatives adhere to a strict father model emphasizing hierarchy and self-reliance, while progressives employ a nurturing parent model centered on empathy and collective responsibility. Finally, conservatives have long framed economic and social policies as moral imperatives tied to individual responsibility, reinforcing their ideological dominance. To reshape public discourse, progressives must resist adopting conservative language and instead construct a unifying moral frame that strengthens their worldview and resonates intuitively with the public.
No sooner can this be found than in Republican language darling, Frank Luntz’s shift from "global warming" to "climate change." Within this language shift, the crux of the argument starts to take form: shift responsibility, insert ambiguity and plausible deniability, and make things seem like the status quo. “Of course, the climate is always changing,” is what climate change means, and thus the argument has been reshaped and reformed, easier to win than before for those actively against the idea that the planet is rapidly warming.
The way that this language strategy works isn’t that the phraseology comes out of a silo. Oftentimes, and quite usually, there is qualitative and quantitative research that backs these shifts. And advertising agencies are paid tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of dollars to come up with these new ways of speaking. Some are as innocuous as changing the way orange juice packaging comes off in tone to a consumer, therefore compelling them to purchase more. But others are far more insidious and have long-term impacts, not least of which begin in the category of ecology. These agencies will gather laymen, like you and me, in a room or perhaps an online survey, and ask us nuanced questions about our beliefs, our values, our perspective on how a phrase or word sounds to us, how we would tell the story of the concept at hand. And once all of this data gathering has been done, the strategists go back into their sky-high towers in downtown Manhattan and decide how to win the argument.
It’s compelling work for people who are preternaturally curious and can’t stop asking questions. But oftentimes, the paycheck is put before the larger value system in danger, and the strategists don’t often stop to ask: “Is this work going to cause more harm than good?” Because, to them, that’s not their job.
When we look specifically at the phrase “global warming,” and its Republican shift to “climate change,” we see a reduction in urgency and an emphasis on natural processes. This is an example of framing influencing public discourse in the same way that status influences cultural trends – it shifts perception without changing the underlying reality. A real-world impact of this is when we read pull quotes from politicians using softer climate language like “climate adaptation,” which sounds less urgent and more natural than “climate crisis” to avoid aggressive action.
The intersection of status and framing reveals a deeper mechanism at play in shaping public consciousness. Whether through elite cultural gatekeeping or carefully crafted rhetorical shifts, these forces operate subtly but decisively, influencing what is seen as normal, urgent, or valuable. The global warming rebrand illustrates this point perfectly: just as high-status groups dictate cultural trends, strategic linguistic framing manipulates public perceptions. Both function as mechanisms of control, reinforcing existing power structures while presenting themselves as neutral, organic developments. However, these forces are neither inevitable nor immutable. Understanding who sets the terms of discourse and who defines cultural legitimacy is the first step toward challenging entrenched hierarchies.
Status, Hierarchy, and Cultural Influence
Status shapes culture in the same way that framing shapes political and ideological discourse – both rely on hierarchies of legitimacy and social power. As Marx writes, “Every community has a status hierarchy” from the “famous, powerful, [and] esteemed” to the majority to the “unfortunate, disadvantaged, [and] despised.” High-status groups, in particular, play a central role in shaping and legitimizing social norms – whether by enforcing aristocratic speech in the 19th century or adopting and amplifying digital slang today. Because “status is more akin to language, a social form that is deeply cultural and socially learned,” as sociologist Cecilia Ridgeway writes, its impact is not limited to material wealth or social connections but extends into the very fabric of how we communicate, behave, and perceive the world.
This hierarchy influences taste, language, and behavior, shaping cultural trends through imitation, exclusion, and adaptation. Marx posits that there are four rules of status imitation and distinction: (1) imitate group conventions to maintain social belonging, (2) counterimitate viral trends to avoid low status, (3) emulate high-status behaviors to climb the social hierarchy, and (4) seek individual distinction to achieve elite status. High-status groups set the standard for what is desirable, while lower-status groups either adopt these norms to gain social mobility or reject them to create alternative identities. Whether in fashion, dialect, or social customs, the constant push and pull of status-driven adoption and rejection fuels cultural drift, where what is prestigious today may be discarded tomorrow. This ongoing negotiation of taste and legitimacy not only reinforces existing hierarchies but also determines who has the power to shape cultural values and define what is considered refined, rebellious, or obsolete.
Language operates within this same framework of status-driven adoption and rejection, serving as both a marker of social belonging and a tool for exclusion. Just as fashion trends shift based on who adopts or abandons them, linguistic forms gain or lose prestige depending on their associations with high- or low-status groups. Certain dialects, accents, and vocabularies are perceived as sophisticated and authoritative, while others are stigmatized as informal or inferior. The way we speak not only reflects our background but also signals where we stand – or aspire to stand – within a broader social hierarchy. Elite speech codes maintain power by reinforcing exclusivity and legitimacy, while emerging linguistic trends often function as acts of defiance or social distinction. “Culture is embodied in the products, behaviors, styles, meaning, values, and sensibilities that make up the human experience – and it is status that guides their creation, production, and diffusion,” writes Marx. This ongoing status negotiation within language mirrors the broader cultural processes of imitation, exclusion, and adaptation, shaping not just individual expression but the very perception of intelligence, credibility, and influence.
Language serves as a key indicator of status, subtly encoding social hierarchies in the way people speak and the words they choose. Elite speech codes, such as the polished diction of Old Money families or the measured rhetoric of political leaders, reinforce exclusivity and prestige by signaling education, refinement, and authority. Conversely, popular language movements, from internet slang to regional dialects, often emerge as expressions of identity and resistance, offering alternative modes of communication that challenge dominant linguistic norms. While elite speech remains largely stable due to institutional reinforcement, popular slang evolves quickly, often gaining legitimacy only when adopted by higher-status groups. For example, African American Vernacular English (AAVE), once dismissed as informal or improper, has been widely appropriated into mainstream culture, influencing everything from digital communication to advertising. These shifts reveal how language operates as both a gatekeeping tool and a site of cultural negotiation, shaping perceptions of acuity, authority, and social belonging.
An interesting comparison comes in the form of prestige dialects versus democratized language. Elite speech codes, like that of the Southern Belle dialect or British Received Pronunciation, are used to signal class and sophistication. These refined linguistic forms are carefully cultivated, often taught through elite education, social upbringing, and cultural institutions that reinforce their prestige, hence “prestige dialects.” By adhering to these speech patterns, speakers not only distinguish themselves from lower-status groups but also gain social advantages, as these dialects are often associated with wisdom, trustworthiness, and leadership. These qualities are contrasted with internet slang, which derives from memes, AAVE, and “TikTok language,” which are all forms of linguistic trends initially perceived as low-status, but later adopted by influencers and brands. Despite their initial association with informality and subcultural identity, these linguistic forms gain mainstream acceptance once they are co-opted by high-status individuals or commercialized for mass appeal. This process mirrors broader cultural shifts, where language once deemed improper or niche is repackaged as trendy and innovative, reinforcing the cyclical nature of status-driven linguistic evolution.
Here, too, there is real-world impact: when corporations and politicians co-opt online slang, it signals a cultural drift, which not unlike Edward Sapir’s language drift is the process by which high-status behaviors spread and change over time, from the margins to the mainstream. This transformation not only reshapes public discourse but also alters the perceived legitimacy of certain linguistic forms, granting them newfound social capital. As a result, words and phrases that once signaled group identity and resistance are repurposed for branding, marketing, and political messaging, often stripping them of their original context and meaning.
A brief example of this can be found in the rise of luxury streetwear. High fashion brands like Gucci and Louis Vuitton embraced hip-hop aesthetics and streetwear to remain relevant. We see, in real-time, how status-driven cultural adoption can mirror language framing – what was once stigmatized becomes desirable when high-status figures embrace it.
Elite status symbols, like handmade luxury goods, exclusive memberships, or even aristocratic accents, convey refinement, sophistication, and power, because they are framed as scarce, prestigious, and unattainable to the masses. Just as political strategists use framing to manipulate ideological perception, high-status groups curate signals that maintain exclusivity and reinforce hierarchical boundaries. In both cases, language and symbols do more than communicate information – they shape reality, defining what is desirable, credible, and worthy of respect. As Lakoff argues, “Facts matter enormously, but to be meaningful, they must be framed in terms of their moral importance.” Whether in politics or cultural hierarchy, those who control the framing and signaling of power control public perception and influence.
To take an earlier example, the shift from “global warming” to “climate change” can also be seen as a status-driven reframe designed to protect political and corporate elites from public pressure and regulatory intervention. “Global warming” conveyed urgency and direct human responsibility, posing a threat to those in power by fueling demands for systemic change. In contrast, “climate change” introduced neutrality and ambiguity, making the crisis seem like a natural, inevitable process rather than an issue requiring immediate action. This linguistic shift mirrors how elite status symbols evolve to maintain exclusivity and legitimacy, ensuring that those in power can control public discourse while minimizing accountability. By adopting a less alarming and more abstract term, policymakers and corporations preserved their credibility while delaying aggressive environmental action, reinforcing how language – like status – functions as a tool for maintaining power hierarchies.
An aside, and particular note, that all is not lost once a new frame enters the scene. Yes, “climate change” has been in popular use for the better part of two decades, but a new successful progressive reframe is emerging for this particular linguistic battle. “Climate crisis” restores urgency and moral weight to the discussion, countering the neutralizing effect of “climate change.” Unlike its predecessor, which downplays the severity of the issue, “climate crisis” signals an immediate and existential threat, making inaction appear negligent. This shift aligns with Lakoff’s framing theory, demonstrating how emotionally-charged language is more persuasive than neutral or technical terms. Additionally, the term benefits from status-driven media narratives, as crises – whether opioid, housing, or economic – demand attention and response. However, its effectiveness depends on widespread adoption, as many politicians and media outlets still default to “climate change” due to institutional inertia. Opponents may frame “climate crisis” as alarmist, attempting to delegitimize it, which means its success relies on strategic repetition and reinforcement in political discourse, policy discussions, and public messaging. As Lakoff points out, “If you want to extend your worldview, it is very smart to make sure that over the long haul you have the people and the resources that you need.” Like status symbols that gain power through cultural validation, language reframing must be consistently deployed to shift perception and drive tangible action.
The Power of Framing in Status and Politics
Language is never neutral; it encodes values, ideologies, and power structures, subtly influencing how individuals perceive the world and engage with it. Every word choice, phrase, and rhetorical device reflects underlying assumptions about authority, morality, and legitimacy, reinforcing social hierarchies or challenging them. Moral hierarchies, in particular, rank individuals and groups based on perceived virtue, worth, or authority, shaping public discourse and influencing who is considered deserving of rights, privileges, and protections. Lakoff argues, “A moderate who constantly hears conservative framing is likely to become more conservative,” demonstrating how language molds ideological perspectives over time. Marx further supports this notion that “depending on our cultural background, we hear, see, remember, and pay attention to things differently.” Even perception of time and color are conventions.
Hypocognition, or the absence of a frame, makes it harder to articulate and defend an idea, reinforcing dominant moral hierarchies while making alternative perspectives seem unnatural or illegitimate. This concept explains why some progressive movements struggle to gain traction – without a clear, repeatable frame, their messages fail to resonate deeply as those of conservatives who often develop strong moral narratives. Framing determines what is emphasized and what is omitted, guiding people toward certain conclusions while making alternative perspectives less accessible. The way an issue is framed doesn’t just shape how people talk about it – it actively shapes how they think, feel, and respond, often without them realizing it.
Whether its the strategic use of “Right to Work” to undermine labor protections or the reframing of torture as “enhanced interrogation” to justify controversial policies, framing is a tool that shapes public discourse and policy outcomes. Those who control the framing of an issue effectively control the boundaries of debate, determining not only what is discussed but also how it is understood. As Lakoff warns, “Use only your language and avoid using the other side’s language.” If you try to use the other side’s language against them, you’re activating the other side’s moral system and will set yourself up for failure. This highlights how adopting opposing frames often reinforces their legitimacy rather than countering them effectively.
Similar to how status influences cultural behavior, like the words and behaviors we see as “prestigious,” framing influences thought and ideology, determining what is considered valuable, tasteful, or aspirational. Take the conservative reframing of the estate tax as the “death tax.” The term "estate tax" carries neutral, legal connotations, appealing to logic and policy analysis. However, rebranding it as the “death tax” reframes the policy as an unjust penalty on individuals simply for dying, invoking emotional opposition rather than rational debate. Because of this framing, more Americans opposed the “death tax," even though it only affected the wealthy.
This linguistic shift mirrors how status symbols – whether fashion (e.g., “vintage” vs. “secondhand”), dialect, or wealth markers – shape perceptions of authority and desirability. High-status individuals dictate cultural norms, while dominant political groups set the ideological frameworks that govern public discourse. When we notice Orwellian language in conservative framing, it points to a vulnerability in the debate to be capitalized upon (e.g., Clear Skies Initiative, Healthy Forests, No Child Left Behind). Recognizing these linguistic manipulations allows for the development of counter-narratives that challenge existing moral hierarchies. “Respected distinction is an elite privilege,” writes Marx, one that is often reinforced through strategic framing that ensures certain perspectives and voices remain dominant, while others are excluded.
By understanding how moral hierarchies are shaped through language and status, progressives can craft frames that not only counter conservative narratives but also create persuasive moral arguments of our own. Status signaling determines what is seen as prestigious, desirable, and culturally relevant, and framing establishes which ideas gain traction and legitimacy in political discourse. Framing determines prestige – what is considered “high status” is often framed as valuable, tasteful, or aspirational. Cultural capital, defined by sociologists Michèle Lamot and Annette Lareau as “widely shared high-status cultural signals (attitudes, preferences, formal knowledge, behaviors, goods, and credentials), used for social and cultural exclusion.” In the same way that the wealthy set elite cultural trends, shaping fashion, art, and language through exclusivity and influence, political strategists craft dominant narratives that shape ideological trends, reinforcing certain worldviews while marginalizing others. Both status signaling and language framing influence behavior, conditioning people to adopt, resist, or aspire to specific cultural or ideological norms. Thus, if progressives wish to shift public perception and challenge entrenched power structures, we must be as intentional about constructing and reinforcing resonant frames, as high-status groups are in maintaining their cultural dominance.
The perception of artistic legitimacy is deeply influenced by status framing, where certain art forms are elevated as prestigious while others are dismissed as lesser or transient. Abstract art and classical music, for example, have long been framed as refined, intellectually demanding, and culturally significant, granting them high status in elite circles. These art forms are reinforced by institutions like museums, symphonies, and academia, which validate their prestige by associating them with tradition, expertise, and exclusivity. In contrast, hip-hop and internet memes, despite their cultural influence and creative complexity, often struggle for legitimacy, because they emerge from grassroots, digital, and historically marginalized communities. Hip-hop, once dismissed as lowbrow or rebellious, has only recently gained mainstream acceptance but still faces barriers to full artistic recognition compared to classical forms. Likewise, internet memes, despite their sophisticated commentary on culture and politics, are often framed as ephemeral or unserious, preventing them from being acknowledged as legitimate artistic expression. This disparity reveals how status hierarchies shape cultural value, dictating which forms of creativity are seen as worthy of institutional support and which are left to exist on the cultural margins.
This disparity reveals how status hierarchies shape cultural value, dictating which forms of creativity are seen as worthy of institutional support and which are left to exist on the cultural margins. But this isn’t just about art—the power to frame determines what is taken seriously across all domains, from culture to politics. Just as elite institutions decide which artistic expressions are “legitimate,” political actors shape public perception by controlling the language of debate.
Lakoff argues that progressives often lose ground in political debates by framing issues reactively, allowing conservatives to set the terms of discourse. The “War on Women” frame, while meant to highlight legislative attacks on women’s rights, places the focus on conflict and opposition rather than on a universally appealing value. In contrast, conservatives have successfully framed many issues around “freedom” and “government overreach,” tapping into deeply ingrained American ideals. A more effective frame, Lakoff suggests, is to emphasize “freedom to decide for oneself” rather than allowing the debate to center on government intervention. This shift proved particularly powerful in Kansas’ 2022 abortion rights vote, where activists framed abortion rights as a matter of personal freedom and bodily autonomy, rather than a partisan issue. The framing resonated with moderates and independents, helping to secure a decisive victory in protecting abortion access in a traditionally conservative state. Here, we see an example illustrate how strategic framing can reshape public perception, making an issue more accessible and persuasive across ideological lines.
Politicians and corporate elites use language in a similar way to frame issues, in order to maintain the status quo and reinforce their advantages. By controlling the terms of the debate, they shape public perception to preserve existing power structures, while making their policies appear neutral or even beneficial. For instance, corporations frequently rebrand exploitative labor conditions with phrases like “flexible work” or “gig economy,” obscuring job insecurity and lack of protections, while presenting them as opportunities for independence. Likewise, politicians use strategic euphemisms such as “entitlement reform” instead of cutting social programs, making austerity measures seem necessary rather than punitive. The manipulation of language ensures that challenges to elite power are weakened at the level of discourse itself, as those who adopt the dominant framing unintentionally reinforce its underlying assumptions. Elites consistently craft narratives that serve their interests, while making alternative perspectives seem extreme, impractical, or unpatriotic. Understanding this dynamic is essential for progressives to reframe issues effectively and challenge entrenched power.
The Internet as a Battleground for Status and Framing
Elites must be tastemakers, not tastefollowers, and thus, they flock to rarities, novelties, and technological innovations. The internet accelerates status shifts and framing wars – whether it’s the rise of influencers as status figures or the virality of political framing in meme culture. Unlike traditional hierarchies where status was largely determined by institutions, wealthy, or legacy, digital culture has introduced fluid and rapidly changing status markers that can be built and dismantled in real time. The power of visibility and engagement metrics has allowed individuals to gain influence independent of established gatekeepers, making platforms like TikTok, YouTube, and Twitter new arenas for social mobility. At the same time, digital status markers have created a democratization of status symbols, where a viral moment, a niche aesthetic, or a compelling narrative can elevate someone to prominence overnight. This shift has also led to the rise of micro-status hierarchies, where influencers, digital clout, and subcultures establish their own systems of prestige, creating new forms of exclusivity and insider status that mirror traditional social stratification but operate at an accelerated, volatile pace. These digital status structures not only challenge older forms of elite dominance but also reinforce new hierarchies dictated by algorithmic visibility and community validation. “The emerging universal grammar of signaling, based on Western conventions,” Marx writes, “has ushered in a global monoculture.”
TikTok, for example, emerged as a cultural status engine, redefining how trends are created, circulated, and validated. Unlike traditional media, where trends typically trickled down from elite tastemakers to the masses, TikTok inverts this dynamic, allowing marginalized and niche communities to drive cultural innovation. Trends that originate in these spaces – whether in language, fashion, or aesthetics – often gain traction because of their authenticity and grassroots appeal. The Clean Girl Aesthetic, for instance, initially gained popularity in Latina and Black communities, where slicked-back hairstyles, gold jewelry, and minimal makeup reflected cultural traditions of beauty and self-care. However, as the trend became visible to wider audiences, it was rebranded and appropriated as an elite wellness trend, now associated with expensive skincare routines, luxury athleisure, and influencers promoting exclusivity under the guise of effortlessness. This pattern reflects a broader cycle of cultural appropriation and status elevation, where trends that begin as anti-establishment, such as youth slang, streetwear, or internet memes, are co-opted by high-status individuals and rebranded as aspirational symbols. Once absorbed into the mainstream, these trends often lose their original cultural significance, becoming detached from the communities that created them while reinforcing new status hierarchies shaped by wealth and social capital. Marx explains, “The very appeal of TikTok is its mediocrity and its focus on a limited cultural vocabulary makes neomania more inclusive but the effect is to disconnect it from the twentieth century paradigm of ‘cool.'”
The internet has become a battleground for framing wars, where language, memes, and digital activism shape public perception and redefine legitimacy. Conservative framing tactics have been particularly effective in weaponizing language to shift cultural narratives, often using viral repetition to solidify ideological perspectives. One of the most successful conservative framing tools in recent years is the term “fake news,” popularized by Donald Trump. By using #FakeNews as a rhetorical weapon, Trump and his allies de-legitimized mainstream journalism, positioning traditional media as corrupt, biased, and untrustworthy. This strategy allowed conservative-aligned outlets like Fox News and Breitbart to reframe themselves as anti-elite truth tellers, despite maintaining deep ties to political and corporate power structures. The effectiveness of this framing follows Lakoff’s principle that “the more frequently the language use or imagery, the more strengthening occurs.” By consistently repeating the term “fake news,” conservatives reinforced distrust in traditional media, making fact-based reporting seem partisan while elevating alternative media sources as supposedly more “authentic.”
This pattern mirrors status signaling in cultural hierarchies, where high-status groups establish legitimacy while countercultures reject mainstream validation to maintain exclusivity. Just as elite trends trickle down into the mainstream, viral language reshapes status norms – for example, slang and digital aesthetics originating in marginalized communities are often dismissed or stigmatized until they are appropriated by higher-status groups. Conservative media leveraged a similar strategy: by framing themselves as outsiders, they gain credibility among disaffected voters while still wielding elite influence over political discourse. This tactic also highlights the limits of progressive efforts to counter conservative messaging and sway over moderates. As Lakoff argues, “extreme conservatives (25 - 30% of the US population) cannot be changed by reframing” and attempts to “wake them up” rely on inaccurate and ineffective metaphors that misunderstand how deeply engrained moral frameworks shape political identity. Instead, the real battle in the framing wars lies in controlling the terms of the debate before they become the dominant narratives, recognizing that repetition, rather than fact-checking, is often the most effective tool in shaping public belief.
This pattern of status manipulation through language framing is not limited to political discourse – it also plays a crucial role in the spread of misinformation. Conservative media strategically undermined mainstream journalism by branding it as “fake news,” and conspiracy theorists use similar linguistic tactics to elevate their claims while discrediting opposing viewpoints. Misinformation gains status online not just through its content, but through its framing as exclusive, hidden knowledge, making it more persuasive to those seeking intellectual independence from mainstream narratives. Much like prestige brands cultivate desirability by limiting access and signaling exclusivity, misinformation spreads by presenting itself as a revelation only accessible to those who are willing to “see through the lies.” This framing manipulates status dynamics – believing in mainstream narratives is cast as “sheep-like” conformity, while embracing alternative explanations becomes a marker of critical thinking and superior awareness. Phrases like “do your own research” and “wake up” reinforce this status signaling, positioning believers as independent truth-seekers in contrast to the “blind masses.” Social media platforms accelerate this effect, as algorithms reward engagement over accuracy, amplifying content that sparks outrage and deepening the echo chambers that sustain misinformation. In this way, conspiracy theories become not just beliefs but identity markers, offering individuals a sense of belonging and superiority, a subculture in and of itself – mirroring the way elite cultural trends function as status symbols that separate insiders from outsiders. By framing misinformation as a form of exclusive knowledge, conspiracy moments manipulate social hierarchies and make falsehoods more difficult to challenge, as debunking them is framed not as presenting facts, but as an attack on the believer’s intelligence and independence.
Strategies for Reframing and Rewriting Status Structures
Changing status norms and reframing political narratives both require shifting perceptions over time. This is not an instant process but one that unfolds through sustained cultural reinforcement, storytelling, and strategic messaging. When status hierarchies shift, they do so because new narratives have successfully taken hold in institutions, media, and public consciousness.
To shift thought, we must create new moral narratives. To change minds, we must create new frames. Language determines what is imaginable. Small tweaks in wording can activate deeply engrained moral and emotional responses. Instead of calling it “gun control,” frame it as “gun safety” to activate a protective moral stance. Instead of tackling pollution as a whole, focus on creating “poison-free communities” as a systemic causation frame. These reframing tactics work, because they align with values people already hold, rather than confronting them head-on. As Lakoff writes, “To effect overall change, we must strengthen framing for the progressive moral system and progressive view of democracy based on empathy and the responsibility that stems from it.” This means that shifting political discourse isn’t just about policy changes – it requires reshaping the underlying moral frameworks through which people interpret reality.
To shift status, we must redefine prestige and legitimacy. Status is a social currency, and its value shifts depending on which attributes are deemed most desirable in a given moment. Cultural shifts happen when new status groups emerge. “Status structures provide the underlying conventions for each culture, which determine our behaviors, values, and perceptions of reality,” writes Marx. For example, sustainability was once niche. Now, it’s evolved as a high-status marker in corporate culture but still has to overcome the burden of its previous framing history, connected to the “crunchy, vegan” followers of days past and present. As new status symbols emerge, old ones are actively devalued. The cultural shifts toward sustainability, for example, required elevating tech entrepreneurs, CEOs, and influencers as the new faces of environmentalism.
Three specific case studies outline this shift in three different categories of activity: climate activism, BLM vs “All Lives Matter,” and the status shift of veganism.
With climate activism, the old frame focused on global warming as a scientific issue. Scientific data alone, particularly emphasized by Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, was insufficient to galvanize widespread political action. “Saving the planet” sounds expensive and burdensome. But now, we can focus on climate justice as a moral imperative and economic opportunity. By shifting the language to emphasize “building a clean energy economy,” climate activists have reframed environmental action as an engine of prosperity rather than a cost. “Building a clean energy economy” to quote Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act frame successfully tells a story of economic growth and job creation. Here, too, there is a status shift present: from radical environmentalists to respected corporate leaders and social influencers. Today, Tesla owners and green-tech investors are the new high-status environmentalists, replacing the 1970s image of the “tree-hugger.”
“Black Lives Matter” is a movement framed as a fight against police violence. Its moral force comes from the assertion that racial injustice is systemic and ongoing. Critics, however, have reframed it into a universalized phrase of “All Lives Matter” to dilute its urgency. This is a textbook example of linguistic co-optation, where a dominant group neutralizes a disruptive message by subsuming it into a broader, less threatening frame. Understanding framing battles like this one can help activists retain their movement’s original intent and prevent co-optation. Successful counter-strategies often involve doubling down on specificity – reinforcing the core message rather than attempting to reframe in opposition to the co-opted term.
Finally, veganism was once a niche subculture, but as wealthy celebrities and tech entrepreneurs, like those who founded Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods, embraced it, it became a status symbol. Here, too, language played a critical role: “Plant-based” sounds far less radical than “vegan,” making the movement more accessible to mainstream consumers. Once seen as extreme, veganism is now framed as trendy and innovative. This shift illustrates how rebranding status norms involves both linguistic redefinition and strategic endorsement by high-status figures.
The Future of Power: Why Status and Framing Will Shape Tomorrow
Those who control status norms and framing mechanisms control history – whether it’s who gets to be a cultural tastemaker or who controls political discourse. Status isn’t just a reflection of influence; it’s a mechanism of power that determines which voices are amplified and which are silenced. Marx writes, “History isn’t the stories we tell about ourselves but moments chosen by specific, well-positioned, high-status individuals to highlight and perpetuate.” This selective storytelling doesn’t just shape perception; it dictates reality. Status dictates what is prestigious in culture, framing dictates how we think about issues. Both reinforce power structures but also provide opportunities for change. Recognizing these dynamics allows us to not only interpret the past but actively shape the future.
The battle over American identity has shifted dramatically in the direction of Republicans holding the power and the gavel, as conservatives frame America as a “land of self-made individuals,” while progressives seek to frame it as a “collective responsibility to ensure equality.” These aren’t abstract concepts; they influence tangible policy decisions, from taxes to healthcare, from education to voting rights. These competing narratives shape national policy, just as status symbols shape consumer behavior. And as status signals determine what’s desirable in culture, framing determines what’s politically possible. When one frame dominates, alternative perspectives struggle to break through, reinforcing cycles of power and exclusion.
Understanding both status signaling and political framing is key to shaping public discourse and cultural evolution. The way forward requires not just passive awareness but active engagement in reshaping these narratives. Two action items stand out: (1) encourage awareness and intentionality in the language that you use, and (2) suggest ways to challenge dominant narratives and reshape discourse. Every conversation, every media story, and every cultural symbol either upholds existing power structures or chips away at them. The choice is ours.
As a final thought, those who control the narrative ultimately control the culture. Those who control the language and status markers control the cultural and political direction of society. Power is not merely seized; it is constructed through language, status, and repetition. If we want a more just and inclusive future, we must be deliberate in shaping both our status systems and our narratives—because the stories we tell today define the realities we build tomorrow.