Post by robeiae on Jan 9, 2017 8:15:17 GMT -5
I'm not talking about the movie, The Prestige, nor the now-antiquated definition of the word from which the film title springs. For those unaware, "prestige" once meant--in the 18th/19th century--"dazzling" or "glamorous." And that meaning was a product of the word being used by magicians to refer to their showy finishes. Why? Because the Latin root word of "prestige" is "praestigiae," which referred to illusions, tricks, and so forth (glamour has a similar history). And such things--these tricks--were performed by distractions that were intended to dazzle or confuse people. There was a negative connotation to prestige through most of its history.
As some point, however, prestige became a desirable trait, came to mean having good standing/admiration/respect in the minds of people in general, supposedly earned through past achievements or recognition. And that translates into reputation: having a very good one means having prestige, as a matter of course.
Obvious example: Harvard. It's a prestigious school. Who would say otherwise? Oxford is no different. Ditto for the Sorbonne. And so forth.
But as is usually the case--in my opinion--we go too far with it all. For instance, offices/positions are assumed to have prestige, to be prestigious. So anyone who occupies them gets the transference of that prestige (an assumption that will begin to be sorely tested in the days, months, and years ahead, I think). And awards are prestigious, as well. The Oscars, the Nobel Prizes, and so forth all carry an eminence, a prestige, do they not? And again, the recipients of these awards benefit from a transference, as well. Yet this isn't based on accomplishments, per se. Harvard is prestigious because of its actual history of providing high-quality education, because of the documented success of its graduates, and so forth. The Oscars are prestigious because people say they are prestigious. Who these people are who carry the power to grant prestige is of course another question.
Regardless, it seems to me that the change in meaning here may be indicative of a change of sorts in the fundamental nature of society, with respect to what is and what is not admirable.
Prestige also--and perhaps conversely--seems to represent a means of holding on to elements of nobility without having an aristocratic class, per se.
I anticipate a much longer blog post on this in the near future, but I was hoping others might have some opinions/thoughts here.
As some point, however, prestige became a desirable trait, came to mean having good standing/admiration/respect in the minds of people in general, supposedly earned through past achievements or recognition. And that translates into reputation: having a very good one means having prestige, as a matter of course.
Obvious example: Harvard. It's a prestigious school. Who would say otherwise? Oxford is no different. Ditto for the Sorbonne. And so forth.
But as is usually the case--in my opinion--we go too far with it all. For instance, offices/positions are assumed to have prestige, to be prestigious. So anyone who occupies them gets the transference of that prestige (an assumption that will begin to be sorely tested in the days, months, and years ahead, I think). And awards are prestigious, as well. The Oscars, the Nobel Prizes, and so forth all carry an eminence, a prestige, do they not? And again, the recipients of these awards benefit from a transference, as well. Yet this isn't based on accomplishments, per se. Harvard is prestigious because of its actual history of providing high-quality education, because of the documented success of its graduates, and so forth. The Oscars are prestigious because people say they are prestigious. Who these people are who carry the power to grant prestige is of course another question.
Regardless, it seems to me that the change in meaning here may be indicative of a change of sorts in the fundamental nature of society, with respect to what is and what is not admirable.
Prestige also--and perhaps conversely--seems to represent a means of holding on to elements of nobility without having an aristocratic class, per se.
I anticipate a much longer blog post on this in the near future, but I was hoping others might have some opinions/thoughts here.