Status, as this volume attests, is once again on the research agenda of international relations (IR). States clearly strive for status, and its pursuit is always a source of tension and sometimes a source of conflict in their relations. As the chapters in this volume also reveal, however, there is no consensus on what status is and who has it when, why states pursue status, or when status concerns can be accommodated and when they lead to war. In fleshing out the concept and consequences of status, there is still much work to be done. The chapters in this volume shine powerful searchlights on the paths ahead, but the roads are long and lead to an as yet unseen horizon.

Although it was once neglected, the renewed focus on status is important and well justified. Emphasizing this more social form of power is an advance over past approaches that focused only on the distribution of capabilities. In this way, this volume contributes to an emerging literature on multiple forms of power in IR. Nonetheless, if status correlates with these other forms of power, especially social forms, then scholars may exaggerate estimates of its causal effects, perhaps unwittingly. In this essay, I contrast status with its closest cognate construct – authority – and caution against focusing exclusively on status as we broaden the research agenda on power. My argument is not that authority is more important than or causally prior to status. The cautionary note I offer here cuts both ways; in past work I have focused on authority without due regard to status, and may have inadvertently attributed too much causal weight to authority as a result. Rather, my point here is more modest. Although reintroducing status to the field of IR is an important step forward, research must proceed with attention to the full range of forms of social power – status and authority included.