Already it's proving to be a mental turning point for me.
I heard recently an interview with Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett. They wrote a book called The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better, which was published in 2009. They've more recently published The Inner Level: How More Equal Societies Reduce Stress, Restore Sanity and Improve Everyone’s Well-being. In this work they are looking at the effects of inequality on the individual. After hearing the interview, I bought the audiobook and have been listening to it with terrified fascination.
I knew about The Spirit Level - I think Sam Harris interviewed Wilkinson and Pickett some years ago - and I was struck by the data. Basically, the more unequal a society, the higher the level of mental health problems, obesity, drug use, infant mortality and homicide; the lower the expected life expectancy and educational standards when compared with similarly wealthy but more equal societies. This seems to operate on a national as well as more local level.
The writers stress something that Daniel Markovits, who wrote The Meritocracy Trap, also pointed out: while the gap between rich and poor in wealthy nations was decreasing from the 30s up until some time in the 70s (with the rise of neo-liberalism), that trend has completely reversed and now, for example, bosses may well earn 400 times as much as their lowest paid full time employees. A top banker or entrepreneur can earn enough in a few years to set up his children and grandchildren for lives of leisured luxury in perpetuity.
In these societies, status is linked with wealth - or, rather, with comparative wealth. And the wider the margins between income brackets, the more obviously that status is demonstrated. Through cars, homes, leisure activities, designer clothes, tech devices, restaurants... It is blindingly obvious where you stand - unless you can pretend. But, without wealth, you can't pretend much. In addition, people spend more on what's visible - to make sure they put on the best (wealthiest) front. And that means a certain disparity between appearance and reality. As appearances are less reliable and the impetus to privacy increases, trust decreases - because we tend to believe most what is out in the open for all to see. In addition, people are more aware of judging and being judged. Social anxiety increases.
They also mention the egalitarian nature of hunter-gatherer societies, which I was reading about earlier in lockdown. Indeed, they refer specifically and extensively to Christopher Boehm's research. The point they make about this is that for say 90-95% of our history as a species, we lived as equals. Yes, a fine hunter would be respected for his skill, but that would neither grant him extra food or property (as there was no property anyway) nor extra status. The respect for skill was separated entirely from any link to status. Each person is worth one and only one. This does incline me to a little more regard for Rousseau's belief in the damaging effects of civilisation. However, even in some stages of our later development were noticeably less segregated than now. For example, Wilkinson and Pickett refer to Haddon Hall in Derbyshire. Originally, all the members of the household - owners, servants, grooms and soldiers - lived and slept together in one hall. Privacy just wasn't a thing. Everyone could see and know everything. You were who you were, warts and all, and got on with everyone else.
This, though, is not because we are 'by nature' kind and egalitarian: we are just as inclined to dominance hierarchies as our cousins, the chimps and the gorillas (they cite anthropological and evolutionary biology). What happened was that egalitarianism 'worked' as a survival strategy for a not-so-strong, not-so-fast, not-so-well-armed species - and did so, as they pointed out, for most of out history. We did it through 'counter dominance' measures - cutting down tall poppies. This is where Boehm's shaming comes in. And this is also why we are 'wired' to be so concerned about how others see us. And, indeed, why we are so eager to judge others. Recall that each member of a group is vigilantly watching others to ensure that all get their fair share and that no one cheats. Those who attempt to beat the system are mocked, shamed, disciplined, ostracised or, in extremis, killed. Note that ostracism presents an existential threat: a human in such a society cannot live alone. The fear of ostracism is ingrained, and plays into feelings of exclusion, lack of representation, de-platforming and so on that we see in evidence today.
The effect of such a long tradition of egalitarianism, as Boehm stated, was social selection for traits like generosity, kindness, communal instinct and sociability. Such individuals make better mates. A large body of scientific research suggests strongly innate tendencies toward favouring fairness as well as punishing those who get - or take - more than their fair share.
However, this powerful tendency works in us alongside the similarly innate dominance behavioural system (DBS), as seen in our primate cousins. That is still part of our make up - and while egalitarianism countered its damaging effects, inequality feeds it. So, consider a troop of baboons. Say there are 20 males ranked one to 20. Baboon One has access to all the females and can attack all his subordinates - particularly the lower ranked ones - with impunity, should he feel frustrated or in any sense threatened. But he has to be on the lookout constantly for any threats to his status. Further down the hierarchy, Baboon Seven can have a go at Baboon Twenty whenever he likes, but he needs to appease Baboons one to Four. He's going to be keen to overhaul Baboon Six and very eager to put down any attempts made to attack him by Baboon Eight. For Baboon Twenty, everyone is a potential threat. They are constantly vigilant and well-practised at submission. There is little point in attempting to advance. This is a very stressful way to live - as the primatologist and stress expert Robert Sapolsky has shown. It's bad for everyone, but particularly for baboons lower down the pecking order. Their blood shows higher levels of stress hormones and clotting factors (required in stressful situations because those at the bottom are regularly attacked and injured as they are the victims for the rest to vent their frustration).
Interestingly, the same profile of stress hormones and clotting factors increasing was seen in civil servants as you moved down the professional hierarchy.
In unequal societies, the vigilance and jostling for position of the activated DBS - as well as the frustrations of seeing failures of fairness throughout the system - leads to higher stress levels across the board. It's enhanced among those at the bottom. Consequently, in unequal societies it has become normal for blood pressure and clotting factors to increase with age due to the effects of chronic stress on the body. Such changes do not happen in egalitarian communities. (Researchers tested hunter gatherers - taking into account diet, lifestyle, obesity etc.) This level of stress is reflected in lower life expectancy, faster aging, worsening mental health and more degenerative diseases.
The psychological impact is damaging in its own right. Wilkinson and Pickett chart the rise of inequality alongside the rise of increasing social anxiety, shyness, depression and anxiety along with a decrease on communal connection and bonds of friendship. People feel alone and increasing seek to be alone. Others, instead of being a small, close-knit group of friends and familiars, are relative strangers, who judge them and whom they do not trust.
The book states that all these problems are more damaging the lower down the social gradient you go - but that in more unequal societies, where the gradient is steeper, the effects are felt much further up the ladder. Which means that the more unequal the society, however wealthy you are, you are more likely to be hit by these adverse effects. And if you are poor in an unequal society you will suffer more than a similarly economically disadvantaged person in a more equal society.
Wilkinson and Pickett are thus stressing that it is in the entirety of a society's interest to lessen inequality.
What makes the whole thing worse is that we have this Pollyanna-ish belief that our societies are meritocracies and that the talented and worthy, the hard-working and determined rise to the top while those who don't put in the effort or don't have the intelligence sink to the bottom. We all, the story goes, get what we deserve. However, according to their research, this view does not stand up. The advantages of wealthy parents, of being brought up in a wealthy household are vast; while the detrimental effects of poverty - not in purely material terms, but in psychological and physical terms, too - have been increasing dramatically in the past fifty years. In the state we are now in, thanks to the steep social gradient, people in the lower income brackets suffer more both in terms of opportunity and in the mental and physical health impacts of inequality.
Such anxiety and alienation, lowers not just confidence, self-belief and a sense of self-efficacy (all of which are important in a recipe for success) but also negatively impact cognitive function and intelligence. People simply can't think as well or as clearly - Wilkinson and Pickett have pursued this research carefully and it stands up. What's more, those in deprived communities have been further disempowered by poorer schools and worse nutrition. So, these people are in a society that 'values' individuals according to their job, income and wealth. Not only do they not have these things to start with, but the very fabric of the society, with the anxiety producing social evaluative framework and the steep social gradient, makes it increasingly difficult for them to fight their way out. This further breaks down trust, self-worth and agency. Meanwhile, those at the top are so blessed by wealth and connections that it becomes almost impossible for them to fail. Their schools are so much better, their opportunities so much more open, the impacts of inequality affect them so much less. The meritocracy, so-called, keeps the highest and lowest echelons where they are more firmly and in fact leads to an escalation of disparity between richest and poorest. These are statistical trends - not statements about individuals. But the case is strongly made.
One of the key things this has brought up for me so far is the way in which inequality effects people's sense of self. There's much more to it than I'll sketch here, but I was struck by how it appears to make people incredibly defensive and reactive, makes them feel alienated, makes them feel that there is this pressure to reassert in the best way possible their identity in any given encounter with others - because they are among untrustworthy strangers rather than a group of comrades who know them from a child and accept them as they are.
Two particular aspects: first, self-efficacy seems to be crucial in enabling people to work toward self-improvement and battle against the odds. In the 50s and 60s, when society was more equal, individuals could, through hard work, conscientiousness and self-discipline, rise from humble beginnings. There was a sense of possibility and hope. But the widening inequality since the mid to late 70s has been eroding that beneficial social mobility and those in deprived backgrounds, who suffer the problems most intensely, often have little conception of there being any opportunity or potential for them. This is profoundly disabling.
The second is that while some people respond to the anxiety of status evaluation with depression and by seeking to hide away, others respond by 'bigging themselves up'. There has been - particularly in men in disadvantaged groups - an increase in a false kind of self-esteem, which is linked to narcissism. A feeling of being important and deserving of respect as a means to stand tall despite a lowly paid job or lack of any job at all. These individuals will be very sensitive to slights, incredibly defensive and thus can be aggressive. For those facing the lack of the status attained through wealth, any narcissistic self-generated status brings with it different problems both for the individuals and society, as groups of those without economic sway seek power in other ways. Narcissism features too among the elites - we don't need social scientists to tell us that - and it is clearly damaging at all levels. For the tall poppies, they will have a sense of 'deserving to be there', while conveniently forgetting many of the contingencies and advantages that led to their ascension. They have the accoutrements of power - the right university, the right job, the right car, clothes, sexual partner. Because they feel that they deserve all this, they will be less inclined to feel any empathy for those at the bottom of the social ladder. Indeed, there is now substantial research suggesting that the rich are less generous, less kind and less concerned with community issues than those less well-off. So much for philanthropy. In addition, their confidence is reinforced by the fact that their wealth and prestige is granting them status and real privilege.
Corrosive emotions like scorn on the one hand and envy on the other become increasingly apparent. Both break down relationships and harm both parties. They decrease empathy - and without empathy there is little communication, collaboration and co-operation. On both sides of the income divide, this social competition breeds distrust, antagonism and tribalism. Those in the middle will be fighting to look more and more like those at the top - overspending, reliance on credit, conspicuous consumption - and will feel resentful of the very privileged and contemptuous of the under privileged.
The sense of shame is especially harmful - recall that shame in egalitarian societies conveys the risk of ostracism. This is an emotion that we have been evolved to fear. Recall also the severe consequences of being at the bottom of a hierarchy - where every other member of the group is a potential threat and where, to avoid conflict, the best thing to do is to look away, hunker down and submit. Or, if you're in the middle, you are constantly vying for position. At the top, it's in your interests to keep everyone else down.
The way you show that you belong at the top is not through physical strength, these days, but spending power.
Materialism, Wilkinson and Pickett's research suggests, leads to the valuing of things above people. Relationships 'matter' less than possessions. And because we are a social species, whose very nervous systems are soothed by connection with trusted others, this feeds into further mental and physical health problems. The absence of 'real' human connection can also lead to quick fixes - not just buying stuff, but alcohol, drugs, gambling, overeating. Anything to fill the hole within.
Unequal societies as a whole are less empathetic. Whereas more than 80% of Swedes (a more equal society) would seek to help the elderly, only just over half Brits would. As for immigrants, it's something like 60% of Swedes who'd help compared with 14% of Brits. The nations are similarly wealthy, but inequality makes everyone more focused on me than we, on us than them.
They have tracked the impact on children - whose well-being is directly correlated with how unequal their society is. Bullying in schools is far, far more common in unequal societies. Children may have epigenetic changes which trigger their systems to be exquisitely sensitive to stress. This has been tracked in the children of Holocaust survivors, who were not conceived at the time, but is also evidenced in children whose mothers underwent severe stress while pregnant and in children whose early upbringing was extremely stressful. Such research has shown that the impact on such children's physical and cognitive development is worse than were their mothers exposed to radiation during pregnancy. From cradle to grave, unequal societies harm people - and harm most damagingly the poor.
So, now, consider how all this feels for members of minority groups, who sense the all-pervasive threats of status anxiety as well as, for example, racism or transphobia. The negativity may all merge into one powerful sense of prejudice. Consider how this need to constantly invent and portray yourself feels to young people - who are alone to construct an identity as there is nothing 'granted' by their place in a society. And consider how it feels to the frustrated and alienated supporters of populist parties, who feel their 'special' identity has been devalued by the liberal agenda, and so they seek respect and validation through nationalism, perhaps. You start to see how this state of affairs escalates conflicts between groups and pushes people into silos. There's no feeling of 'in it together' as a society. No feeling of trust for anyone, everyone will seem different or prejudiced to an even greater extent. It ramps up all the incentives to devalue existing political structures and institutions.
It makes sense of the selfie culture that Cederstrom talks about and the world depicted in Nervous States and National Populism, a book I recently read about the reasons for the rise of this political movement - as well as intensifying the justifiable anger of the anti-racism demonstrators.
Wilkinson and Pickett do not talk about various groups within societies: their focus is on how everyone in a society is impacted. But to turn the lens toward different groups offers another illuminating perspective.
Their aim is to encourage an environmentally sustainable and far more equitable future - but I haven't got to the possible positive policy changes yet. I'm still reeling at the damage this inequality causes. However, any change for the better is definitely worth working for.
Comentários