Bleeding Heart Liberals Proven Right: Too Much Inequality Harms a Society
An important new book substantiates something progressives have long intuited. Published first in Britain and now headed for the United States, it's by epidemiologist Richard Wilkinson and health researcher Kate Pickett, and its title conveys its message: The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better.
Since the French Revolution, belief in the social benefits of egalitarianism has been central to progressive thought. Now Wilkinson and Pickett have produced some hard evidence for this plank in the liberal platform. They show conclusively that the well being of whole societies is closely correlated not with average income level but rather with the size of the disparity of income between the top 20% and the bottom 20%. Countries with smaller disparities like Norway, Sweden, and Japan (4 to 1) have fewer medical, mental, crime, and educational problems than countries like the Britain, U.S. and Portugal with higher disparities (7 or 8 to 1). France and Canada both have mid-range disparities (6 to 1) and place in the middle on health, education and psychological indicators. Even within American society, it's not the absolute income level of a state that determines its social well being, but rather the level of income disparity. Economic inequality and social dysfunction go hand in hand, and Wilkinson and Pickett have marshaled the evidence to make the case.
It's one thing to demonstrate the social benefits of egalitarianism, and another to spell out the underlying political, economic, and psychological mechanisms that explain these findings. Only as we understand how the level of income disparity affects social well being will we be able to generate the political will to undo the damage wrought by gross inequality.
Dignity and Its Enemy--Rankism
An explanation of the social dysfunction associated with large income disparities can be organized around the notion of rankism. Rankism is defined as a generalization of the familiar isms and encompasses them all. Specifically, in the same way that racism insulted the dignity of blacks, and sexism was an affront to the dignity of women, so, too, rankism is behavior that diminishes human dignity--black or white, female or male, gay or straight, immigrant or native-born, poor or rich, etc.
Rankism is the abuse of power attached to rank. A difference of rank alone does not cause indignity, but abuse of rank invariably does. Put simply, rankism is what somebodies may do to nobodies. But just as not all whites were racists, so too not everyone of high rank is a rankist.
Therefore, rankism, not rank differences, is the source of indignity. Indignity causes indignation, and indignation takes its toll either on the health of the individual who must contain it or it manifests as withdrawal or anger/aggression.
Rankism functions socially in the same way that racism does. No one doubts any longer that racism cemented in large, self-perpetuating income disparities between the white majority and black victims of slavery and segregation. In a parallel way, rankism marginalizes the working poor, keeping them in their place while their low salaries effectively make the goods and services they produce available to society at subsidized prices. This process, whereby the most indigent Americans have become the benefactors of those better off, is vividly described by Barbara Ehrenreich in Nickel and Dimed. In The Working Poor: Invisible in America, David Shipler depicts the less fortunate as disappearing into a "black hole" from which there is virtually no exit. As class membranes become ever less permeable, resignation, cynicism, and hostility mount.
In the economic realm, the market mechanism, at least when it's working, functions to limit abuses of power, but political arrangements can trump the market. Large enough disparities in economic power may be used to influence politics so that laws and regulations perpetuate the economic gap.
Once established, economic inequality, if it is steep enough, also perpetuates exploitation because it imprisons the poor in their poverty. When missing a single paycheck means homelessness, people are not likely to demand better wages or working conditions. As Rev. Jim Wallis says, "Poverty is the new slavery."
There is another important reason that eightfold factors in wealth disparity cause more social distress than factors of four. When the top 20 % are eight times better off than the bottom 20 %, far more people are vulnerable to rankism because people in the middle quintiles are also separated from the top and bottom quintiles by significant differences in economic status and power. Instead of being confined within a narrower spectrum (characterized by, say, a disparity factor of four or five), people are spread out over a broader economic range. When the first (poorest) quintile is further from the top (richest) quintile, so, too is the second quintile further from the fourth, and the third from the first and the fifth. These larger differences in economic power make possible more abuse. Economic gaps soon become dignity gaps. As rankism gains ground, more people experience its indignities and humiliations, and these individual wounds compound into illness and social dysfunction.
Dignity is to the identity what food is to the body--indispensable. By confirming our identity and affirming our dignity, respect and recognition provide assurance that our place in the group is secure. Absent periodic and appropriate validation, our survival feels at risk. Without proper recognition, individuals may sink into self-doubt and subgroups are marginalized and set up for exploitation.
Dignity and recognition are inseparable. We can't all be famous, but fortunately recognition is not limited to the red carpet. We can learn to understand the effects on those who are either denied a chance to seek it, or from whom it is otherwise withheld. Once aware of the deleterious effects of "malrecognition," we can act against it as we now take steps to prevent malnutrition.
Like malnutrition, malrecognition lowers the body's resistance to disease and reduces life expectancy. For most people, just the opportunity to contribute something of themselves to the world is enough to stifle the indignation that accumulates from exposure to indignities caused by rankism. This means that malrecognition, like its somatic counterpart, is a preventable and treatable malady. To increase the supply of recognition we need only discern people's contributions, acknowledge them appropriately, and compensate them equitably. When the average compensation of the richest 20 % exceeds that of the poorest 20 % by factors greater than four or five, the poor experience this as unfair, unjust distribution of recognition. The deleterious consequences of malrecognition manifest in the familiar array of social problems tracked in The Spirit Level--mental illness, drug and alcohol abuse, obesity and teenage pregnancy, an elevated homicide rate, a shorter life expectancy, and lower educational performance and literacy rates.
More than either liberty or equality, people need dignity. In contrast to libertarian or egalitarian societies, a dignitarian society is one in which everyone, regardless of role or rank, is treated with equal dignity. The findings reported in The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better suggest that as societies become more dignitarian they will, in the words of the subtitle, "do better."
A startling example of this proposition comes from, of all places, our prison population where indignity and malrecognition are endemic. Recent work done under the auspices of The Center for Therapeutic Justice in Virginia indicates that the recidivism rate for inmates who serve their sentences in a dignitarian community drops from 50 % to 5 %.
Social Isolation and Depression
In explaining their findings, Wilkinson and Pickett put the emphasis on the lack of trust fostered by large wealth disparities. Put the other way round, the connectedness experienced in dignitarian communities is the equivalent of social oxygen.
Some thirty years ago a physician (Wolf) and a sociologist (Bruhn) teamed up to explain why, in the town of Roseto, Pennsylvania, there was a group of poor Italian immigrants whose health and welfare were vastly better than their neighbors. After a twenty year study of immigrant families in Roseto, and a comparable study in a nearby, non-immigrant town, they found that health and welfare were dependent on what they called cohesion, the opposite of isolation and the antithesis of distrust. As the younger generation adopted American ways of geographic and status mobility, their health and welfare levels decreased to the level of the neighbors.
In addition to directly affecting health and welfare, disconnection has an effect on the emotions. Just as being closely connected with others leads to authentic pride, so disconnection leads to shame and humiliation. The isolated person is apt to feel rejected, if not completely worthless, and live in a more or less permanent state of shame.
One way of defending against the shame of malrecognition is to withdraw, sometimes all the way into the isolation of depression. Such withdrawal then leads to further isolation, which in turn compounds the rejection by the community and accelerates the downward spiral. Again, malrecogntion compounds into social dysfunction as confirmed in this eye-opening book.
Conclusion
In addition to caring for the weak, humans are still capable of predatory behavior towards those lacking the protection of social rank. Rankism is the residue of more overt predatory practices of the past. Now that rankism has a name, the miasma of malrecognition is visible and we are in a position to begin rooting it out. Rooting out rankism, like overcoming racism, is a multi-generational undertaking. Despite the enormity of the task, we are likely to look back on the 21st century as marking an epochal transformation from a predatory to a dignitarian era. Disallowing rankism betters human well being in the same way that disallowing racism and sexism improve the lives of blacks and women. The hard evidence that Wilkinson and Pickett have provided demonstrates the benefits of dignitarian societies and validates the egalitarian instinct that has long been a mainstay of the liberal creed.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The worship of the almighty dollar was the destruction of our homeland, greed, from all areas of commerce, encluding the church. Bigger and better homes, clothes, education, degrees,every area of life dominated, by physical mind boggling junk and stuff. Our spiritual life even infected with the injection of cash. The value system gone for more than fifty years has produce unabated grosse self centered destruction. Our church's and temples only catering to the rich, caused more greed and stress to get more junk and stuff. The church became bottom feeders in the credit card business, sucking out the last vestigue of hope. Choosing to trust Cards more than God, they too must take there part of this debacle. Inequiety is the natural outcome of society gone wild with the worship of the dollar.
You can't prop people up who don't want to be helped.
Most poverty is caused by people making bad personal choices. (Not all, but most).
People certainly do need dignity. But it has to come from something that they have done themselves. It must be earned. It can't be given to them.
So I am all for helping educate people, and help them find work that can give them a personal worth. But we must have high expectations of them.
If we infantilize people, then we doom them. That sort of discrimination is far more prevalent and damaging than the old style discrimination.
Yes of course it is true that you cannot give dignity to somebody. But you can take it away. And hence you can do something to help: stop taking it away.
Now we could agree, it seems. Except we cannot. Because you say that dignity must be earned. That's a disgrace. It's possible that you didn't it mean it. But to honestly claim that dignity must be earned is unconstitutional. And of course it is supremacist.
I don't mean that dignity must be earned.
I mean that it comes from having having a good character, and doing worthwhile things.
The dignity (which each person deserves) comes from how they feel about themselves, and the kind of life they lead. It can't be given to you.
And those good deeds that you do, and the kind of life you lead have to be earned yourself (Not the dignity).
The past couple of decades of modern thought on schooling has it all wrong when they tried to artificially raise people's self esteem. The people with the highest measured self esteem are criminals and bully's. And of course, it is based on nothing other than their own over-inflated sense of self. It is a house on a crappy foundation.
My apologies for poorly explaining my thoughts.
"Most poverty is caused by people making bad personal choices. (Not all, but most)." Where on earth (or elsewhere) did you get this info? Did blacks make bad decisions when they were brought to this country against their will to be sold into slavery? I think you are just trying to make your greedy self feel better; that way you don't have to help anyone else...
What blacks living now where brought to the US as slaves?
Norway etc are like 90 percent white. Japan is like 90 percent the same. You can't compare US with such places.
Great tome and right on the button. But, by me being a proud LIberal, that comes naturally :)
For all the talk about a 'dignitarian' society, precious little space was devoted to explaining how to acheive it, and what it would look like.
I read the article, so while I appreciate snarky humor as much as the next guy, in this case I was hoping for some light on the subject.
WHAT would need to be done, specifically, to move towards the 'dignitarian' nation the author describes?
Here's a primer for you: step zero: burn all your Ayn Rand books. And tell everybody you know to do the same.
Okay, and I'll replace them with your Marx and Chomsky tracts/trope. And you tell all your acquaintences at your job at the DMV to do the same.
You are playing the game of shifting around the burden of proof.
I'll tell you some good news - which for your worldview is bad news, however:
a 'dignitarian' society is possible.
Shocking, isn't it?
Yeah--it is possible--maybe. My question is WHAT would it look like, and HOW would we get there from here.
In your rush to be amusing, you neglected to notice that I wrote a skepticism-free request for more information. I haven't 'shifted' the burden of proof, I have asked for a definition of terms.
If you are unable to answer the question, please consider it posed to someone else--someone qualified to answer.
Diogenes looked for an honest man. He wouldn't have found one in Alaska.
Read the article and find out. You obviously missed it.
You keep saying it, but you don't answer. It seems, the article is long on wishes, and short on actionable plans.
This isn't to discredit the idea, just to point out that it may be a bit wishy-washy, to use the technical term.
White males seem to love to "blame" the poor, like it's a hobby of theirs or something. And you always here the Horation Alger stories from these guys, that "I pulled myself up by MY bootstraps and became a success"! What a bunch of crap.
The disparity and class warfare against the middle class (not just the "poor") became so unbearable to so many, that it signaled the death of the GOP. Yet most repubs refuse to deal with it or acknowledge it because the reality is too painful.
Democracy was intended to be a level playing field, not a polo field for the scions of the wealthy and privileged to cavort upon.
White people are the majority of the working poor.
Sadly though, many of them still do.
Agreed.
But you are too pessimistic. There are plutocratic impulses and tendencies. Nevertheless, this is not a shortcoming of democracy. A functioning democracy will eradicate the plutocratic remainders.
The point is that more needs to be done to foster a full-fledged awareness of what democracy entails. It's no use to blame imperfections of democracy itself. This is neither subject to a realistic testing set-up nor is there any real alternative.
Conservatives simply wish to keep the masses ignorant. Be good worker bees, don't worry about civics, don't raise your voice in protest, support your president no matter what (unless they are a Democrat of course.) Pesky schools can't be teaching civics to kids, they're breeding liberals! Yeah, that's right, informed citizens usually do call themselves liberal.
In 1982, I lived under a bridge. Had no car, a high school education, and no job. I decided to work my way out. I got a job, still lived under the bridge, but saved my money and in time got an apartment. Then I got a car. Then I kept working and started a handyman business. Then I got married, bought a HUD home, and took out a second. With the money I started a small manufacturing business. Now I am in good shape. I didn't go to the government, I stayed away from them. Nobody held me down, I was always holding myself down. When I stop believing it was the fault of others I became a success. I am no one special, anyone without an excuse can do the same. We have our poor, but it's not anyone's fault but theirs.
Congrats, but you can only speak for yourself.
objection: should read 'only for the tinted memory of himself.' :-)
Same here Dale, Made it , lost it , restarted with wife and kids in tow, made it again. Now I'm fairly comfortable. But the World isn't about me. It's about all the people.
You wouldn't have had a bridge to sleep under , if not for a lot of GIs in Our Wars. They weren't looking out for themselves.
The Country is not about how well you and I have done. It's about how well everybody is doing.
Right now theres a lot of people not doing so well.
He also wouldn't have a bridge to live under if no government built the bridge and wouldn't have a hud home without hud. Just absurdists, how illogical conservatives are.
It is easy to make unverifiable claims.
Heck, he forgot to mention that he had to endure daily beatings from liberals, and acorn rolled him for his change every other day. He also bathed in snow because he had no way to melt it and had to share one set of cloths with another boot straps conservative who worked nights.
Good thing people payed taxes to the local government to build and maintain that bridge of yours giving you a free home out of the labor of others. Good thing you had regulated banks that didn't steal your hard earned cash - and a legal system that protects contracts of hard working small businessmen. It's always nice to hear tales of how hard work pays off - but it doesn't always pan out as well for everybody. Sounds like you maintained the good health needed to put in the required hard effort - but suppose you were less fortunate with a crippling disability from say falling off a roof of a HUD house you were fixing up - and no health care for you or someone you care about. Maybe you would succeed anyway - but it would certainly have been harder. If you were 30 or 40 years older and had lost your investment savings to say Bernie Madoff - maybe you'd bounce back as well - and maybe you wouldn't. Earl Nightingale - of the motivational tapes was fond of saying "We become what we thing about". Since it worked out for you, perhaps you could show the increasing number of poor how to develop faith in themselves instead of just berating them.
But according to Barbara Bush, we are all so lucky to loose everything so we can start all over again (New Orleans 2006)..... in other words let them eat cake....
I used to live in a tent but I was also able to pull myself up with a little help and empowerment from my Uncle Sam. I used a homeless drop in to get food and health services then a little later I received welfare and food stamps when my first son was an infant. I used federal loans to return to and graduate from a good university and now I own my own business.
and by the way...if you bought a home from HUD (US gov. Housing and Urban Development) than you did receive assistance from the big bad Government!.
Not all Government Services are handouts and not all takers are users and abusers.
I know lots of women in my life who were able to return to school and training with the help of welfare and are now nurses and other professionals
Interesting read. I think you just made the case for staying in school. Less government welfare. More encouraging the poor to make better decisions. Stop demonizing the rich, meaning if poor people see the rich as bad or evil, why would they work to become rich? Teach the poor to look away from government offerings, and towards ways to better themselves, thus building their esteem. ( I don't know how anyone getting government aid could ever feel good about themselves) Teach the poor it's not impossible to leave their poverty, but they have to do the work. Like Lincoln said: " The poor aren't poor, because the rich are rich". The poor are taught that they are being held down by the rich, but it's a lie.
That is your opinion. It does not make it true.
Since they showed Sweden and Norway to be the most welloff financially and emotionally, that is a pretty bizarre interpretation.
dang, man, in all that self-improvement you did, apparently "reading comprehension" slipped through the cracks. the whole point is that the POOR SUBSIDIZE THE RICH, not the other way around. by providing goods and services at below their REAL costs, because they sell their labor for less than its worth, they make those goods and services cheaper for rich people.
RICH people need to turn away from purchases which enslave, impoverish, deplete and diminish workers and the environment. Once those in power start demanding that the true costs of everything from coal to coffee and apparel be reflected in their prices, the FREE MARKET can work. The pyramid scheme of exploitative capitalism is not a free market because of the improper pricing of deleterious labor practices and environmental destruction. If it takes government intervention (child labor laws, EPA regulations, etc.) to correct the market, then we need MORE of that, not less.
Welfare is a modest and very indirect market correction device, but it perpetuates the model that benefits the rich by keeping people poor, overworked and unable to move forward. the answer lies in living wages, tougher environmental and labor laws, and incorporating those factors into our trade treaties.
How do you know the labor is being 'sold for less than it is worth'? If it doesn't command higher renumeration, then isn't it worth what it does command?
And if you are serious about the 'real cost' being the market price, wouldn't you get closest to that by completely removing Government from the equation? Afterall, oil is sold for less than its 'cost' becuase the US Navy protects the tanker fleet. If they stopped doing that, we would lose a lot to piracy and the cost would be higher. Would that then be the 'cost' of oil?
why would you invest in education if there are NO JOBS? or your field of interest is exploited like nurses....
chapeau! You're on to some epoch-making, multi-generational transformation here.
Let me add an argument: rankism not only leads to dysfunction at the psychological and emotional and somatic level. It's a gazillion times worse. It implies a waste of total wealth of an economy because it destroys the ability to be productive. To call it a cancer is ephemistic. It's the death knell of civilization.
And here's my prediction: if the US does not manage to understand this, as a nation, then we're going down the drain. We, the planet, that is.
reason: I repeat: value destruction in doggone economic wealth terms. Because of flawed attribution of accomplishment.
Here's the turbo, how to get there even quicker: continue the hypocrisy with respect to what is and what counts as a meritocracy.
so effin ephemistic. Sounds alright. But I meant 'euphemistic'.
Excellent article. Thank you for laying it out. Both the books you mentioned, Ehrenreich's "Nickel and Dimed" and Shipler's "The Working Poor" are heartbreaking and illuminating. I had read them when they came out, but now that all my friends are up in arm about "change" I'm trying to get my friends to read them as well.
What does the prevalence of reality shows and popularity meters on sites like facebook and twitter contribute to this phenomenon? At every turn there is some sort of ranking be it post counts, popularity or reputation..Why can't we just participate. Why is everything measured? I for one I am tired of this gladiator type environment and entertainment. It would appear that we are more interested in predation. The attitude that I may not be in the top percentile but at least I am better than you. Not to mention the prevalence of republican talking points that the poor are poor because they are lazy.
Not to oversimplify things. But obviously a country with a huge Middle Class of working people living in dignity, even though not wealthy who believe they are in control of their destiny,is happier than a Oligarchy with a thin wealthy ruling class and the Majority of people as Serfs with no control or dignity.
But dignity must require more than wealth sharing, or even freedom. I remember reading about elderly people in the Death Camps being treated with respect and dignity by their fellow prisoners . Even Older people in the Old soviet Union, where all were serfs, treated as respected elders by their familys and villages.
I call it the rubber band principle. It says that you have to keep the top tied to the bottom, but there is some stretch. If it stretches too far, the rubber band breaks and all hell breaks loose. The discussion here indicates that higher tension in the rubber band leads to problems, and the higher the tension, the more the problems. The correlation is apparently strong, given the author's conviction on this point, but it would be better with more detailed numbers than are presented here.
To joebaggadonuts,
Good point, Joe. You can find the actual charts and detailed numbers on Wikinson's website:
search equaltrust.
Notice particularly the correlation coefficients: surprisingly high for considering the vastness of the data pool (nations, on the one hand, and states of the US, on the other.
Tom Scheff
Prof. Emeritus
UCSB
=
Excellent column. It justifies Huffingtonpost's existence.
I am skeptical of the focus on rankism. Abuse of rank does not explain the effect. Abusiveness is usually only expected of those suffering from personality deficiencies and one would hope that is a small percentage of the better off.
Mere jealousy , without being abused, should be discussed as well. A significant percentage of the human race becomes extremely unhappy when others are more successful.
"Happiness: Lessons from a New Science " by Richard Layard also discussed this subject.
.
not quite.
Abusiveness is what results from insane and unproductive pressure to be 'successful'. It makes people do the stupidest things on earth.
And I wouldn't call those who criticize that jealous. In fact I don't hesitate to call it dangerous to call them jealous. It's like removing the brakes while going 150 mph.
Kind of like........... a chain is only a strong as it's weakess link.
Of course this won't get coverage in the corporate news media nor that Iceland tried that big bit of libertarianism and FAILED. You can bet that won't be touted nearly as much as the already discredited Laffer curve. And BOR et al the snark would be endless.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
