And it is NOT this:
The Myth of Meritocracy: borne of Puritan values, Protestant work ethic and wild west everyman-for-himself mentality. The quintessential American 'Capitalism is King' dream. A fantasy where someone can come from nothing and make something truly fantastic of themselves, meaning, they can make an endless wad of cashola and have every person either want them, be jealous of them or ideally, both. The focus of most fairy tales and fantasies told to young children of varying socio-economic status who someday aspire to be the next Michael Jordan or Wayne Gretzky.
The Spirit Level (Wilkinson &Pickett) is to be released this month in North America and already has some calling it the most important book of the year. An understatement, in my opinion. Too bad the title has me conjuring up purple crystals, the metaphysical and 'noble savage' appropriation...
Increased inequality, that is, the greater the discrepancy between the rich and the poor, is predictive of any number of measures of health, social and societal well-being the authors claim. The quoted results are so tight that it appears every alternate explanation has been exhausted. Comparisons between the top 20% and the bottom 20% in terms of economic rankings of nations were compared. Between and within both groups, inequality was consistently the deciding factor on all numbers of measures of well-being ranging from life expectancy to happiness. Economic growth in terms of benefits it can bring us has peaked, and those countries who put a cap on their growth/consumerism are better off for a variety of reasons. One of those being, the well-being of their citizens who no longer feel the pressure to keep up with the Joneses or to denigrate and discriminate against those at the bottom of the totem pole for fear of becoming a 'have-not'. A greater sense of trust and respect between individuals develops. When I was in Norway I never saw anyone get checked for train or bus tickets but rest assured everyone still bought theirs.
This 'solution' made me recall a previous unrelated study on lottery winners- those who had won were no happier 3 months later than their 'unlucky' counterparts. Wealth only increases well-being up to a point which is just above the line where your basic living needs are met. From that point on: money cannot buy you happiness. Indeed, it appears luxuries are not considered as such by the rich: they are just constants that do not contribute to increased well-being. Same goes for spending money on material items as opposed to something experiential like a movie or play or music or a meal with friends or family; the latter always wins out in terms of positive affect longevity (feeling good for longer).
Everyone fairs better in a more equal society- the rich and the poor. The ways in which this functions are multi-layered and under the surface. When monkeys are kept in a hierarchical environment, those at the bottom self-medicate with more cocaine; a caste gap opens in the performance of Hindu children when they have to announce their caste before exams; the stress hormone, cortisol, rises most when people face the evaluation of others; and so on. The result is always the same: fear of falling foul of the wealth gap gets under everyone's skin by making them anxious about their status.
This kind sense of inequality as illness is a wide-known fact in social psychological and population health spheres. Rich Blacks in the US suffer from cardiac disease and mortality than equally matched African counterparts or even lower socio-economic status blacks in the US presumably due to increased stress and being discriminated against in often insidious ways. This trend is the reverse for every other compared group e.g. white males and females show cardiac illness as inversely related to socioeconomic status (poor= more likely)
Illustrating equitable and practical governance, Sweden was the first country to make the selling of sex legal but the purchase illegal. So far, this has had an overwhelming influence on decreasing prostitution: the number of Johns have fallen by 80%, former sex workers, 60% have moved on to another vocation, and the trafficking of sex workers into the country is almost nil. How could this be such a success? The corresponding legislation was passed in 1999, when almost half of all seats in Parliament were held by women. To account for this, one needs to look at history- which will be discussed in an upcoming post with the input of Archaeologist and Viking historian extraordinaire, MAJA!
I won't try to explain the theory anymore but rather encourage you to buy/borrow/share the book and watch the following clips from Richard Wilkinson.
Guardian Review - Read
The root of every social problem: Interview - Read
Wilkinson Inequality snippet- Watch
I do have some hang-ups about the cohesiveness of the theory: the comparison of countries with categorically different cultural and historical make-ups, at times what seems to be cherry-picking of data and I suppose an overall incredulity that something so simple could be The Answer. Simple in the sense that it's so obvious so why didn't someone think of it sooner. Why didn't I think of it? I wish I had.
I will say that Japan, Finland, Norway and Sweden are all culturally quite homogeneous as is their ethnic make-up. Some of these nations also have a history of presumed superiority- I'll let you figure out my reasoning there. Also, could there be a third variable accounting for all of this? Is it that the value of equality is inherently related to something like, oh, cultural values and the conformity to these values. Not that this is a bad thing.
Suicide and smoking are the only stand-outs, predicted to be from violence directed towards the self instead of simply scape-goating. I would also claim this stems from the pressure for social comparison based on conformity to contained means of expression. People from Japan and Nordic countries are less emotive outwardly and tend towards more neutral responses on surveys from cross-cultural research. In Sweden they had some amazingly controversial art and theater so I suppose this is an accepted form of expression. They are the third largest exporter of music behind the States and the UK. ABBA. I'll leave that there.
On a somewhat related note:
Hearing of the discomforting news that Harper, his Oiliness, is looking at a potential majority back in Canada, I hope that voters and politicians alike look to empirically-based best practice and start using their heads. Many nations want a piece of Canada with all her precious natural resources (namely being oil) especially in light of the non-movement of tensions in the Middle East. Let us not succumb to the lure of big bills (Alberta, ahem...)
Speaking of which, never underestimate the conservative propaganda machine. Their newest tactic is a spoof site called Republicans for Ignatieff. One can only dream of a day when the policies come first and politicians promote the greater values of Canadians like respect for diversity, education, inclusion, etc. from far and wide through actual platforms that take a firm stance as opposed to the cyclical callous finger-pointing and political hard-balling of today's abysmal election campaigns (run-on sentence necessary for that one, apologies).
I'm envisioning a reformation and re-branding of the Liberal party with an assertive, slightly lower-voiced Justin Trudeau at the helm. No longer will we be subjected to identity politics and a true ideological stance will be our guiding light. There will be a great uprising as seen with our southern cousins, where people of all walks of life shake free from the protective veil of apathy and indifference produced from the current Conservative rhetoric and Liberal impotence, actually get their hopes up and mark that box to solidify their choice of a Representative: someone who would fight for the equality of all Canadians, returning Canada to the honored status it once held on the International stage. Let a kid dream.
