TheNewTopical.com - current events, politics, culture, ethics, economics discussion forum  

Go Back   TheNewTopical.com - current events, politics, culture, ethics, economics discussion forum » Main Forum » Politics

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 14-08-10, 08:48 AM
Zichao's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9,038
Default The Spirit Level: how 'ideas wreckers' turned book into political punchbag

The Spirit Level: how 'ideas wreckers' turned book into political punchbag | Books | The Guardian

Quote:
It was an idea that seemed to unite the political classes. Everyone from David Cameron to Labour leadership candidates Ed and David Miliband have embraced a book by a pair of low-profile North Yorkshire social scientists called The Spirit Level.

Their 274-page book, a mix of "eureka!" insights and statistical analysis, makes the arresting claim that income inequality is the root of pretty much every social ill - murder, obesity, teenage pregnancy, depression. Inequality even limits life expectancy itself, they said.

The killer line for politicians seeking to attract swing voters was that greater equality is not just better for the poor but for the middle classes and the rich too.

Its authors, Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, proclaimed their work a new kind of "evidence-based politics" and it has sold 36,000 copies in the UK, more than Barack Obama's Change We Can Believe In.

Cameron quoted the book in a pre-election address envisioning the "big society", the former Labour foreign secretary Jack Straw took it on holiday and Michael Gove, the education secretary, said it was "a fantastic analysis".

For a book which concludes that either taxes must rise on the rich or their incomes must fall to increase equality, it was an astonishing level of cross-party support.

But this summer, something has snapped and if The Spirit Level were a punchbag, the stuffing would be coming out at the seams. A posse of rightwing institutes has laid into the work with a wave of brutal attacks.

Professor Wilkinson has admitted that an idea he hoped would escape the "leftwing ghetto" to transcend party politics and make Britain a happier, less-divided, more sociable, healthier and safer place has been made unpalatable for Conservatives by "wreckers" from the right.

Following George Osborne's June budget, which warned of spending cuts so deep most observers are resigned to growing income inequality, a pair of the Conservative party's favourite thinktanks took aim.

With the success of the cuts programme so important to the government's credibility, The Spirit Level's argument that any increase in inequality means more crime, poorer education, more disease and violence was a dangerous idea to let stand.

So on 7 July, the Taxpayers Alliance, a campaign group for lower taxes and lower spending which is also bankrolled by wealthy Conservative donors, branded the book "flimsy" and issued a damning report.

"On almost no measure does the central claim of the Spirit Level, that income inequality decreases life expectancy, stand up to scrutiny," said Matthew Sinclair, TPA research director. "In some area the authors appear to be promoting utterly absurd ideas."

Just 24 hours later Policy Exchange, often described as Cameron's favourite thinktank, weighed in with its own 123-page assault called Beware False Prophets.

Its author, sociologist Peter Saunders, said The Spirit Level could "contaminate an important area of political debate with wonky statistics and spurious correlations ... Very little of Wilkinson and Pickett's statistical evidence actually stands up, and their causal argument is full of holes".

Wilkinson, an experienced academic with professorships at the universities of Nottingham, London and York, branded Saunders's attack "a hatchet job" and his analysis of the effect of ethnicity "racist", a charge denied by Saunders.

Right wing columnists weighed in too. This week Toby Young called it "junk food for the brain" in the Spectator. Ed West, in the Daily Telegraph, said "the real agenda is massive government expansion".

Wilkinson was shocked by what he believes is part of a worrying trend in political discourse, also happening in the US, where a few people, often attached to right wing institutes, have set themselves up as professional wreckers of ideas.

"Do they even believe what they are saying?" he said today. "I suppose it doesn't matter if their claims are right or wrong; it is about sowing doubt in people's minds."

The authors fear the attacks have scuppered any chance of removing the inequality debate "from the left wing ghetto".

Wilkinson said: "It is now something for the left and we would rather have avoided that. People on the right will feel relieved knowing they don't have to treat this seriously and will be happy to know it has been rubbished."

The Taxpayers Alliance said it knew about the imminent Policy Exchange report, but denies acting in concert with its fellow thinktank. But the two reports taken with the 170-page Spirit Level Delusion, published in May by writer Christopher Snowdon with the Democracy Institute, a rightwing thinktank in Washington DC, meant Wilkinson and Pickett were on the ropes.

Snowdon said he spent six months drafting his attack on the Spirit Level after he "realised it was influential and informing debate" and because he believes it is fundamentally flawed.

He does not believe that The Spirit Level's claim that the psychological effects on society of income inequality are so great to cause widespread social ills. "I don't think people outside the intelligensia worry about inequality," Snowdon said. "The working class don't worry about how much Wayne Rooney is earning."

The attacks challenge the Spirit Level's interpretation and selection of statistics in concluding the causal link between inequality and social ills and dispute Wilkinson and Pickett's dismissal of other factors, including race and culture, as possible explanations for the relationship.

As Labour enters the autumn conference season searching for a big idea, as well as a leader to unite around, Wilkinson retains hope that his idea could still shape the Labour leadership campaign. Gordon Brown cancelled two invitations for Wilkinson and Pickett to explain their findings to the Cabinet at the end of last year and again in January, but David Miliband, the favourite to become the Labour leader, is a fan.

"The moral case against unjustified inequalities has always been strong, and motivated me and millions of others around the world," Miliband said. "What is arresting about Richard Wilkinson's work is his concern with a different argument – the self interest argument. It is in some ways counterintuitive. But it has profound implications."

Level headed
What the book says
The authors, Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, argue that most of the important health and social problems of the rich world are more common in unequal societies. Using data from 23 rich countries and 50 US states, they found problems are anything from three to 10 times as common in more unequal societies. Again and again, the Scandinavian countries and Japan are at one end of the scale as the most equal, while the US, UK and Australia are at the other.

A key explanation is the psychological impact of inequality which, they say, causes stress and anxiety. For example, maths and literacy scores are lower in more unequal countries, affected by the issues of health, anxiety and depression and consequent drug and alcohol use. The way parents react to relative poverty also affects the way they treat their children, affecting education.

Violence rises in more unequal societies too. Following psychological studies that say men have an incentive to achieve as high a status as possible because their sexual competitiveness depends on it, the authors explain that men use violence when their status is threatened, and more so when there is little status to defend. "The association between inequality and violence is strong and consistent. The evolutionary importance of shame and humiliation provides a plausible explanation of why more unequal societies suffer more violence." Suicide is the only social ill that increases in more equal societies, they say.

Crucially, the authors argue that the evidence shows that all levels of society benefit from more equality, not just the poorest. On health, "at almost any level of income, it's better to live in a more equal place". Whether rich or poor, inequality causes stress, which causes biological reactions that put pressure on the body and increase illness.

Arguably the most profound conclusion is that economic growth among rich countries has finished its work because it is no longer increasing life expectancy and the only way to do that is to better share the wealth we have.

In its most simple terms, the book yearns for society to celebrate humankind's ability to co-operate and support one another. Are we fighters – which increases inequality? Or are we lovers? The authors say we don't have to see society, as the philosopher Hobbes saw it, as naturally in conflict – "every man against every man" – owing to rivalry for scarce resources.

Instead, "human beings have a unique potential to be each other's best source of co-operation, learning, love and assistance of every kind".
__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 14-08-10, 11:12 AM
Benjamin's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: SW Ohio, USA
Posts: 1,312
Default

Quote:
Wilkinson said: "It is now something for the left and we would rather have avoided that. People on the right will feel relieved knowing they don't have to treat this seriously and will be happy to know it has been rubbished."
How poliotical branding works in a nutshell. The idea is not to rigorously challenge the ideas. Possibly the actual papers do this, but we get none of that in this precis. What is reported here is that right wing intellectual authorities have called 'The Spirit Level' some names. Thoese quoted include "flimsy," "utterly absurd ideas," and the product of "False prophets." Then there's ""junk food for the brain."

There is some cause for caution, though. Perrhaps the right wing critics do have substantial criticisms. They may even be so substantial that they begin to justify the level of invective quoted. I may be that this article has an agenda to 'rubish the rubishers,' and so does not present their ideas fairly. But I do believe that whether there is substance behind the attacks or not, it is fair to say that the branding of the ideas as 'lefty' and 'ungood' will be quite enough in and of itself to cue most of those who identify with the right to reject it with no further thought.
__________________
"Neither man nor nation can exist without a sublime idea."
Fyodor Dostoyevsky, 1821 - 1881
QOTD

My BLOG: Things Have Changed
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 14-08-10, 11:27 AM
Zichao's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9,038
Default

What interested me was the assumption that we want to reduce social ills - the book's claim to be cross-partisan depends on it after all, but it's still basically a pretty left-wing assumption. Who couldn't possibly want the state to make us all happy etc.? The whole book's based on the foundation that no reasonable person could ever disagree with the aims that it sets itself.

PMP made the point in another thread that "every winner needs a loser". Greater equality reduces the pain of failing, but it also makes it far more difficult to win big, so you end up with society as a human zoo run by the government - no danger, but very boring.
__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 17-08-10, 11:47 AM
contracycle's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,150
Default

Originally Posted by Zichao View Post
Who couldn't possibly want the state to make us all happy etc.?
If the state is our representative, what else should it be doing? Obviously it should be working for our benefit.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 17-08-10, 11:51 AM
Zichao's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9,038
Default

But things that would make me happy would make other citizens unhappy. How does it receoncile that?
__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 17-08-10, 11:53 AM
contracycle's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,150
Default

By voting.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 17-08-10, 11:59 AM
Zichao's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9,038
Default

What if people vote for the state to mind its own business?
__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 17-08-10, 12:01 PM
contracycle's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,150
Default

Then of course that would be perfectly valid. Although of course there may well be differences in opinion on what its business actually is.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 17-08-10, 02:05 PM
insignificant data point
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,799
Default

Quote:
PMP made the point in another thread that "every winner needs a loser". Greater equality reduces the pain of failing, but it also makes it far more difficult to win big
What a load of crap.

It is certainly true in football, boxing and cricket, although the traditional cricket test structure meant that often a game would be a draw: neither embarrassing winners by seeming to claim that they were better than their opponents and not knowing what to say to them, nor embarrassing losers by an insinuation that somehow they were lesser than the winners.

Leaving aside the quintessential English tactic for avoiding a zero-sum game ever having to have a winner and a loser, there is a huge variety of endeavours that are not zero sum: where the fact that the winner wins fails to produce an equivalent loss in a loser (and in some cases it is difficult to identify any losers at all).

When Apple introduced the Apple II in 1977 it sold between five and six million machines before the series was discontinued in 1993. How many losers were there from that?
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 17-08-10, 03:02 PM
Zichao's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9,038
Default

I never claimed that it was necessarily a zero sum game (how on earth would you measure the relative success of every single person in a society?), just that success is defined by failure. There's something in one of Scott Adams books that points out that the difference between past societies and the one we have now is something like

Difference in happiness level (not eaten by wolves/eaten by wolves) > difference in happiness level (new tv/no new tv)
__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.
Reply With Quote
Reply


(View-All Members who have read this thread : 11
AnonymousIdiotSavant, bateman, Benjamin, contracycle, FredFredson, Gilles de Rais, guangyan, Jayne B, LiberalNation, roadkill, Zichao
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0