Oliver James has a fascinating piece in the Guardian today to coincide with the publication of his book "Selfish Capitalism". I've not read that yet, but I have read his previous book, Affluenza, and recommend it.
As he says of his new book:
By far the most significant consequence of "selfish capitalism" (Thatch/Blatcherism) has been a startling increase in the incidence of mental illness in both children and adults since the 1970s.
As I report in my book, The Selfish Capitalist - Origins of Affluenza, World Health Organisation and nationally representative studies in the United States, Britain and Australia, reveal that it almost doubled between the early 80s and the turn of the century. These increases are very unlikely to be due to greater preparedness to acknowledge distress - the psychobabbling therapy culture was already established.
Add to this the astonishing fact that citizens of Selfish Capitalist, English-speaking nations (which tend to be one and the same) are twice as likely to suffer mental illness as those from mainland western Europe, which is largely Unselfish Capitalist in its political economy. An average 23% of Americans, Britons, Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians suffered in the last 12 months, but only 11.5% of Germans, Italians, French, Belgians, Spaniards and Dutch. The message could not be clearer. Selfish Capitalism, much more than genes, is extremely bad for your mental health. But why is it so toxic?
As he goes on to note:
Readers .. will need little reminding that Selfish Capitalism has massively increased the wealth of the wealthy, robbing the average earner to give to the rich. There was no "trickle-down effect" after all.
The real wage of the average English-speaking person has remained the same - or, in the case of the US, decreased - since the 1970s. By more than halving the taxes of the richest and transferring the burden to the general population, Margaret Thatcher reinstated the rich's capital wealth after three postwar decades in which they had steadily become poorer.
His diagnosis is:
What does the damage is the combination of inequality with the widespread relative materialism of Affluenza - placing a high value on money, possessions, appearances and fame when you already have enough income to meet your fundamental psychological needs. Survival materialism is healthy. If you need money for medicine or to buy a house, becoming very concerned about getting them does not make you mentally ill.
But Selfish Capitalism stokes up relative materialism: unrealistic aspirations and the expectation that they can be fulfilled. It does so to stimulate consumerism in order to increase profits and promote short-term economic growth. Indeed, I maintain that high levels of mental illness are essential to Selfish Capitalism, because needy, miserable people make greedy consumers and can be more easily suckered into perfectionist, competitive workaholism.
As he say:
We desperately need a passionate, charismatic, probably female leader who advocates the Unselfish Capitalism of our neighbours. The pitch is simple. Not only would reduced consumerism and greater equality make us more ecologically sustainable, it would halve the prevalence of mental illness within a generation.
I agree.
The Right Wing are of course out in force on the Guardian web site trying to rubbish what Oliver James has to say, largely using the facts of increased material well being. All of which shows they can count but know nothing of value, and that they can't or aren't willing to read James' article.
That article does of course exclude argument for one obvious policy we must commit to if we are to see increased well-being in the English speaking developed world, and that is progressive taxation, something we do not have at present.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
[…] up the publication of Oliver James’ new book ‘Selfish Capitalism’ (about which I wrote here), the FT has reported […]
There’s a good post on the link between Selfish Capitalism (neoliberalism) and mnetal illness at http://k-punk.abstractdynamics.org/archives/005660.html – might be a bit heavy on the Marxist theory for some readers here, but fascinating stuff.
Forgive my ignorance – I have not read the book either – but is this guy seriously basing a causal argument on a *correlation* between capitalism and mental illness? Indeed – he actually acknowledges the fact that a causal relation (if one exists) can actually run the other way: “I maintain that high levels of mental illness are essential to Selfish Capitalism”. Moreover, he simply dismisses the role of a potential alternative causal factor (preparedness to admit distress) as “unlikely”. I do hope he has some longitudinal evidence on which to base his case, otherwise the book won’t be worth the paper it is written on. I am quite surprised that you say that you agree, Richard, having not read it yourself.
http://k-punk.abstractdynamics.org/archives/005660.html
– interesting yes, but again no evidence for a causal connection.
Chris
I suggest this ‘guy’ has more credibility than you imagine – sometimes Oxford undergrads don’t know it all.
And I’d also suggest you willingly misread what he said when quoting him. What he is actually saying is that Selfish Capitalists require the creation of high levels of metal illness to maintain their own poisitions – which is not at all what you have chosen to read into his comment.
And he did address the issue of the alternative of higher rates of diagnosis as an explanatory cause – by explicitly stating that he was using data from the 1980’s onwards where this trend is not significant.
So why do I agree? Because a) his previous book is plausible and b) I agree with his hypothesis. But most tellingly, it accords with the day to day descriptions of mental ill health linked to economic pverty that my wife relates (without of course indetifying patients) arising from her work as a GP.
Richard
I hope you don’t mind me posting this on your blog, but I am from Oliver James’s publishers and thought you may be interested to know that Oliver will be hosting a series of seminars in London this month where he will discuss both Selfish Capitalism and Affluenza. Details are on his website: http://www.selfishcapitalist.com/
Many thanks, Caroline
Richard,
To start, I would first like to say that I resent the fact that you have used the details of my email address to play on the common impression that Oxford undergraduates are full of themselves in an attempt to undermine my argument. You use these details to identify me to a greater degree than I wished, despite the fact that your website states that you will not share the details of email addresses. In any case, let us move onto the issue at hand.
First, I accept that I have misunderstood what was stated with regards to the quote I made.
Second, I don’t recall any details about the non-significance of the increased tendency to acknowledge distress. The fact that “the psychobabbling therapy culture was already established” should not be used to dismiss the possibility that increased willingness to acknowledge distress is responsible for the increased incidence of mental illness. Even if the trend was established before 1980, surely it is possible for it to become progressively stronger as more and more people accept that mental illness is common and should cause no more shame than physical illness. However even if we were to accept the fact that “the psychobabbling therapy culture was already established” as evidence against the idea that this trend is responsible for the increase in mental illness post 1980, disproving one potential causal factor does not provide support for another. The fact remains that the evidence in support of his argument is correlational.
Third, the fact that your wife has noted a connection between economic poverty and mental illness is also weak with regards to the hypothesis under discussion. Economic poverty may well be a risk factor for mental illness and so increased economic poverty may well be a contributory factor to the increase in mental illness. Indeed it may well be responsible for the link your wife has observed. But at the same time, mental illness is also likely to contribute to economic poverty because it undermines employability. Furthermore, there are myriad other risk factors for mental illness including genetics and substance abuse. So the fact that this correlation exists tells us little about the direction of causation, let alone the significance of economic poverty as a risk factor. I am not suggesting that it plays no part whatsoever — I do not have the evidence to support such a statement. What I am suggesting is that the claim that it is a major risk factor, one that is more important than genetics, is folly given the evidence presented.
You say that you agree with James’ argument because “a) his previous book is plausible and b) I agree with his hypothesis”. I would suggest that the plausibility of a hypothesis has little to do with its validity. Moreover, the fact that his previous book was plausible has little bearing on a new one. Your point b) isn’t really a point – just a restatement of your agreement.
I did not wish to pick a fight with you over this Richard. I was simply surprised to see you accept a proposal which seems, prima face, to be based in bad science. Like I stated to begin with, I have not read the book. There may be details within it which address my criticisms. But you have not read it either yet you readily accept its main sentiments. You are very good at picking apart peoples arguments, which is part of the reason I enjoy reading your blog. Yet this time you were quite willing to make a leap of faith in order to use this supposed connection in support of your case for progressive taxation. I have no quarrel with that case — merely with your leap in this instance.
Chris
Chris
Apologies for any offence caused. I did identify you (but has not on the site) because it placed your comments in context. Your latest comment does much the same.
No doubt you are being taught about “good science”. I was, many years ago. So let me say staright away that mental health, economics and (come to that) psychology and accountancy are not sciences. To seek to apply scientific method to them was one of the greatest errors of the late enlightenment.
Now don’t get me wrong: there’s nothing wrong with using statistics to provide evidential support for a hypotheisis in any of these areas. I do so myself in my own research work. But when doing so I also know that enormous leap of faith that this requires. I have to assume that the data I use is valid – and I know that financial statements are not reliable, for example. Then I have to do the stats properly, and that is by no means easy because this is a minefield. Last, I have to have correctly formed the hypothesis to test and have ensured using other evidence that it is plausible. As exmaple I well remember the example used when i was an undergraduate that showed a significant correlation between the number of storks present in Denmark and the birth rate. Of course, there was no real correlation at all.
So my point is that you are bing too narrowly focussed in your thinking. To use the vernacualr, seasoned practitioners in all these fields work ‘outside the box’. They use hunches as much as they use evidence. And that’s fine.
It was in economics, for example, before WW2. Look at Keynes and his General Theory. This i not a book using evidential support or correlation as the basis of his argument. It’s actually explanation of his hunch, to put it unsubtly.
So, my point is this. Observational data is valid. I’d go further. Observational data from seasoned, thinking practitioners with the expereince to appraise that data is more important than ‘good science’. ‘Good science’ is merely accountancy in this sesne, and we all know that can only deal with what can be counted and attributes nothing to value.
By all means write what your examiners require. But please be aware that there is more to forming a hypothesis than crunching the numbers, even if numbers that support a hypothesis do constitute useful supporting evidence, for journalists if no one else.
Richard
Richard,
I am well aware that there is “more to forming a hypothesis than crunching the numbers”. But this is a step away from presenting that hypothesis as fact. James simply presents correlations then states that “The message could not be clearer. Selfish Capitalism, much more than genes, *is* extremely bad for your mental health. But why is it so toxic?” [emphasis added]. He is clearly claiming that these correlations prove his case (that there is a causal relation between selfish capitalism and mental illness, with the former causing the latter). This is bad science. It is all fine and well to say that hunches are important. I agree entirely. But something should not be presented as fact when it has no supporting evidence (again I stress that the correlations stated cannot be used as evidence for a causal relation, let alone a causal relation in a particular direction). James should make it clear that what he is writing is based on a hunch.
I would also stress again for anyone else reading that I have not read the book in question. There may be evidence contained within it that addresses these criticisms. Although I have a ‘hunch’ that there isn’t, given that promotional articles of this kind typically present only the strongest evidence due to space limitations.
Chris
Chris
I think you over state your case when you say there is ‘no supporting evidence’.
There is supporting evidence. You question its interpretation. That is something quite different.
Let us agree to differ.
Richard