Keith Payne is a professor of psychology at the
University of North Carolina whose specialty is the psychology of inequality
and discrimination. He has produced an
interesting and enlightening book titled The Broken Ladder: How Inequality Affects the Way We Think, Live, and Die.
It is well-known that within
groups of members of a species there is a strong tendency to form a hierarchy. This is seen in animal species where the
hierarchy is clearly established and firm rules are enforced. Position on this hierarchical ladder has
important consequences. The higher the
position of a female the more likely she will get to mate with a powerful
male. Conversely, a male low on the
ladder may have little or no opportunity to mate with any female. Access to food might also be determined by
position within this hierarchical ladder.
Consequently, animals will be adept at weighing their positions relative
to those of others, and will be continually concerning themselves with issues
of fairness in order to make sure they are treated appropriately.
Humans are animals evolved from
species that do form hierarchical ladders, and it is likely that early human
groups spent much of their time with the same status worries as our ape
ancestors. While humans have evolved
their own unique properties over time, the tendency for human groups to form a
hierarchy is still present. All human
assemblies tend to arrive at a leader or a leadership group and a bunch of
followers. While precise hierarchical
levels tend to exist mainly in military organizations, all members of the
assembly will be conscious of their status and concerned that they are treated
fairly given their status.
Payne uses the symbol of a
ladder on which people project their assumed positions to illustrate inequality
and its consequences in human organizations.
He further concludes from psychological studies and from anthropological
arguments that humans are wired to continuously monitor their environment for
signs of status loss or status gain.
This activity is innate and usually takes place subconsciously.
“….no
one ever mentions something that we know to be true, both from scientific
studies and from simply being human: ‘I crave status’.”
“Others
might not acknowledge that, but we can certainly see it in their behavior. We can observe it in the clothes they buy, in
the houses they choose to live in, and the gifts they give. Above all we can perceive it in the
constantly shifting standards for what counts as ‘enough.’ If you have ever received a raise, only to
adapt to the new level of income in a few months and again begin to feel as
though you were still living paycheck to paycheck as before, then you can
experience it yourself. As your
accomplishments rise, so do your comparison standards. Unlike the rigid column of numbers that make
up a bank ledger, status is always a moving target, because it is defined by
ongoing comparisons to others.”
When asked to assess their
status by placing themselves on the rungs of a ladder, it becomes clear that
people view their status in ways that are only slightly related to the presumed
status markers of income, education and type of job. Rather, presumed status seems to depend on
how we compare ourselves to those we choose as peers.
“It is
true that, on average, people with higher incomes, more education, and more
prestigious jobs do rate themselves higher on the ladder. But the effect is relatively small. In a sample of, say, a thousand people, some
will rate themselves at the top, others will rate themselves at the bottom, and
many will be in between. But only about
20 percent of their self-evaluation is based on income, education, and job
status.”
“This
surprisingly small relationship between traditional markers of status and how
it is perceived subjectively means that there are a lot of people who are by
objective standards affluent and yet rate themselves on the lower rungs. Similarly, many people who are objectively
poor rate themselves high up the ladder.”
Poor persons can feel comfortable
with their status if their peers, to whom they compare themselves, are in
similar situations. On the other hand, a
mere millionaire who lives in a world of multimillionaires can experience the
stress normally associated with poverty.
That is an important concept to grasp.
“….inequality
is not the same thing as poverty, although it can feel an awful lot like it….Inequality
makes people feel poor and act poor, even when they’re not. Inequality so mimics poverty in our minds
that the United States of America, the richest and most unequal of countries,
has a lot of features that better resemble a developing nation than a
superpower.”
The health and longevity
problems that are associated with poverty have been well documented. What Payne is saying is that the same
problems arise for people who are not objectively poor, but who merely feel poor because they suffer a status
deficit.
“We
have to take subjective perceptions of status seriously, because they reveal so
much about people’s fates. If you place
yourself on a lower rung, then you are more likely in the coming years to
suffer from depression, anxiety, and chronic pain. The lower the rung you select, the more
probable it is that you will make bad decisions and underperform at work. The lower the rung you select, the more
likely you are to believe in the supernatural and in conspiracy theories. The lower the rung you select, the more prone
you are to weight issues, diabetes, and heart problems. The lower the rung you select, the fewer
years you have left to live.”
“Let me
be clear that I am not simply asserting that, if you are poor, then all of
these things are more likely to happen to you.
I am stating, rather, that these things are more likely to happen to you
if you feel poor, regardless of your
actual income.”
That is a rather startling
claim. Most of Payne’s book is concerned
with demonstrating that it is accurate.
We will cover only some of the data he uses to make his point.
In order to convince us that we
are status conscious animals who respond to status threatening situations,
Payne reminds us of what flying on commercial airliners is like.
“Airplanes
are microcosms of our world and the everyday anxieties we encounter there. We are thrown together with hundreds of
strangers, forced into a level of intimacy ordinarily reserved for loved ones
or professional colleagues. We are
crammed into a narrow metal tube, triggering our evolved fear of enclosed
spaces.”
“But
even more than the anxieties they provoke, there is another aspect of airplanes
that makes them a notable microcosm of life.
Airplanes are the physical embodiment of a status hierarchy. They are a social ladder made of aluminum and
upholstery in which the rungs are represented by rows, by boarding groups, and
by seating classes.”
The most glaring hierarchical
aspect of flying is the presence of a first class section with big comfortable
seats, free alcohol, and perhaps even warm food. To emphasize the status differences, coach
passengers must wait for first class to board and get comfortable. They then must pass through the first-class
section on the way to their cramped and crowded coach seats, taking in the
obvious differences in accommodations. A
pair of psychologists, Katherine DeCelles and Michael Norton, analyzed data
from millions of flights to see what factors might have played a role in triggering
incidents of air rage where a passenger becomes unruly.
“As
they discovered, the odds of an air rage incident were almost four times higher
in the coach section of a plane with a first-class cabin than in a plane that
did not have one. Other factors mattered
too, like flight delays. But the
presence of a first-class section raised the chances of a disturbance by the
same amount as a nine-and-a-half-hour delay.”
“But
about fifteen percent of flights board in the middle or at the back of the
plane, which spares the coach passengers this gauntlet. As predicted, air rage was about twice as
likely on flights that boarded at the front….”
Perhaps it would be interesting
to monitor your emotions the next time you trudge to your coach row through a
first-class section where they may already be enjoying the first of their
complimentary cocktails. And if you are
fortunate to be sitting in a first-class seat when the coach rabble pass
through, how do you respond? Do you make
eye contact? Do you smile? Or do you look away content in the sensation
that you have more important things to be concerned with than these people.
Among other effects of poverty
is a state of elevated stress. Excessive
time spent in a state of stress is not something the human body was designed to
withstand. It can lead to deleterious
health outcomes. If Payne is correct, then
people organized into well-defined status groups should show different levels
of health outcomes. It is well-known that
poverty plays a role and mortality rates are higher among the poor. Payne found an example of a well-defined status
hierarchy where income differences persisted but where poverty was eliminated
as an issue.
“We can
see this pattern even more clearly in data from a massive study of more than
ten thousand British Civil Service employees that has been in progress since
the 1960s. Her Majesty’s Civil Service
has an exquisitely detailed hierarchy with dozens of clearly defined job grades
from cabinet secretaries who report directly to the prime minister all the way
down to entry-level clerical jobs.
Physician Michael Marmot has found that each rung down the ladder is
associated with a shorter life span.”
“The
pattern is strikingly linear, so that even the difference between the highest-status
government officials and those just one rung below was linked to increased
mortality.”
“….the
subjects in this study all have decent government jobs and the salaries, health
insurance, pensions, and other benefits that are associated with them. If you thought that elevated mortality rates
were only a function of the desperately poor being unable to meet their basic
needs, this study would disprove that….”
Payne has claimed that
subjective social comparisons can lead to risky behavior, a tendency to make
bad decisions, and a shorter life span.
To elaborate on this point he discusses the recent findings of Ann Case
and Angus Deaton who noticed that the mortality rate for some classes of whites
has been increasing, in contrast to what is observed in minority populations in
this country and for all citizens in other wealthy nations.
“Since
the 1990s, the death rate for middle-aged white Americans has been rising. The increase is concentrated among men and
whites without a college degree. The
death rate for black Americans of the same age remains higher, but is trending
slowly downward, like that of all other minority groups.”
“The wounds
in this group seem to be largely self-inflicted….They are dying of cirrhosis of
the liver, suicide, and a cycle of chronic pain and overdoses of opiates and
painkillers.”
Payne asserts that the results
can be explained by a combination of these risky behaviors and the stress
associated with living in a state of “feeling poor.”
“The
trend itself is striking because it speaks to the power of subjective social
comparisons. This demographic group is
dying of violated expectations. Although
high school-educated whites make more money on average than similarly educated
blacks, the whites expect more because of their history of privilege. Widening income inequality and stagnant
social mobility, Case and Deaton suggest, mean that this generation is likely to
be the first in American history that is not more affluent than its parents.”
Humans spent most of their time
on earth living in small groups struggling to exist. There would be hierarchy in this society, but
with little wealth the span of inequality would be small. That could also mean that humans would have
become sensitized to minor slights in their presumed status. With the historical era in which agriculture
allowed greater accumulations of wealth, inequality would have grown. In our current era the gap between the
wealthiest and the average person has become stupendously large. Payne has argued that not only is inequality
growth being driven by economic dynamics, but the response to growing
inequality leads to destructive behaviors that actually contribute to even
greater inequality.
Inequality breeds
inequality? If you weren’t worried about
this issue before, perhaps now is the time to get on it.
No comments:
Post a Comment