Richard North has a terrific review of the book “Affluenza” by Oliver James. Even reading the cover of this book while browsing through a Waterstone’s shop the other day, I could tell that a book called “Affluenza” was bound to trot out the argument that we comfortably-off westerners were being ruined by too much of a good thing. Flumoxxed by thousands of choices of toothpaste, CDs, breakfast cereals, cars, wallpapers, books, foreign holidays and designer clothes, we just cannot cope. All this stuff, all this wealth, is crippling us.
North will have none of it:
The book’s macro case – the case it makes about society and economics – is that “selfish capitalism” is bad for the middle class (it makes them greedy and nasty). It insists that there is a powerful correlation between a nation’s mental distress and the selfishness of its capitalism. James seeks to substantiate this case by asserting that a “definitive WHO study” and “14 national studies” rank mental ill health in just the way he’d like, and that they prove the more orientated toward affluence people are, the more miserable they are. That is: the Anglosphere is sickest and everywhere else is healthier.
Well, since “selfishness” is often a pejorative way of saying that people wish to be happy and prefer to breathe and have a good time rather than be miserable, I usually automatically tune out criticisms of capitalism on the grounds that it fosters selfishness. Even if one is not a great admirer of the late novelist Ayn Rand, I think it is fair to credit her with re-connecting with the old Aristotelian tradition in pointing out that happiness, enjoyment of the material things of life can and do go hand in hand with virtue and goodness. Well all is said and done, when a collectivist/socialist/fascist/some other bully attacks liberalism for “selfishness”, what they are really demanding is that we live our lives according to their – selfish – desires for a particular utopia.
It happens that even by his own data, the ordering of non-Anglosphere countries rather messes up his case. It is boring but important to note that he uses a crude measure for the “selfishness” of countries’ capitalism: he ranks them by inequality. But some quite unequal countries (the UK amongst them) have strong welfare states and high taxation, and others (the US amongst them) don’t. So linking the UK and US as coevals in “Selfish Capitalism” is at best odd.
This paragraph drills down into the roots of the matter:
The book isn’t completely silly, but it is very nearly so. Cutting James some slack, one warms to his noting that modern young people seem prone to being up their own bums. They are victims of self-obsession. Some of this indeed looks like affluenza. True, the modern middle class young do overly prize their high standard of living, if their delayed parenthood and their determination to abandon their toddlers to professional carers are anything to go by. But much of what ails them has much less to do with affluence than commentators like James suppose.
Well, I suppose some of the self-obsession of the present and previous generation may grate, but I sometimes wonder whether the “Me” Generation was such a bad thing. Let’s face it, if people spend more of their time focusing on their own happiness and the happiness of their loved ones, they will have less time and inclination to get swept up in utopian political movements that urge sacrifice and praise violence. In fact, if we all focused on our own happiness, and rationally sought to attain it, we’d all be a lot better off. So might Oliver James, come to think of it.
Is the book free. If not, why not?
Well, all this affluence isn’t crippling me. I wonder if Oliver James who is undoubtedly suffering from much more serious affluenza than me would fancy swapping houses and incomes?
We’ve got our heap and we’re kicking away the ladder and, oh by the way, we are now your superiors and you must listen to us for we have wisdom for you awful little proles.
Exactly what I was thinking dearieme .
Even before I opened up the comments section, I felt like asking why James doesn’t sell his book for nothing, or even pay people to read his book, seeing as losing money is a good thing and having it makes us all mentally distressed.
Oh wait.. I see, whats good for him is not for us. Only the intellectually elite should aspire for wealth. For the rest of us sheeple, its all too confusing.
The link between Mind and Social / Environmental-Issues.
The fast-paced, consumerist lifestyle of Industrial Society is causing exponential rise in psychological problems besides destroying the environment. All issues are interlinked. Our Minds cannot be peaceful when attention-spans are down to nanoseconds, microseconds and milliseconds. Our Minds cannot be peaceful if we destroy Nature.
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment.
Subject : In a fast society slow emotions become extinct.
Subject : A thinking mind cannot feel.
Subject : Scientific/ Industrial/ Financial thinking destroys the planet.
Emotion is what we experience during gaps in our thinking.
If there are no gaps there is no emotion.
Today people are thinking all the time and are mistaking thought (words/ language) for emotion.
When society switches-over from physical work (agriculture) to mental work (scientific/ industrial/ financial/ fast visuals/ fast words ) the speed of thinking keeps on accelerating and the gaps between thinking go on decreasing.
There comes a time when there are almost no gaps.
People become incapable of experiencing/ tolerating gaps.
Emotion ends.
Man becomes machine.
A society that speeds up mentally experiences every mental slowing-down as Depression / Anxiety.
A ( travelling )society that speeds up physically experiences every physical slowing-down as Depression / Anxiety.
A society that entertains itself daily experiences every non-entertaining moment as Depression / Anxiety.
FAST VISUALS /WORDS MAKE SLOW EMOTIONS EXTINCT.
SCIENTIFIC /INDUSTRIAL /FINANCIAL THINKING DESTROYS EMOTIONAL CIRCUITS.
A FAST (LARGE) SOCIETY CANNOT FEEL PAIN / REMORSE / EMPATHY.
A FAST (LARGE) SOCIETY WILL ALWAYS BE CRUEL TO ANIMALS/ TREES/ AIR/ WATER/ LAND AND TO ITSELF.
To read the complete article please follow either of these links :
http://www.planetsave.com/ps_mambo/index.php?option=com_simpleboard&Itemid=75&func=view&id=68&catid=6
http://www.earthnewswire.com/index.php?option=com_forum&Itemid=89&page=viewtopic&t=11
sushil_yadav
I dunno. I personally feel there is some truth to the claim that the sheer ease of modern living has dulled the senses and sensibilities of many, many people.
Witness the slow encroachment of rights and freedoms by states all over the world. Some of it(certainly not all) may be attributed to the fact that people are so comfortable that they just could not give a damn.
Another point is the unwillingness to endure hardship, and putting off a moment of agony now even when it might mean avoiding greater pains in the future(Re: Medicare?). Just look at the pork in government budgets!
It’s not just happiness that’s important. It’s just as important, or even more important, to know why and how we’re currently so happy. And in our pursuit of happyness, we’ve forgotten the latter criteria.
The Wobbly Guy
And I am supposed to think that is a bad thing? I assure you I will be the first on my block to get a neural implant controller, brain coprocessor and nano-bots swimming around in my blood as soon as they come on the market (second thoughts, probably as soon as they release version 2.1 of said products)!
But I have got to tell you Sushil, the thing that really makes me laugh is the notion that back in the (quite recent) days when that we had to worry about starving to death because we are one bad harvest from famine or one travelling tinker away from an outbreak of bubonic plague, people were LESS stressed and unhappy than now. You really think so? Well I suppose it is possible provided you file that under ‘ignorance is bliss’ syndrome. Typhoid… now that’s really getting back to nature.
OK, I admit that life is not a bed of roses in post industrial society… those wicked capitalists have given me thirty different types of breakfast cereal to choose from and Windows XP still craps out far too often. Oh the humanity! Oh for the good old days of endemic intestinal worms and poop covered fields!
Please, get a grip.
This is my first comment to Samizdata. I made it! I felt I had to comment on ‘Communist-Socialist-fascist other type of bully’. Why not just call them all Centralists? I think of myself as an Excentric, an exceptional eccentric. After all, libertarian gets confused with libertine, but eccentrics are always lovable! And all us nonconformistos should have at least one symbol recognised everywhere. Why not a circle with an ‘X’ through it? Excluding the world from your world, that sort of thing. This symbol is easy to draw, it is symmetrical, and its’ symbolism is easy to understand. If put on a banner or flag, the background should be royal purple, as we hope to be monarchs over whatever we own.
Sushil,
Are all emotions slow and all thoughts fast? Is total reliance upon emotion a good thing? Reason and rational behavior (i.e., industrial and scientific thought processes) are wrong?
You seem to imply that a reliance upon instinct is the best possible world for mankind , or that physical labor in an agrarian society the best form of social organization. Which begs the question, who gets to be Pharoah?
Nicholas Gray – a “circle with an X through it”? Marvel Comics might be distressed at you for using their X-Men logo ….
Dr. Ellen, We could put a grid pattern in the circle, so that it is clearly the U.N. symbol, and still have the ‘X’. In the Xmen movies, I just remember an ‘X’ on their uniforms- no circle. Or we could go for the ‘Bullseye’ look, with an ‘X’.
Anything which suggests getting rid of a concentric arrangement would be a good symbol. Instead of just criticising, can you suggest something else?
Nicholas, welcome to the threads. “Centralist” is quite a nice term but does not quite fit because it is a bit vague for my liking.
Wobbly: the examples you cite refer to government programmes in which parts of the electorate delude themselves into thinking that they can spend other persons’ money and not be affected themselves. As the late Dr Friedman said, it is so easy spending other people’s money.
When I speak of selfishness in the sense that Rand did, I mean the pursuit of happiness in the long term, with the full use of one’s rational faculties. Such a pursuit will involve a commitment to doing things that do not appear to have a short-term payoff, such as studying hard in school, practising a skill, saving money rather than spending it in flash clothes, and so on. But the end result is more fun, more fulfilment.
Of course, if people really find material abundance stifling or boring then there is nothing to prevent them from quitting their day jobs, flogging off their property and going to live in a commune and talk to trees all day. One of the great things about prosperous western societies is that it has allowed the spoiled rich kids among us to do just that.
The problem starts when they demand laws and taxes to back up their neuroses. That is when I want to reach for a .44.
Might it not be that middle class people and the wealthy have so much wealth and time available that they spend it worrying about their lives, and this produces the anxiety and stress? You can’t be diagnosed with an anxiety or stress condition unless you go visit a GP, psychiatrist or psychologist. Even for those from lower socioeconomic means have greater access to healthcare. If some do-gooder stopped you in the welfare office and asked you whether you find it stressful being unemployed when all around you is wealth, you may be inclined to feel sorry for yourself.
Life is difficult, stressful and full of anxiety, it always has been and always will be. Overcoming these difficulties is what makes life rewarding. These do-gooders want to eliminate the human condition and have us all live like free range livestock. Not for me thanks.
Thanks, Johnathon. I use centralist because the symbol I described would be a good, anti-state symbol, as the UN is the ultimate symbol of a centrally-controlled society. It’s not as powerful as it would like to be, but it hopes to get more powers, just like all governments. Therefore, what else can I be but excentric? Perhaps the sign could be changed to look more like a target in a rifle’s crosshairs, and we’re hunting Leviathan. It’s always Leviathan hunting season!!!
About anxiety and stress: (as Perry said)
It is better to suffer from anxiety and stress caused by affluence, than from the one caused by poverty and hunger.
But I don’t know what people are talking about. I’m not suffering from any anxiety or stress. Could it be that’s because I’m not affluent enough ? Maybe I must try harder to get rich… Maybe I’m not modern enough, or postmodern ….
He who dies with the most stuff wins right? This book in question and the twit that authored being wheeled all over is just a sad representation of the anti-globo/capitalist/envirofascist left. They are now trying to convince us that capitalalism and consumerism is bad for us.
Ironically considering it is coming from mostly secularists it apes all the bollocks that eminates from materialist-hating religious types.
As far as I am concerned if you don’t like materialism or consumerism sod off to a commune or a truly socialist country like Cuba. Leave the rest of us to get on with it and not have to listen to your constant bleating.
I heard this prawn being interviewed on Five Live a couple of weeks ago, and could not believe how facile his arguments were. He was very pleased with himself for having found out that Danes are allegedly happier than Brits, and that Danes have confiscatory levels of direct taxation. Quicker than you can say “post hoc ergo prompter hoc” this tit seems to have constructed an entire thesis out of this information.
The best part of his interview was when he expressed outrage that an ad agency had somehow tried to “buy his personality” by attempting to pay him £100,000 to front an ad campaign for a car manufacturer. He had of course rejected this insulting offer, because it wasn’t enough, no sorry, because his “personality is not for sale” and commerce is icky. Quite why any ad executive who had not just snorted the entire annual exports of Columbia would have thought that having this charmless prat fronting an ad campaign would move a single unit is beyond me, and I sincerely hope that the clients find out and fire the stupid buggers.
Can someone please find me an obscure language wherein “Oliver James” is an anagram of “self-satisfied pompous twat”?
I wonder what this “capitalism” is supposed to be. After all if the United Kingdon (a country where more than 40% of the economy is taken up by government spending and what is left is controlled by a vast web of regulations) is “capitalism” then this system can not have much in common with free enterprise (civil interaction – whether for cash profit, or what the Austrian school once called “psychic profit” although the term sounds a bit odd to me, although I can understand that the results of someone engaging in voluntary [civil] interaction are not always measured in terms of money).
As for “being rich makes you obsessed with money” one could, like Aristotle, take the view that being poor can lead to a person bing obsessed with money and not capable of calm reflection (because of fear – “how can I get a job”, “how can I look after my family”, “what do I do if any of us become ill”, “what will happen to me when I become old” and so on).
For myself, I am certain that if I had a lot of money I would think about money much less than I do now.
Of course an obsession with making money can be a sign of mental illness, but so can a obsession with milk bottle tops.
I suppose the question that could be being raised is “what does one build a business for”. Is it just a matter of getting lots of gold (assuming a society where money is not a fiat money credit bubble) or some other rare commodity, or is building up a honest enterprise a noble thing in-its-self.
I hold that the latter view is correct. For example, that J.J. Hill’s “Great Northern” railroad was a great achievement – because of things in enabled people to do.
Perry,
Perhaps those peasants of yore were less “stressed” because they knew life would be nasty, brutish and short with practically no real possibility of personal advancement.
Perhaps we’re more “stressed” because though we have the possibility (even probability) of pleasant, affluent lives with the capacity to do things undreamed of back then there is always the chance of things going horribly wrong.
The possibility of happiness raises the possibility of unhappiness so let’s all just cheerfully await the grim-reaper with the next typhoid outbreak because it won’t be long.
Nicholas –
Wasn’t criticising – I was just being a silly ass. But if I get serious about a symbol – an X upon a circle (with or without a UN gridwork) is in the nature of a criticism. I’d go for an assertion of self: a circle with a hefty off-center dot. You could even use it to describe how excentric you were – at the center, you’d be a centrist. I’d be about halfway between the center and the rim. If the dot were outside of the rim, you’d be saying you were completely out of the system.
Not that being completely out of the system is necessarily bad. But back in the hippie era I lived in a commune. Nothin’ like living in a commune to teach you the inherent fallacy of “from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs”.
Oh cobblers!
I’m doing quite nicely and I’m not the slightest bit stressed.
I have an alternative theory.
The rise in psycological problems is in direct proportion to the number of brain dead therapists.
Well, obviously RAB.
No business can succeed without marketing.
No marketing can succeed without making the punters desire the product.
Must go. I have to have my chakra’s re-aligned.
Well, actually it’s a hard disk to de-frag.
I hate myself for that apostrophe. Arrgh!
Some other suggestions as to why we might be miserable (just those which I’ve encountered so far today):
1. Complete, maddening road chaos due to (gasp) snow in February! (After crawling along in traffic queues for hours, getting nowhere, finally to see a gritting lorry — with two men on the back, depositing a shovelful in a small heap on the road every twenty feet or so.) Council road maintenance funded by exorbitant levels of taxation.
2. Tooth-grinding frustration and bewilderment when dealing with local government officialdom & inefficiency. (Attempting to extract a P45 — which should have been sent in September — from the council: three weeks of correspondence, and current ETA is still another week. For a fucking P45; a five-minute job!) Council administration funded by exorbitant levels of taxation.
3. Comprehensive funding for social engineering projects. (Today’s winner: “community education” — a hugely inefficient means of imparting meagre amounts of knowledge, but an excellent way of creating state jobs.) All such projects funded by exorbitant levels of taxation.
I think there might be a theme developing here, but I can’t quite put my finger on it — perhaps I need a left-leaning psychologist to help me…
Is Oliver James cleverer than we’re giving him credit for?
I’ve read that we are not made happy by absolute wealth, by rather by relative wealth; it doesn’t matter how much I get, as long as it’s more than my neighbour (I’m not totally sold on this, but I’ll run with it for a while). Now, if I were Oliver, I might find it hard to earn more than the guy I’m comparing myself to. I could work much harder, and risk failure, or I could write a book saying he is taking risks with his mental health being richer than I.
If the book sells, I will be richer than him, so I’ll be happier.
If he reads it, he stops work and becomes poorer than me, so I get happier even if no one else reads it.
If no one reads it, I can believe my own rubbish, so he may be richer, but he’s less happy than me.
The three step way to achieve happiness (can I charge for this?).
nicholas and Dr. Ellen,
You may be on to something. Nicholas, your initial suggestion has the inherent contradiction of making non-conformists confirm to one uniform symbol. I thought the idea DOA.
But Dr Ellen, your addition to his idea is very interesting. The posititioning of the dot could say a lot about one personal stands. I use for my own convenienve a grid similar to this one.
But I do still have a gut level aversion to pidgeon-holing. I imagine few individualists would see a need to self label.
If people are miserable today, certainly some of it can be due to their confusion in the market place, there are really a lot of choices, and if one is not well founded in their desires, their actions are bound to unfulfilling.
But what gets a person out of touch with their desires? Being constantly bombarded with notions that they should be serving their fellow man? Bombarded with notions that the world is going to hell in a handbasket and mowing their lawn and leaving their cell phone charger plugged in is causing it? Putting two and two together that the State promises paradise and hasn’t delivered, and that State blames the individual himself? Or could it be that deep down inside, a person questions whether they are builiding anything of value for themselves when there is crippling debt and forced association that effectively offsets any benefit of their actions?
Personally I think the fantasy of socialism and the endless message of self sacrifice that no individual can ever measure up to has done more to alienate people from each other and create a state of mental disassociation in the individual. A person should loathe themselves if they execute what is eminently logical, looking out for their best interests.
Considering the apparent contradiction in having a symbol for individualism, might I suggest a vertical line with a small dot slightly above it as being suitable?
Most animal research I am aware associates positive emotional indicators with perceived control over their destiny.
This is probably also suggested in humans and would explain why countries with more draconian, but also more consistently enforced, laws (like the aforementioned Denmark) have greater levels of happiness than countries where the written laws are ‘better’ but perceived to be erratically or entirely unenforced.
Brian Micklethwaite has a very apropos podcast and PDF on this here that I’ve enjoyed for its relevence beyond it’s intended audience.
I can never find the same tube of toothpaste twice. Why is that?