We’ve all had moments of looking at the people around us and wishing we had a little more of what they have. Our car, TV and laptop somehow morph into symbols of poverty when compared to the fancier car, flatter TV and state of the art laptop of our wealthier neighbour. The theory of relative deprivation says that we compare ourselves and our lives to that of our reference group (our peers, neighbours and colleagues) and that if we see them as having what we do not have, but which we feel we deserve, we feel deprived and hard done by (Sociology in the news 2008).
Another theory to be considered here is that of coherent arbitrariness, which, in it’s simplest form is a theory of relativity holding that people are good at ranking values on their own scale, but not good at placing their scale in an absolute context (Poundstone 2011). This theory suggests that the value we give certain objects is determined, to a large extent, on the ‘anchor’ or benchmark that is presented to us.
Apply this to the dilemma of middleclass feelings of relative deprivation, and a red flag pops up! We don’t know how wealthy or un-wealthy we are, how privileged or underprivileged, until we compare ourselves to another group; until we put ourselves on a scale of sorts. The higher our anchor is, the higher the bar of comparison is. And in the instance of those Joneses (who are so hard to keep up with!), the poorer we feel in comparison!
Globalization simply exacerbates the situation, as our reference group, or, anchor, is no longer just our neighbours and colleagues, but, thanks to the internet and TV, a supersized reference group made up of the Kardashians, Beckhams and the like!
Let’s get down to some absolutes. In 2008, South Africa scored 0.666 on the gini coefficient, meaning that the level of inequality is unacceptable (The Presidency, 2009). The OECD published an article highlighting the fact that in that same year, South Africa’s wealthiest 10% earned 58.07% of the national income, while 80% of the population earned 25.35% of the national income (Suddenwalk, 2011).
While many may feel relatively ‘poor’, there is a massive chunk of the South African population that is absolutely poorer and less well off. This brings us to the controversial issue currently filling up newspapers (and Wall Street!) – the 99%, the 1% and social justice. Call it responsibility, obligation, generosity or necessity, it is imperative to reach out to those South Africans with the most wealth and skill and somehow foster in them an interest in the poor.
Perhaps an incentive is needed. And perhaps, said incentive could be increased happiness! If we change our anchor or reference group from the super wealthy to the super poor, our feelings of being hard done by may well decrease, resulting in greater happiness and contentment.
Theorists of coherent arbitrariness found that anchors that people had really engaged with were the most effective (Poundstone 2011). We see a similar thing when someone diagnosed with cancer, for example, for the first time begins to support cancer associations. An ‘out there’ problem has suddenly hit home. In other words, changing the anchor from prosperity to poverty may have more sustainable and groundbreaking effect if the wealthy are interacting and engaging with those less well off. And what if, just maybe, engagement fosters distribution? As the anchor changes, people may even be motivated to give or redistribute their wealth (financial, skills or knowledge) in various ways.
This is a controversial idea, and may well be seen as pure selfishness - is it acceptable to help others so that we feel better about ourselves? However, in a country with inequality as great as ours, is this a valid argument? Perhaps any means should be pursued if it will help to close the gap between white collar and blue (or no collar at all!)? Especially if it generates ideas and gets lawyers, accountants, teachers and the like engaging with the underprivileged in a way that counteracts our anchor of wealth and prosperity, and gives us an anchor that is closer to the experience of the 99%.
On the other hand, a less sceptical lens could see this suggestion as an expression of ubuntu – sharing (finances, skill and knowledge) with the less fortunate as an outworking of our understanding that we are all connected by our shared humanity. This view also acknowledges the mutual learning that takes place in any interaction, and thus, that ‘the poor’ have much that they, in turn, can share with and teach ‘the rich’.
Reference list
Poundstone, W. 2011. Priceless. Oneworld Publications, Oxford.
The Paradox of Happiness, Sociology in the News. 2008. http://www.correntewire.com/sociology_in_the_news_the_paradox_of_happiness
Accessed on 31 January 2012.
The Presidency, Republic of South Africa, Development indicators 2009. http://www.thepresidency.gov.za/learning/me/indicators/2009/indicators.pdf Accessed on 2 February 2012.
No comments:
Post a Comment