Mental illness and economic inequality: A compassionate case for an egalitarian society.

There are many contributing factors leading to a deterioration of one’s mental health; environmental, genetic and of course abuse in all its varying forms. Each of these elements can have a profound effect on someone’s psychological wellbeing. However, there is one particular aspect that is linked to practically all mental health conditions and that is poverty. More specifically, economic inequality or what can otherwise be termed as relative poverty.

A paper published in the Lancet Psychiatry by Dr Wagner Ribiero investigated the correlation between income inequality, mental health problems, the use of services and resilience. This inquiry was conducted via a systematic review and a meta analysis. What Ribeiro found was that widening economic inequality is associated with higher rates of mental health incidents, particularly with regards to depression and anxiety. Additional studies suggest that schizophrenia, narcissism and psychotic symptoms are also more common in unequal societies.

Furthermore, this proposed link appears to be more prevalent in English speaking countries, particularly in the US and the UK, which incidentally are two of the most unequal countries in the developed world. To put this into perspective, Sweden is considered a rich country, but displays markedly lower levels of economic inequality than the UK. Similarly to the UK, Sweden boasts a comprehensive health system, but contrastingly has substantially lower levels of social and mental health problems. Findings by Wilkinson and Pickett published in their book The Spirit Level similarly highlighted a disparity between the ‘anglosphere’ and mainland Europe with regards to mental health issues and economic inequality.

With this in mind, surely if we truly care about society as a whole and how our species can flourish, it makes complete sense to investigate this pathway in a little more detail. As previously mentioned, a key driver persistent throughout the research is that of economic inequality as opposed to absolute poverty. In a nutshell, impaired health and in this case mental health is less about being poor and more about feeling poor. It is proposed that relative poverty is related to perceptions of social failure and inferiority, in addition to social isolation, alienation and loneliness.

Notions such as these are exacerbated when living in societies that encourages people to incessantly compare themselves to much wealthier individuals. A practice which by no means is healthy, possessing all the qualities of a sadistic form of motivation and self-punishment. Without doubt, millions of people throughout the world have been subjected to this repeated questioning of the self in the form of advertisement campaigns, TV, magazines and social media.

One theory that attempts to explain the correlation between mental illness and relative poverty, centres around the brain’s dominance behavioural system (DBS). Processing information related to subordination and social dominance, this system is likely connected to a broad range of mental illnesses and personality disorders. It is purported that externalising disorders, mania proneness and narcissistic traits are related to heightened dominance motivation, particularly in individuals exhibiting dominant aggressive traits within this framework (see diagram below for details).

Conversely, in the book The Inner Level, Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett suggests that anxiety and depression are linked to subordination and submissiveness. Anxiety in particular, is described as an emotion linked to a sense of powerlessness, social defeat, and a loss of control. Anxious people are regularly checking their social standing, fearful of humiliation and view themselves as possessing minimal power. Studies offer that individuals who display anxiety and depression are likely to hold feelings of shame and submission, while being prone to comparing themselves unfavourably to others.

A commonly held belief suggests that anxiety and stress levels rise as you climb the ladder, undertaking positions of leadership, thus, increasing demands and responsibility, however, this is incongruent to the bulk of the research. A Harvard University paper comparing cortisol levels (elevated when stressed) between leaders and non-leaders, reported lower levels among the former group. Further to this, a study which measured fibrinogen levels (a blood clotting factor which increases when under stress) with a group of UK civil servants discovered that levels were higher in both men and women, the further down the hierarchy they were.

Using a different approach, Dr Robert Sapolsky a neuroendocrinology  professor at Stanford University proposes a further explanation. Dr Sapolsky offers that relative poverty generates stress, which in turn produces an overactivity of hormones and neural responses, including the secretion of cortisol. The theory proposes that, surviving at the lower end of the socio-economic scale is associated with raised levels of stress. It is also well documented that elevated cortisol levels is a risk factor for depression, with relatively poor kids displaying higher levels than their richer peers.

High levels of glucocorticoids (of which cortisol is one) affects a part of the brain called the hippocampus, which is critical for memory and learning. Regular exposure to excessive glucocorticoids via stress impairs memory and learning by reducing the excitability in this area. In another portion of the brain called the amygdala, central to fear and anxiety, glucocorticoids increases in excitability, while expanding neuronal connections contributing to heightened responses.

Sapolski’s rationale offers one explanation as to why a condition such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder shrinks the size of the hippocampus, while expanding the amygdala. Furthermore, glucocorticoids can impact the mesolimbic dopamine system, responsible for reward, anticipation and motivation. This disruption predisposes individuals to anhedonia a component of depression, plus heightening the possibility of addiction. Anhedonia is generally described as a reduced ability to experience pleasure.

The pre-frontal cortex (PFC) is a region of the brain pivotal for long term planning, executive function and impulse control. An excess of glucocorticoids in the PFC results in poor decision making, primarily focusing on short-term gains. As mentioned, stress leads to raised levels of glucocorticoids, making it more difficult to choose long-term health over instant gratification. This process is considered to be a contributing factor as to why people with substantial levels of stress increase in weight, smoke and drink more than people with less stressors. Unsurprisingly, lower socio-economic standing can affect long-term decision making. When day to day living is proving difficult and life is seemingly so precarious, the future can suddenly appear less important.

Financial concerns resulting in a lower socio-economic status are generally exhausting, demoralising and distracting for the individual. Although some of these people may have more money than some people from developing countries, poverty in relation to the rest of society contributes to being despised, shamed and humiliated. As stated earlier, economic inequality automatically emphasises the importance placed on social status. In unequal societies, the dramatic disparities in income can make the rich appear as superior beings. There is also a tendency among capitalist countries to equate an individual’s wealth with their internal worth, thus compounding any negative self-perceptions for people who find themselves battling to make ends meet.

On top of all this, as status anxiety increases along with the inequality of a nation, these societies are also likely to feel less trust towards one another, falling from 60-65% who are trusting in the most egalitarian nations to about 20% in the most unequal. All this can contribute to a reduction in participation within society, for instance, being less likely to volunteer and partake in local activities. The consequences of this is often displayed through an increase of violence, combined with a lack of willingness to help each other out.

All of the above contribute to increasingly stressful social lives and social anxiety, as we worry about how we appear and perform in the world. Responses to this threat can be exhibited as defensive narcissism or alternatively through low self esteem and a lack of confidence. There are multiple reasons to assert that mental health and neoliberalism are not only interconnected, but the former is exploited by the latter. Raised social anxiety and narcissism directly feeds consumerism, which in turn provides a dopamine hit. Additionally, purchases and possessions can be used as a way of giving off a good impression, while attempting to create a sense of self worth. In sum, money becomes essential for many as a means of communicating our value as a person.

Citizens in unequal societies not only work longer hours, but save less and borrow more. In these nations debt rises in a desperate attempt to maintain appearances. Collective emotional vulnerabilities are seized upon by corporations and advertisers, callously using our fears for profit, confirming that status anxiety sells. Meanwhile, economic inequality negatively impacts our mental health, friendships, societal bonds and community life, all of which are integral for our general wellbeing. If somebody does not possess a sufficient income, full participation in society becomes practically impossible. Particularly in a world that prioritises GDP, while celebrating personal wealth and corporate gains over the wellbeing of our fellow human beings.

There are a variety of compelling arguments to suggest why we should reject neoliberalism, of which mental health is just one. This is especially pertinent when considering whether our current system really is the best we can do. Simply put, we could persist with our current dominant political ideology, whereby, a tiny group of people will continue to accrue the bulk of money and power, forever loading the dice in their favour. Or, we can challenge the status quo, constructing a society that works for the most amount of people as possible. Moreover, neoliberalism does not work in harmony with our beleaguered planet or indeed the vast majority of people who inhabit it.

Effective change must involve questioning all that is utilised to support the present doctrine; politics, media, education, the law and in particular how we do business. No area of society should be off limits when trying to imagine a better world for us all and future generations. This article was written to uncover the extent in which economic inequality contributes to mental distress and to ensure this too is added to a growing list of reasons why we should fight for a serious paradigm shift towards a more compassionate and fairer world.

Tackle the policies, not the man: Personal insults will not win back the working class.

The UK has recently acquired yet another upper class Etonian, much the same as David Cameron. A man who has no political principles or moral convictions, someone who will say anything to obtain and maintain power. This is a potential gift for Jeremy Corbyn and Labour if they play it right. Unfortunately, I predict this will be another opportunity lost. I suspect the left in the UK might just mimic the Democrats in the US resorting to name calling, hollow allegations and memes.

Already the signs are there, literally, with protests featuring placards with “not my Prime Minister” on them. This eerily reminds me of the bourgeois middle class in the US, who threw a collective tantrum after the defeat of corporate stooge Hilary Clinton in 2016. Rather than reflecting on why people are drawn to such characters as Trump, many in opposition lazily resorted to pointless ad hominem attacks and his alleged actions of the past.

This line of protest may well be considered a valid tactic on Twitter and Facebook, but is it really a pathway to changing the political landscape? I suggest not. Within minutes of any political disagreement on social media vast numbers of people regress to adolescence, often resorting to the petty ‘strategy’ of slinging personal insults at those who dare to disagree. When trying to unite a nation, in particular, attracting the working class back to their traditional parties, these methods only serve to polarise and harden opinion.

In the UK the left historically fought for the working class, but many now feel abandoned, even politically isolated, after decades of blue and later red neoliberalism. Subsequently, many people have voted for change regardless of the outcome. For a left leaning party such as Labour to enter government they need the working class, while the working class require a party or political movement to truly champion their cause.

Labelling whole swathes of a population racist, misogynistic, dumb or simply stupid, won’t endear them to you or promote healthy debate. Brexiteers and corporate Democrats, both who lost recent votes insist on suggesting they are the enlightened ones, while approaching life from an exceptionally myopic and rather advantaged perspective.

For those who struggle for money on a daily basis in areas such as the former industrial heartlands, there is still very much a class war going on, which incidentally they are spectacularly losing. This partly explains why citizens who are financially at the lower end of society in the western world have developed strange bed fellows such as, Donald Trump, Nigel Farage and to a certain extent Boris Johnson.

All of these characters are ridiculously privileged, having absolutely no affinity to the very people they pretend to support. Weirdly from the “Rust Belt” in the US to the former industrial north in the UK, right wing parties continue to attract working class voters. All this, despite the Republican’s and Conservative’s open declaration of support for corporations, the rich, low taxation and minimal funding of any state services.

Often the phrase “it’s like turkeys voting for Christmas” does the rounds during election time. This sadly, fails to ask the hard but obvious question…….why? Why are people content to vote against their best interests? Or more reflectively, what have the left done wrong to lose the very group that would benefit the most from traditional left values and when did this start.

A quick and admittedly slightly glib answer to the problem, particularly in the UK could be summed up with one word, Blair. In truth, many leaders of traditional left leaning parties have ignored the plight of the working class, while searching for voters among the middle classes. But Blair even stated in a speech to the centrist think tank Public Policy Research “I want to make you all middle class“, as if this was some sort of aspirational comment. By many, this was seen and with good cause, as an abandonment of the working class. The Labour Party membership not surprisingly dropped from approximately 405,000 in 1997 to 156,000 by 2009.

I’m sure some people who claim to be on the left may suggest that we don’t need the working class, especially those who voted for Brexit. I would argue, that ending neoliberalism, reducing economic inequality, working for a sustainable future, protecting our human rights are all more important issues than the side-show that is Brexit. All these aspirations are heavily dependent on engaging and winning over the working class who largely feel neglected by previous incarnations of so called progressive politics.

Memes inferring a likeness of Boris Johnson to Donald Trump and targeting his repeated gaffs aren’t going to help persuade people to move over and vote for Corbyn’s Labour, for example. We’ve seen the same tactic aimed at Trump in the US having little to no effect. Working class Trump voters often reply with, “but the economy is doing better and unemployment is down”. This is where people in the UK need to deviate from the US strategy by pushing back on the issues, while not focusing on Boris Johnson’s bumbling demeanour, dress sense or hairstyle.

However, if we look back at Trump and his supporters claims, just using GDP as one metric, growth under Trump is admittedly consistent, but Obama had even greater periods at times during his presidency. Regarding unemployment, this has consistently been on the decline since 2011, although primarily due to the rise of the gig economy and other precarious methods of employment. For the left in the UK, finding out why working class voters have switched to right wing parties and challenging their assertions, while offering well thought out answers is better than calling Conservative’s heartless bastards. As true as this may be, it does not help the debate.

One Bullingdon Club photo, two UK Prime Ministers

The UK is now on to its second upper class former Etonian and Bullingdon Club Prime Minister within 5 years of each other. If this photo isn’t an example of a failed democracy, I’m not sure what is. Johnson’s recently unveiled cabinet is equally disturbing, starting with Chancellor of Exchequer Sajid Javid. Despite his humble Rochdale roots, Javid is a former investment banker in the US, who can hardly be described as a man of the people. Next, the recently appointed Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab is even considered a right-winger among his own party. Raab studied at both Oxford and Cambridge University, just like most kids do (1% of the UK population graduate from Oxbridge).

Boris Johnson’s pick for home secretary is Priti Patel. Ms Patel is keen on the death penalty, but not so much on basic human rights. The daughter of Gujarati Indian parents who fled Uganda in the 1960’s, she seems desperate to kick the ladder away, advocating for stricter asylum rules and stronger enforcement of immigration laws. Along with the Prime Minister, this completes the line-up for the country’s top four political jobs, handed to those who have nothing in common with or any interest in the real world.

This is an ideal time to catapult an anti-neoliberal narrative into the minds of working class people. Although some people may not be convinced by Jeremy Corbyn (I’m not one of them), this a perfect opportunity for him. His main problem, however, continues to be elements within his own party who are determined to hamper any concerted effort to deliver discernible change.

Personally I see Jeremy Corbyn, as the first step, someone who can get the UK back on track. This involves moving away from a government that benefits the rich and idolises money, to a system that supports all of humanity. This progress could, therefore, be used as a springboard to promote further radical change in the future. Firstly Labour need to win their traditional base of support back, that of the working class and that will be a huge challenge.