Tonight:
4°c
About the most wrong-headed book produced in the Brown bubble was Affluenza by Oliver James, an Old Etonian psychologist and media don.
Wealth, he argued, drove you nuts. The British had far higher rates of mental illness than the social democratic Europeans because we placed a high value on money, possessions, appearances and fame. As a result of our greed, we were at significantly greater risk of depression, anxiety, substance abuse and personality disorder.
Well, I am a social democrat, but even when the economy was roaring ahead, I could see what was ugly about his argument, and it was not just the spectacle of a privileged man condemning others for trying to find financial security. He must believe that poverty is good for people, I thought.
And so it proved. "I embrace the credit crunch with both arms," a joyful James declared on Radio 4 this month. "It could be the beginning of a radical change in our mental health for the better."
He wasn't alone. Upper-class greens, bishops and newspaper columnists have opined that the grasping lower orders will now spend more time with friends and children and become kinder, wiser proles as a result. They may not have a job but at least they won't go mad. As unemployment mounts, the theory that escaping from the rat race brings holistic happiness is being tested to destruction.
To be fair to James and the bishops, reputable studies show that there is no correlation between increases in income and happiness. But they go on to say that there is no evidence to support the reverse notion that losing money improves wellbeing. Quite the contrary. I once spent a couple of hours with Professor Andrew Oswald, Britain's leading authority on the relationship between wealth and health, going through studies from dozens of countries. They all showed that unemployment brought a misery out of all proportion to the loss of income as the loneliness and humiliation kicked in.
This week Dr William Shanahan, from London's Nightingale Hospital, said he was seeing a vast increase in the number of "very depressed" and "near suicidal" City workers suffering from what he called "Square Mile syndrome".
There will be plenty more studies where that came from before this is over, all emphasising that the only silver lining this recession will bring is that it will force Oliver James and his kind to realise what they ought to have known in the first place: poverty does not make you happy.
Reader views (4)
I have always found Nick Cohen's writing interesting because I have always felt that he is someone who really gives strong consideration to his ideas before he sets them down on paper. I was therefore somewhat surprised to see the above comments re: Oliver James because it offers only a partial insight into what James said in his Radio 4 interview about his book and also about the book Affluenza itself. James did admit the recession was something he thought might be a good thing. He did however, add a caveat of not for those about to lose or concerned about losing their job. In addition in the same interview he also pointed to an interview he conducted for the book in Denmark with a newspaper editor in James praised the idea that the cab driver who dropped him at the paper's office would only see 5 times the difference in income with the paper's editor, a situation that would be somewhat different here. James in both the interview and the book calls for 'old style' social democratic remedies and condemns Blatcherism for adhering to the same neo-liberal nostrums that Mr Cohen attacked in a recent Observer article. Surely these two people are fighting the same fight on the same side? Surely Oliver James is allowed to rail against his own background and I for one did not get the impression he was arguing to maintain his wealthy position and to keep the rest of us poor.
- Alex, Norwich Norfolk, 05/02/2009 13:51
Report abuse
Of course Oliver James isn't saying our choice is between affluence or outright poverty. James's book merely points out that excessive greed and competition is pointless and unhealthy. His book has proven timely and prescient.
- Adam, London, 27/01/2009 20:25
Report abuse
Doesn't this rather misrepresent the book? My main complaints about it were that that the author was unbelieveably pretentious, and that the book was full of non-sequiturs and gooey irrelevancies. However, his main point was surely that the pursuit of wealth as the main reason for existence is soul-destroying. I agree with that.
- Robert, London, 27/01/2009 17:08
Report abuse
The thing about Oliver James and his ilk isn't so much the actual 'affluenza' message, (which as Cohen points out are apparently backed by fairly solid research) so much as the fact he is completely the wrong person to say it.
And you suspect he knows this as well; you'll never see James bibliographies on the back of his books mentioning he went to Eton even though he must know, as a psychologist, his education was a large contribution towards making him the adult he is today.
Personally I admire his chutzpah; it's pretty audacious for a rich guy to make his presumably handsome living by telling the plebs they'd be happier being poor.
- Tam, London, 27/01/2009 13:59
Report abuse
