by KenThis comes of keeping nytimes.com at arm's length, owing to the NYT's totally understandable effort to realize some financial recompense for online consumption of its semi-expensively produced content: I have paid no attention to an online-only series, moderated by that sterling economist Joseph E. Stiglitz, called "The Great Divide": "a series on inequality -- the haves, the have-nots and everyone in between -- in the United States and around the world, and its implications for economics, politics, society and culture."I've only whizzed through the essays, but I have to say that this looks like the conversation we've been so desperately needing to have, with an interesting assortment of viewpoints, and Professor Stiglitz himself periodically getting his two cents' worth in.There are contributions dating back to January 18 -- this one by Professor Stiglitz, "Inequality Is Holding Back the Recovery," which begins:
The re-election of President Obama was like a Rorschach test, subject to many interpretations. In this election, each side debated issues that deeply worry me: the long malaise into which the economy seems to be settling, and the growing divide between the 1 percent and the rest -- an inequality not only of outcomes but also of opportunity. To me, these problems are two sides of the same coin: with inequality at its highest level since before the Depression, a robust recovery will be difficult in the short term, and the American dream -- a good life in exchange for hard work -- is slowly dying.Politicians typically talk about rising inequality and the sluggish recovery as separate phenomena, when they are in fact intertwined. Inequality stifles, restrains and holds back our growth. When even the free-market-oriented magazine The Economist argues — as it did in a special feature in October — that the magnitude and nature of the country’s inequality represent a serious threat to America, we should know that something has gone horribly wrong. And yet, after four decades of widening inequality and the greatest economic downturn since the Depression, we haven’t done anything about it.
Tucked away in its online corner, "The Great Divide" contains what looks to be a wealth of interesting and therefore automatically important comment on this extremely important subject. For what it's worth, the series seems to be generating a goodly amount of online content. Still, it's hard not to wish this conversation was happening more, er, visibly.Obviously I have a lot of catching up to do. For now, though, I want to jump to the piece that finally grabbed my attention, one called "Rich People Just Care Less," by longtime NYT contributor Daniel Goleman, a psychologist. It goes back almost two weeks ago now; I've been meaning to get back to it at a time when it would be possible to give it some leisurely attention, something that didn't seem possible during the great Shutdown Follies.Now I'm thinking, what the heck, let's just serve it up.
THE GREAT DIVIDE October 5, 2013, 2:25 pm Rich People Just Care LessBy DANIEL GOLEMANTurning a blind eye. Giving someone the cold shoulder. Looking down on people. Seeing right through them.These metaphors for condescending or dismissive behavior are more than just descriptive. They suggest, to a surprisingly accurate extent, the social distance between those with greater power and those with less -- a distance that goes beyond the realm of interpersonal interactions and may exacerbate the soaring inequality in the United States.A growing body of recent research shows that people with the most social power pay scant attention to those with little such power. This tuning out has been observed, for instance, with strangers in a mere five-minute get-acquainted session, where the more powerful person shows fewer signals of paying attention, like nodding or laughing. Higher-status people are also more likely to express disregard, through facial expressions, and are more likely to take over the conversation and interrupt or look past the other speaker.Bringing the micropolitics of interpersonal attention to the understanding of social power, researchers are suggesting, has implications for public policy.Of course, in any society, social power is relative; any of us may be higher or lower in a given interaction, and the research shows the effect still prevails. Though the more powerful pay less attention to us than we do to them, in other situations we are relatively higher on the totem pole of status -- and we, too, tend to pay less attention to those a rung or two down.A prerequisite to empathy is simply paying attention to the person in pain. In 2008, social psychologists from the University of Amsterdam and the University of California, Berkeley, studied pairs of strangers telling one another about difficulties they had been through, like a divorce or death of a loved one. The researchers found that the differential expressed itself in the playing down of suffering. The more powerful were less compassionate toward the hardships described by the less powerful.Dacher Keltner, a professor of psychology at Berkeley, and Michael W. Kraus, an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, have done much of the research on social power and the attention deficit.Mr. Keltner suggests that, in general, we focus the most on those we value most. While the wealthy can hire help, those with few material assets are more likely to value their social assets: like the neighbor who will keep an eye on your child from the time she gets home from school until the time you get home from work. The financial difference ends up creating a behavioral difference. Poor people are better attuned to interpersonal relations -- with those of the same strata, and the more powerful -- than the rich are, because they have to be.While Mr. Keltner's research finds that the poor, compared with the wealthy, have keenly attuned interpersonal attention in all directions, in general, those with the most power in society seem to pay particularly little attention to those with the least power. To be sure, high-status people do attend to those of equal rank -- but not as well as those low of status do.This has profound implications for societal behavior and government policy. Tuning in to the needs and feelings of another person is a prerequisite to empathy, which in turn can lead to understanding, concern and, if the circumstances are right, compassionate action.In politics, readily dismissing inconvenient people can easily extend to dismissing inconvenient truths about them. The insistence by some House Republicans in Congress on cutting financing for food stamps and impeding the implementation of Obamacare, which would allow patients, including those with pre-existing health conditions, to obtain and pay for insurance coverage, may stem in part from the empathy gap. As political scientists have noted, redistricting and gerrymandering have led to the creation of more and more safe districts, in which elected officials don't even have to encounter many voters from the rival party, much less empathize with them.Social distance makes it all the easier to focus on small differences between groups and to put a negative spin on the ways of others and a positive spin on our own.Freud called this "the narcissism of minor differences," a theme repeated by Vamik D. Volkan, an emeritus professor of psychiatry at the University of Virginia, who was born in Cyprus to Turkish parents. Dr. Volkan remembers hearing as a small boy awful things about the hated Greek Cypriots -- who, he points out, actually share many similarities with Turkish Cypriots. Yet for decades their modest-size island has been politically divided, which exacerbates the problem by letting prejudicial myths flourish.In contrast, extensive interpersonal contact counteracts biases by letting people from hostile groups get to know one another as individuals and even friends. Thomas F. Pettigrew, a research professor of social psychology at the University of California, Santa Cruz, analyzed more than 500 studies on intergroup contact. Mr. Pettigrew, who was born in Virginia in 1931 and lived there until going to Harvard for graduate school, told me in an e-mail that it was the "the rampant racism in the Virginia of my childhood" that led him to study prejudice.In his research, he found that even in areas where ethnic groups were in conflict and viewed one another through lenses of negative stereotypes, individuals who had close friends within the other group exhibited little or no such prejudice. They seemed to realize the many ways those demonized "others" were "just like me." Whether such friendly social contact would overcome the divide between those with more and less social and economic power was not studied, but I suspect it would help.Since the 1970s, the gap between the rich and everyone else has skyrocketed. Income inequality is at its highest level in a century. This widening gulf between the haves and have-less troubles me, but not for the obvious reasons. Apart from the financial inequities, I fear the expansion of an entirely different gap, caused by the inability to see oneself in a less advantaged person's shoes. Reducing the economic gap may be impossible without also addressing the gap in empathy.Daniel Goleman, a psychologist, is the author of "Emotional Intelligence" and, most recently, "Focus: The Hidden Driver of Excellence."
#For a "Sunday Classics" fix anytime, visit the stand-alone "Sunday Classics with Ken."
Source