The Selfish Capitalist: Origins of Affluenza [Hardcover]

I really enjoyed Affluenza, but found it anecdotal and rather long. The Selfish Capitalist is more research based than interview based, and draws on all kinds of different reports, drawing parallels between politics and sociology. It's true, Oliver James is a journalist and a psychoanalyst, and not a research psychologist, but at no point does he pretend to be anything other than what he is, and he actually regularly points out potential flaws in his own thinking. I'm not quite sure why he irritates so many people.

Personally, I found The Selfish Capitalist very thought provoking, especially the chapters on materialism. The book loses focus in places, and crams in a few tangential theories along the way, but I think Oliver James is an important voice in the debate.

It stands to reason that the 'neo-liberals', who have benefitted from 'selfish capitalism' and the influence of materialism on the more disadvantaged as well benefitting from a privileged and protectionist education, have taken advantage of their small but wealthy number and swiftly launched an internet campaign against Mr James and have employed their usual methods of claiming intellectual obscurity equals validity, whereas selling a few articulate and well written books criticizing existing economic and systemic structures, thereby upsetting the powerful minority, somehow means its author's success is somehow linked to the problems he identifies and that he is a hypocrite. Maybe the publishers should put an old dusty cover on the thing and restrict it to a few ancient private libraries.

I assure you, being fairly well-read, that anything less than 3 stars must be purely self-interest because the book is at a minimum absorbing. Propaganda, selectively or badly researched material, by the way, is always boring because it is impossible to extrapolate an interesting argument from references which we know not to be true. Oliver describes the world most of us inhabit and it makes sense.

The reason I have chosen to attack other reviews is that they are imbalanced and misleading and are indicative of a (for want of a better phrase) neo-liberal tactic to constantly claim 'we know better because we get straight to the point and are pragmatic. You can't trust these foreign speaking idealist who have brought us war over the centuries. Besides, it's badly researched and the author has appeared on TV, so he's basically a celebrity chav'. I am not sure if I have seen a book so harshly condemned by so many (with a similar writing style coincidentally), but which has been so intensely read, judging by the 'helpful - yes' votes. However, this is a form of jealous weak intellectual bullying designed to stifle real debate. Especially the badly researched jibe - I mean how well do you want something to be researched - until one finds facts which are not really there? That's what neo-conservatives do when they persuade there are chemical weapons in a country when there are not, but that's also what any establishment worth its salt says - don't trouble your little minds about it - leave it to us. It's why they undermine the study of psychology when they are part of it gaze (sorry for that psycho term!), unable to see its virtues and comprehending it as having the same money-making motives with which they perceive the world.

Idealism has gone out of vogue until now and the economic crisis is forcing us to re-examine such theories and those of Keynes. Origins of Affluenza is, granted, riding on a current wave of thinking which is asking how we have got to this point in economic history, in which we are constantly aware and brainwashed by images of wealth and are depressed as a result. These arguments as well as our universally plummeting share prices are forcing us to redress these questions. Only the deluded rich could disagree with that.

Oliver's statistics are remarkable and not very difficult to understand. They speak for themselves. His ability to argue cogently and draw logical conclusions based on his psycho-analytical background is eye-opening. But most of all the book is a critical analysis and is far from an attempt to drum up more business for the psychotherapy profession. It is not a 'self-help' book, which frankly is yet another selfish capitalist jibe. I get from it a similar feeling to when I first read Noam Chomsky or Berger's Ways of Seeing. Yes, psychology is annoying in the way it insists on questioning absolutely everything you take for granted, leaving patients as flimsy self-doubting wrecks. But this is more than that and is a re-examination of the society we live in which you may or may not agree with, but if you are like me and prefer to approach books with an open mind, I can assure you you will enjoy and be fascinated by it if you are new to James' writing. And as for you Oliver james - forget those decrepit old academics who have had a deep and intense love affair with the inner sanctums of their institutions while living off their inheritances dreaming of getting their boring research projects one day funded. They're not worth it.

Now I've got to go because there are some strange black helicopters circling outside my window.

Well ones thing for sure, Oliver James must be doing something right - he's obviously irritated some individual enough for them to post five 1-star reviews of his book. Needless to say not one of which would appear to have the resulted from an actual reading of the book - well maybe they read the blurb on the back cover?. "The Selfish Capitalist" is a post-script to his earlier Affluenza and contains further thoughts and data related to the effects of what James calls "selfish capitalism" (more or less a synonym for Neo-Liberalism) on our societies. He also reflects on what other writers and political thinkers from Karl Marx to David Harvey have had to say about his area of investigation: the links between the mental health of individuals and the economic organization of society.

In line with more orthodox thinking on Neo-Liberalism, James asserts that selfish capitalism is a phenomenon that has risen to prominence in the English-speaking world since the 1970's. While it has been a growing phenomena in other developed and non-developed countries, it is in the developed economies of the English speaking world that it goes deepest into the fabric our societies. Using data from WHO studies and other sources he demonstrates a clear correlation between income inequality (one of the pertinent and pernicious features of Neo-Liberal economies) and emotional distress. For the English-speaking world (Britain, U.S., Canada, New Zealand, Australia) the average incidence of emotional distress in the last 12 months is 21.6%, nearly double the level of other countries (Japan, Germany, Italy, Spain, Belgium, Netherlands and France) that average 11.5%.

James questions the standard shoulder-shrugging view that is disproportionately popular amongst those on the right: that mental health problems are in large part of genetic origin. The evidence he cites seem to indicate that this link is greatly exaggerated and environmental factors are of crucial importance. He also presents a variety of data on related issues that raises serious questions about how our society is structured vis-à-vis materialism and how this effects our mental well being. One interesting fact he brings up is that the greater part of the growth of economies and household income in the Selfish Capitalist world results from an increase in second earners and hours worked.

The few people whom I have known that work in Psychology seem to get bogged down in their own specialty for a whole variety of reasons. They appear to be shy - certainly in their professional capacity - about making explicit links to the bigger picture of how society is organized. With that in mind, it is refreshing to hear a professional psychologist discussing these issues in a holistic manner and not avoiding issues that are generally seen to be in the political realm.

James makes clear that there are elements of his thinking that he is pretty convinced of, and others that he is fairly sure of, but does appreciate that more research is needed to confirm his and others hypothesis and provide a more detailed picture. Despite the, in part, tentative nature of his findings this is a fascinating book. A strong case is made for the need to question the manner in which our society is developing and the values it promotes if it is serious about the mental well being and real development of all people, rather than peculiarly attending to the interests (to quote Adam Smith) of the few whose wealth has risen geometrically while for most earners wages have barely risen at all. In common with his earlier works it is written in an accessible manner for those who are not academic psychologists. For those with a phobia of statistics they should be reassured that they are explained in a clear and straightforward way and have been leavened with a healthy dose of anecdotal material for further clarity. Well worth reading.