Abstract
In a 2009 article titled, “All in the Mind? Why Social Inequalities Persist,” Daniel Dorling previewed his book, Injustice. The note of irony introduced by that question mark may have been an editor’s contribution, but it captures the problematic character of the author’s argument. Dorling’s starting point, for the article and the book, is William Beveridge’s list of the five great social evils (ignorance, want, idleness, squalor, and disease) from a 1942 report that outlined goals for Britain’s post-war welfare state. He maintains that Beveridge’s evils have been largely overcome in Britain and other “rich countries,” only to be replaced by five new, more insidious evils (elitism, exclusion, prejudice, greed and despair), evils of the mind that, he claims, are responsible for growing social inequality.
Dorling, Professor of Human Geography at the University of Sheffield, focuses on developments in Britain and the United States. But he argues more broadly that inequality persists in the advanced capitalist countries because the powerful in these societies believe (incorrectly) that elitism is efficient, exclusion is necessary, prejudice is natural, greed is good and despair is inevitable (p. 1). At a minimum, Dorling should be able to show that these notions are pervasive among national elites, however defined, and to describe the mechanisms through which their beliefs promote inequality. He should also be able to discount other explanations for persistent inequality such as economic change or class differences in socialization. But there is little systematic argument or marshaling of evidence in this book.
Dorling sets a low bar for himself. He contends that the powerful are often coy about expressing their beliefs and may delude themselves into thinking their ideas are free of elitism or prejudice. There is some truth in this, but it allows Dorling to interpret texts freely. For example, he cites Tony Blair’s concern with helping children to develop their “God-given potential” (pp. 115, 340n) and quotes sociologist John Goldthorpe’s speculative observation that children of different classes tend to do better or worse in school on account, one may suppose, of a complex interplay of sociocultural and genetic factors (pp. 73, 115). These remarks are, says Dorling, evidence of a thinly disguised “geneticism” shared by academic and political elites. Perhaps. But Blair was pleading for greater equality of opportunity. And Goldthorpe’s comment—which must appeal to Dorling since he uses it twice—was prefatory to a research report whose main conclusion is that Britain and similar societies are far from realizing their own meritocratic ideals: after measurable differences in ability are controlled for, class remains a powerful determinant of educational attainment and occupational success.
Dorling unequivocally rejects any idea of differential abilities among individuals, whatever their source. Citing a 1974 text, he asserts that there is “not a single reputable scientific study” establishing the heritability of intelligence (pp. 112, 340n). He never mentions the work of Pierre Bourdieu or American sociologists like Annette Lareau and Melvin Kohn pointing to the profound class differences in cultural and social capital that accompany children to school. If the children of the affluent have better educational outcomes, Dorling says, it is because they are “becoming better at passing examinations” (p. 71).
Apparently innocent of sociology, Dorling is openly hostile to economics. He compares “orthodox economists” (the only kind he considers) to Nazi Adolf Eichmann (p. 228). For Dorling, the basic mechanisms of capitalism are simply evil. Profit is “profiteering.” Loaning money at interest is “usury.” Competition is “inefficient.” A rising stock market is evidence of “bloodsucking.” Economic growth is “not essential.” It never occurs to Dorling that the capacity of capitalist economies for growth has contributed to overcoming Beveridges’s five great evils, especially “want.” On the other hand, he shows no interest in examining how economic change since the 1970s has contributed to rising inequality in the United Kingdom and the United States. Dorling does not simply yearn for a gentler capitalism, but if he has any notion of an alternative system, he will not say. To speculate about such matters is “rather like asking how you would run plantations after abolishing slavery” (p. 308).
The five central chapters of Injustice successively examine the five great evils of the new era. The first of these, on elitism, concerns the social construction of the intelligence quotient and the use of IQ tests as a social sorting mechanism. Subsequent chapters are less focused; they float from topic to topic and, in part because the new great evils themselves overlap, often return to matters covered in earlier chapters. Generally, they concentrate on evidence that inequality is rising and life is hard at the bottom, without explaining why (as Dorling’s subtitle promises). There are a few useful nuggets in these chapters, but the reader must process a great deal of low-grade ore to find them. It does not help that Dorling, who has published 25 books, is an indifferent writer.