• No results found

How are capitalism's core values detrimental to planetary and mental health and what to do about it?

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "How are capitalism's core values detrimental to planetary and mental health and what to do about it?"

Copied!
74
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

How Are Capitalism’s Core Values Detrimental to Planetary and Mental

Health and What to Do About It?

Source: AdBusters

Alternatives to Capitalism

Heather Gilda (12231827)

Supervisors: Prof. Annette Freyberg-Inan and Paul Raekstad

Second Reader: Prof. John Grin

Department of Political Sciences

(2)

Table of Contents

Abstract ... 3

1. Introduction ... 4

2. Contemporary Capitalism and Its Core Values ... 6

2.1 Man versus Nature Dichotomy ... 7

2.2 Prioritising Growth and Expansion ... 9

2.3 Prioritising Efficiency and Profit... 14

2.4 Competition and Competitiveness ... 17

2.5 Individualism ... 19

2.6 Materialism, Consumerism and Private Ownership ... 22

2.6.1 Materialism and Mass Consumerism ... 22

2.6.2 Privatisation and Private Ownership ... 24

3 Capitalism in and through Nature ... 29

3.1 The Relationship between Capitalism, Man and Nature ... 29

3.2 Green Capitalism and Capitalist Conservation... 33

4 Sustainability, Happiness and Wellbeing ... 40

4.1 Defining and Measuring Happiness and Wellbeing ... 41

4.2 The Greener We Are, the Happier We Are ... 45

4.3 The More Connected We Are, the Happier We Are ... 47

5. What Now? ... 52

5.1 Recommendations on Rebalancing Values ... 52

5.1.1 Reinforcing Regulations ... 52

5.1.2 Reconstructing Our Relationship to Nature ... 55

5.1.3 Redefining ‘Winners’ and ‘Losers’ and Happiness ... 57

6 Conclusion ... 60

Acknowledgements ... 62

References ... 63

Academic Sources and Books ... 63

(3)

Abstract

The purpose of this thesis is to dissect the ways in which capitalism is incompatible with planetary and mental health by examining its core values and exploring ways in which adapting our values and translating these changes into policy and lifestyles can counter the socio-environmental problems associated with said capitalist values. The relationships between capitalism, man and nature are analysed, in addition to the positive links between sustainability, wellbeing and happiness. The methods used to conduct research for this paper is secondary analysis of academic material such as academic journals, books, and university presentations, as well as TED talks, and other media contributions. The findings of this paper are that capitalism is unsustainable in the ways it affects ecological and mental wellbeing, as well as being unsustainable in itself by perpetuating these crises. In an attempt to remedy its inner contradictions, I propose that we should alter our emphasis on capitalistic values through re-balancing and accentuating values of connectedness with nature and with each other. The proposed alternative is a modification of Keynesian capitalism by integrating balance in our values. This means, for instance: balancing individualism and collectivism, egoism and altruism, competition and collaboration, profit and wellbeing, and the relationship between humans and nature. These changes should happen across all levels – the individual, systemic, public, and private. Only then, can we arrive at a state of sustainable, equitable and social capitalism.

(4)

1. Introduction

The modern era has been punctuated by various crises: environmental, mental health, and economic. Depression has become the second leading cause of disability globally in 2013 and is the leading cause of disability in 26 countries (Ferrari et al, 2013:1). Approximately one in five people in the UK, for example, exhibit symptoms of anxiety and depression and the percentage has increased over time (Evans et al, 2016). Another issue we face today is the environmental destruction perpetuated by capitalism. Furthermore, capitalism’s promise to enhance freedom and disposable income has not generally been met, which is evident by widening wealth disparities. The richest 1% are predicted to own two thirds of the global wealth by 2030 (Frisby, 2018). These are urgent problems as the rates of suicide, species extinction, climate change and wealth disparities continue to climb (Lowy et al, 1990; Ceballos et al, 2017). Studies have even found a correlation between climate change and worsening mental health. (Obradovich et al, 2018). Think, for example, how hot temperatures cause insomnia and may cause sleep deprivation; how gloomy weather and rain make some feel low (especially those with seasonal affective disorder); and how more unpredictable and frequent weather events and natural disasters cause anxiety for those living in vulnerable areas. Hence, this paper aims to contribute towards the plethora of research that seek to provide solutions for alleviating and mitigating these crises. I attempt to do this by combining interdisciplinary research such as socio-economic, political, ethical, environmental and mental health studies, and by discussing the underlying assumptions of capitalist values.

The core argument of this thesis is that these crises are related to each other and that if we do not consider the root causes of these issues and their potential solutions now, it may be too late to do so. Thus, the primary aims of this paper are to investigate the relationship between sustainability, mental health and capitalist values; and to explore possibilities of change towards greater sustainability and mental well-being. Thus, the research questions are twofold: how does the relationship between capitalism, man and nature impact planetary and mental health?; and how does re-balancing capitalist values achieve better environmental and mental health outcomes?

The first aim will be achieved through dissecting the problems associated with capitalist values (in Chapter 2). There is much to be said about each one of these values individually, but the focus of the analysis will be on exploring the negative impacts of these values on our environment and mental health. Chapter 3 is a continuation of Chapter 2.1; it elaborates on capitalism’s relationship with nature and describes how green neoliberalism and capitalist conservation do not tackle the root of the problem. Chapter 4 will lay out the association between sustainability and wellbeing, and how promoting connectedness can alleviate the problems discussed. Chapter 5 considers potential ways

(5)

forward. This will be done through suggesting alternative policy designs and practices that transcend capitalistic tendencies that exacerbate these problems to ultimately provide an incentive (that goes beyond finance) for our societies to change. The proposal of this paper is that promoting certain values that are currently neglected – notably connectedness amongst society and between humans and ‘nature’ – will help alleviate the challenges we face with preventing, mitigating and reversing ecological damage as well as mental health issues.

(6)

2. Contemporary Capitalism and Its Core Values

With the mention of capitalism, the connotations that often pop up is that it is an economic and political system of free-market ideology, private ownership, industry and trade. Before beginning with discussion, a definition of what is meant by capitalism in this thesis is necessary. In the early days of capitalism, Adam Smith advocated for laissez-faire economics which proposes that free markets self-regulate efficiently through competition with little governmental regulation, through the dynamics of supply and demand, and the motives of self-interest and maximising profit. Here, capitalism

represents not just an economic system but a symbolic system that represents a set of values, including: private-property ownership, competition, profit prioritisation, growth and expansion, materialism, consumerism, and individualism. This is not to say that these values originate from or exist exclusively within capitalist systems, nor that every citizen within capitalist systems embodies these values. However, capitalist societies and policies have certainly enshrined and capitalised on these values, oftentimes with little regard for or mitigation of their adverse effects. In support of the effect economic systems have on normative values, research has shown that economic changes do influence our values and personalities, especially when considering that economic participation is often tied to self-worth, and when certain values and personality traits are favoured over others in the meritocratic workplace (Verhaeghe, 2014).

Following Smith (1759), economic liberalism has regarded these principles as beneficial to the wealth of the nation, and in turn, the well-being of individuals. Governmental interventions that limit competition, taxes and much (though not all) regulation are perceived as possible threats to liberty, and the privatisation of public property and services is expected to lead to better outcomes. Today, neoliberalism has intensified laissez-faire policies (that are assumed to have predictable outcomes based on economic models), sometimes without taking local and social contexts into account. For example: the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO have imposed neoliberal policies on their members and partners, and, e.g. Mexico’s economy has stagnated since adopting neoliberal policies (Rodrik, 2015). I do not propose that neoliberal policies always have negative impacts, but that strictly adhering to them without deliberation is dangerous. I argue that the narrow-mindedness of seeing neoliberalisation as the optimum solution to our socio-economic problems and placing emphasis on liberal economics at the expense of other important values has led to the converging environmental and mental health crises of our times. The following section will discuss the possible pros (in order to anticipate rebuttals from their proponents) and cons of said values. Its sub-chapters will overlap, as these values are mutually reinforcing, for instance, individualism and materialism, materialism and the man versus nature dichotomy – together creating the values fundamental to contemporary capitalism.

(7)

2.1 Man versus Nature Dichotomy

The characteristics that distinctly distinguish humans from other animal species, and place humans at the top of the food chain, have been long debated. Critical thought, sophisticated language, the ability to create and utilise tools, engineering environments, so on and so forth… However, humans have also relied on nature and our surrounding environment more so than other species. Think, for

instance, of the use of fire as an external digestive system, the production of fur coats for warmth, the creation of tools for hunting, the reliance on community in child rearing; and so, began the

relationship of power and (re)production between humans and ‘nature’ (Moore, 2015:11). This dualism between humans and nature is a socially constructed one, and it is false. It predates capitalism and has roots in the Enlightenment period (Mikkeli, 2015); but it is also central to the legitimisation of the appropriation and destruction of nature for capital accumulation.

We have become so separated from nature that we often conceive of nature as somewhere we have to travel to rather than something we experience daily. We also perceive ourselves as separate and different to other species, in such a way that we are superior to them which gives us the rightful power to dominate other life-forms and our ‘natural’ surroundings without questioning. In reality, we are more connected to nature through our consumption habits and to other species (genetically). Besides that, this anthropocentrism is ethically misguided for several reasons. We are not as special as some would believe, previous abilities that we thought of as unique to humans are not actually exclusive to us. Many other species do have self-awareness, conscious decision-making processes, complex emotions and social interactions, an appreciation of the past and future; they feel distress when being treated unfairly (Magdoff and Williams, 2017; Wascher, 2017). Moreover, even if we still do possess characteristics unique to our species, this should not mean that we should value our lives more so than other species’. This constructed dualism between man and nature, or other animal species has detrimental effects and is implicit throughout the following sub-chapters, as it is tied up with core values of capitalism. It will be examined more thoroughly in Chapter 3. Here, an in-depth analysis of a case study serves as an introduction to and example of the problematique.

Many companies rely on appropriating, controlling and harming the ecosystem for profit. McDonald’s is a well-known example. The processes involved in producing fast food are intensive and have adverse effects on the environment and animal welfare. A Greenpeace report has revealed 7,000 km2 of deforestation in the Amazon forest exclusively to produce Chicken McNuggets for European markets; as well as 25,000 km2 of public and indigenous forests being felled chiefly for soya plantations to produce animal feed (Vidal, 2011). Deforestation severely impacts the ecosystem in

(8)

desertification; carbon sinks are lost which increases the amount of released carbon in the

atmosphere, which in turn contributes to climate change; and indigenous livelihoods are disrupted, which can lead to their dislocation. These lands are also used for the mass rearing of cows for beef, which boosts methane (another greenhouse gas) levels in the atmosphere. Furthermore, farmers who focus on a single type of crop such as soya are greatly vulnerable to price fluctuations in the market which may lead to financial insecurity. Also, McDonald’s seeks out and ensures environments with lax regulations in order to carry out these harmful practices. This is executed through corporate and taxation strategies and by engaging lobbyists to influence governmental policy. This undermines governments’ ability to provide for healthcare and welfare through taxes, and corporate monitoring (Anaf et al, 2017:6). These practices externalise their negative impacts onto the environment and community.

Even though the company has publicly expressed more interest and progress in reducing its ecological footprint and in improving animal welfare, much more progress is required. Animal welfare standards are still under par. For example: the company has enforced cage-free policies in animal housing systems like chicken coops; however, these chickens are now crammed in massive warehouses with limited light and space for movement. Besides that, these chickens have been selectively bred or have been given hormones to induce greater body mass which is harmful for their physique (e.g. their legs cave in from the extra weight). These factors hinder the chickens’ opportunities for natural behaviour and a normal life (Kestin et al, 2001; Newberry et al, 1988; Weeks et al, 1994). The focus on producing cheap food and profit at the same time results in lower-quality food that is unhealthy physically, while advertisements promoting highly-processed foods of less nutritional quality target children and adolescents (Sweet, 2009). For instance, Happy Meals entice children into thinking happiness comes in the form of burgers and toys. Even choices marketed as healthy options, such as its Caesar salads, are actually more fattening and less healthy than Big Macs (Gusmaroli, 2016). This can lead to unhealthy physical health outcomes (such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancers), which can also affect mental health in the long run. Additionally, their outlets are more likely to be located in areas of lower socioeconomic status and schools, with limited opportunities for prior local

consultation and deliberation, targeting already vulnerable populations. Ultimately, McDonald’s move to strengthen corporate social responsibility seems to be a benevolent façade, where its underlying intention is to foster reputational endorsement. This is evident through their environmental discourse, political practices, products and marketing (Anaf et al, 2017:1,6).

Despite this, many blame such outcomes on consumer choice instead of McDonald’s unethical conduct and assertion of power over nature. The reasoning behind this originates from neoclassical economic decision theory, which assumes that consumers are always correctly informed, choose

(9)

rationally, and pursue their self-interest. Realistically, however, consumers have bounded rationality and face cognitive constraints, as information processing is a demanding task when considering the myriad of products and factors that contribute to one’s decisions – the paradox of choice. For example: consumers tend to use existing knowledge of price distribution instead of continuing their search for products that benefit them, which can lead to uninformed and bad choices (Smith, 2003). This line of reasoning based on neoclassical economic theory does not critically analyse underlying assumptions – placing responsibility on consumer choice and on the individual level instead of the systemic level – exacerbating the problem. All in all, the man versus nature dualism has adverse impacts on the physical and mental health of the living beings involved, and the parties responsible tend to avoid taking responsibility for it. Thus, contemplating upon and revising our relationship to nature can provide us with a clearer picture of our impact on our environment in order to increase transparency and accountability while improving the relationship between man and nature.

2.2 Prioritising Growth and Expansion

A preoccupation with growth and expansion has been stimulated by the invention of the gross domestic product (GDP) in the 1930s – according to Raworth (2018) – which over time has become a representation of how successful a country is and consequently, a primary goal of policymaking. Today’s capitalist system and corporations frequently prioritise a growing rate of profit return, growing sales, growing shares… Growth is a concept that is still believed to relieve many of our societies’ problems but, realistically, it is incongruent with today’s planetary and societal needs. Growth and development are often perceived to go hand in hand, and to take a path of linear evolution. With the right technology, institutions and mindsets, ‘traditional’ society is expected to ultimately grow and mature into a consumerist society, where mass consumption is believed to meet the people’s needs. This line of thinking is flawed, as it assumes that if x-step is taken, y-goal would be the inevitable outcome regardless of context; that the end goal should look like what we have come to know as a ‘developed’ economy and country; and that consumerism is the answer to improving well-being.

Undoubtedly, having a higher amount of disposable income to purchase essential amenities is good for one’s wellbeing and not having to worry about your financial status alleviates anxiety. Spending money on experiences and helping people also brings joy. Nonetheless, research has shown that money only increases life satisfaction and happiness to a certain extent, then its effects start to plateau off over time (see Figures 1 and 2). This is also known as the Easterlin paradox (Easterlin, 1974 in Bartolini, 2014). Bartolini and Sarracino’s (2014) paper also supports this by concluding that when

(10)

For example: China and India have experienced declines in mass poverty and life satisfaction at the same time (Bartolini, 2014:589). When the need to worry about finances cease, other factors such as peace, corruption, leisure time, and creating intrinsic meaning in one’s life weigh heavier in their contribution to life satisfaction and happiness (Kasser and Aaron, 2002).

Furthermore, global economic GDP may have increased tenfold since the 1950s, and this has lifted many out of extreme poverty, but at the same time, this has increased economic disparity and exacerbated social division (Raworth, 2018;World Inequality Lab, 2018). Currently, inequality is rampant; the world’s richest 1% own approximately 45% of the world’s wealth, and this has allowed the economic elite to create monopolies and wield power over those that are less well-off

financially (Credit Suisse, 2018).

Figure 1: Global life satisfaction plotted against GDP per capital. The graph depicts that some of the world’s richest countries are indeed the happiest, but the correlation is not consistent. For example: Costa Rica’s (the world’s 13th

happiest country) GDP per capita explains only 14.1% of the nation’s happiness score. However, when GDP is combined with other variables (e.g. social support, life expectancy, freedom to self-determine and from corruption), 75% of the variance in happiness is accounted for (Sources: Penn World Table 6.2; Gallup World Poll, Angus Deaton, 2003 in Bertolucci, 2018)

Figure 2: Happiness plotted against US’ family incomes (as opposed to GDP, to gauge the effects of income on happiness more realistically) also shows that happiness increases exponentially with income, but income’s effects start to wane after a certain amount is reached (Source: Kenworthy, 2017)

(11)

This contradicts the theory of the trickle-down economy. The neoclassical trickle-down theory proposes that free-markets guarantee that in the long run everyone gets what they deserve, that the rich are rich purely out of entrepreneurship and hard-work, and that eventually, wealth will trickle down to the deserving poor. This ignores the fact that some groups of people are paid

disproportionately,1 and that some are more privileged than others to begin with due to inheritance, class and education which give people certain social advantages. More realistically, the impoverished start off with a disadvantage and may resort to self-blame or adopt fatalistic attitudes which often also leads to mental health problems.

Besides that, income disparities have been correlated with various negative outcomes, such as: higher levels of violent crime, drug usage, obesity, and lower levels of educational performance and mental health (Wilkinson and Pickett, 2009). Firstly, high differences in income are likely to lead to income comparisons between income groups. Comparing one’s relative income and possessions with another’s is likely to lead to feelings of inadequacy in terms of wealth and status. This dissatisfaction could lead to anxiety, as one may feel that one is not good enough or doing enough to achieve monetary success, and, in turn, pessimism about one’s ability to achieve positive life outcomes, if one believes money is conducive to the good life. Additionally, comparisons between income levels may also play into one’s choices on whom to partner up with, whereby cross-income level partnerships are unlikely, in turn, exacerbating income inequality and class segregation. Moreover, studies have shown that high levels of perceived income inequality are negatively associated with generalised trust2 (Wilkinson and Pickett, 2009). There are several hypotheses that explain this. One is that perceived inequality leads people to believe that others have cheated to reach the top, and are therefore, untrustworthy.

“When 1% of the population takes home more than 22% of the country’s income, […] reasonable

people, even those ignorant of the maze of unfair policies that created this reality, can look at this absurd distribution and be pretty certain that the game is rigged” – Joseph Stiglitz, 2013

This also works in reverse, as those who are better off may imagine that the poor have much to gain through fraud. For example, this is an argument against providing more social security as such

services will be abused dishonestly by the poor. As trust continues to decline, changes in attitudes and norms follow, whereby only fool will still trust (Stiglitz, 2013). Lastly, income inequality can lead to class segregation, as people tend to associate themselves with others of relatively equal income

(12)

(Wilkinson and Pickett, 2009). This means that classes may have fewer personal interactions and in turn, less understanding and trust towards those from other classes. Furthermore, with other forms of civic engagement in decline, these interclass interactions are further reduced, which means different groups and classes within our societies may share fewer common goals. This rift may lead to feelings of alienation and social anxiety during interactions with those of different classes.

Conclusively, income inequality has adverse impacts not only on the poor, but for our societies as a whole as it leads to declining trust. While, many strive to lessen poverty and inequality, most seek to do so through prioritising economic growth, holding onto the trickle-down fiction.

The goal of continuous growth has also extended to the expansion of the capitalist system over space; it has been promoted by more economically developed countries as the solution for poverty

alleviation. Consequently, neoliberalism has been adopted and adapted in many economically

developing countries through globalisation and the proliferation of multi-national companies (MNCs). In addition, with the rapid rate of technological innovation and globalisation, outsourcing and flexible accumulation have also spread from more economically developed countries (MEDCs) to less

economically developed countries (LEDCs). MNCs do have positive impacts such as local investment in economic growth, bolstering the local workforce’s skills and opportunities, and enabling technology transfers and infrastructural provisions. However, not all MNCs aim to address local social problems, and as host countries aim to attract foreign investment to become more competitive, local wages are

Figure 3 Countries with lower income inequality exhibit more generalised trust (Wilkinson and Pickett, 2009)

(13)

suppressed and executive positions in MNCs are often provided to ‘expats’, which does not empower local citizens (Carr and McWha-Hermann, 2016).

An example is Malaysia, where foreign direct investment (FDI) is welcomed and is positively perceived to benefit the country economically and technologically, and, in turn, socially. Through creating privileged geographical zones and free industrial zones, areas that have little market or environmental regulation, it has attracted a myriad of foreign investors. One of its biggest foreign investors is China, which not only invests in industrial projects within incentivised zones, but also various infrastructural and property projects spouting up all over the country, such as luxury apartments and shopping malls that bring no concrete social benefit to the majority of the population, who find them unaffordable (Santander, 2018). On top of that, the lack of environmental regulation and the lack of enforcement of existing regulations have been detrimental to the surrounding environment and ecosystems. Another form of foreign investment in Malaysia came in the form of importing waste and plastic for recycling from countries including the US and the UK. The government’s lack of environmental regulation and enforcement imply disrespect towards the environment, and this attitude is mirrored by its population. The blatant disregard for environmental health has perforated Malaysian society with incidences of illegal littering despite warnings of fines; and open-air waste and plastic burning are on the rise with only 9% of the plastic waste being recycled (Greenpeace, 2018; Geyer et al, 2017). The Malaysian government has since banned the import of solid plastic waste that cannot be entirely recycled. This may be a big step forward, but it does not solve the root of the problem which is the use of single-use plastics that creates the waste to begin with. Thus, for us to critically assess these problems, an evaluation of our habits, mindsets and mainstream culture is pivotal. Growth for the sake of growth has been shown to be unsustainable for the environment and does not

automatically lead to social benefits.

Waste disposal and management has now become a huge industry as waste is an inherent problem of the capitalist system. However, due to sub-contracted private-public partnerships that are often costly and the preference towards austerity policies, local authority budget cuts have resulted in infrequent waste and recycling collection. E.g. in Sheffield, UK, where waste collection now happens every fortnight and recycling collection happens once a month (Cumber, 2017). This could have consequences for residents’ motivation to recycle. Furthermore, waste management facilities tend to be located in less affluent areas in order to avoid affecting property prices. Oftentimes, they are located in in areas where the demographic has less political power over such decisions. When outsourced to LEDCs, chosen destinations tend to have less environmental regulations and lower

(14)

less capable of dealing with them. Harvey (2000) refers to the growing waste industry as a spatial fix, which means a geographical expansion to ‘fix’ problems of over accumulation (see more discussion in Chapter 4). Lastly, the obsession with efficiency, to be discussed further in the next sub-section, also leads some companies to hide their inefficiencies when overproduction occurs. For instance: Burberry burned unsold stock of up to £28million to avoid having to sell them at a cheaper price or to stop them from getting into the “wrong hands”. Yet, they claim to treat waste as a serious issue. Similar practices have been carried out by brands such as Chanel and Louis Vuitton in order to maintain exclusivity (Chaplain, 2018).

Ultimately, the expectation that continuous growth will contribute to human wellbeing and life satisfaction is unrealistic. The focus on economic growth and profit neglects more important socio-environmental factors that are conducive to improving the human condition and wellbeing of our environment. Moreover, Chang (2011) points out that many MEDCs are experiencing falling rates of economic growth in the neoliberal era. Thus, free trade neither always results in economic growth, nor in fair trade. Yet, the pursuit of profit and economic growth is commonplace in our societies, and often unquestioned, as seen through the expansion of neoliberalism across the globe. Instead of a growing economy, Raworth (2018) suggests aiming for a thriving economy; this will be discussed in further detail in Chapter 5.

2.3 Prioritising Efficiency and Profit

In order to meet the goal of a growing rate of profit return, technological and resource efficiency are sought out, citizens are encouraged to work hard and efficiently to increase profit and disposable income for that income, to be reinvested in the system through consumerism. Efficiency in itself is not problematic, but increasing efficiency does have unintended and undesirable outcomes; besides that, its prioritisation over other factors, such as workers’ rights and wellbeing, is problematic. The same can be said about profit seeking. First, I will discuss the effects of increased efficiency, also known as the Jevons Paradox.

The Jevons paradox occurs when efficiency increases as a result of technological advancements and/or policies, but this is counteracted by increased labour efficiency, which may cause

unemployment. Additionally, an increase in technological efficiency – even in the name of reducing an ecological footprint – often leads to cheaper prices, an increase in consumption and resource usage which in turn, increases environmental impact such as through greenhouse gas emissions. A classic example of this boomerang effect was observed during the industrial revolution when England’s coal consumption hiked up after introducing more resource efficient steam engines (Jevons, 1865:104). Therefore, an increase in technological and resource efficiency may negatively impact the

(15)

environment, but it can also impact the working age population’s mental health as technology reduces the need for labour and unemployment increases. Moreover, as technological innovation replaces labour with capital, the organic composition of capital is raised, lowering the rate of profit. In order to compensate for the falling rate of profit, employers may underpay workers for their added value which leads to a contradiction where workers lack the purchasing power to purchase the products they have produced. which in turn, leads to overaccumulation, waste and economic crises (McCarthy, 2015:2486).

Batic-Mujanovic et al’s (2017) paper shows that adverse economic situations, job insecurity, the lack of work opportunities and unemployment have a significant influence on mental as well as physical health. In the UK, for example, zero-hour contracts are becoming increasingly common. Zero-hour contracts are employment contracts that do not guarantee minimum-hour work, which could lead to employees only being called in when employers require labour (Pyper and Harari, 2013). This may have benefits for flexibility, for example if one is on maternal/paternal pay, holiday, etc., but it can also create job-related insecurities and anxieties. On the other hand, the prioritisation of work and earning profit can lead to employers obliging long-hour contracts or overwork from workers, which could lead to burnout from stress and a lack of time for personal leisure. Besides that, depressive symptoms are often associated with unemployment, and this is a two-way relationship.

Unemployment can cause depression, perhaps due to one’s propensity to relate self-worth and identity to one’s employment status, financial insecurity (depending on one’s social security system’s safety net) or having too much free time to ruminate (Pelzer et al, 2014), but depression can also lead to an inability to work. The occurrence of job-related anxieties and un- or under-employment-induced depression may be due to the importance placed on working and seeing work as intrinsically attached to one’s value as a human being. This leads people to believe they are the ‘losers’ in the system which has adverse effects not only economically but politically (discussed in 2.6).

Capitalist mantra holds that hard work and meritocracy are fair ways to become ‘winners’ within the free-market system, but do grit and wit always lead to fair pay? Young (1958 in Leary, 2018) coined the term meritocracy as a combination of ‘merit’ and ‘aristocracy’, implying that a new elite class is created through (the ability to access and afford) education and through one’s own efforts.

Meritocracy depicts discipline and intelligence as means for social and income mobility; a lack of it reflects laziness and weak willpower,3 which keeps the poor, poor. Implicit in this reasoning is the

(16)

belief that workers are always paid fairly.4 In reality, people are not always paid according to value, or what they deserve. Occupational wage gaps between rich and poor countries do not exist because of differences between workers’ abilities and/or productivity levels. For example: a Swedish bus driver is paid almost 50 times more than her Indian counterpart; surely, Swedish bus drivers do not drive 50 times better than Indian drivers (Chang, 2011:24). This is not to say that everyone should receive equal wages regardless of occupation or productivity. However, extreme meritocracy can lead to grim prospects. Some countries like Singapore and Hong Kong have adopted meritocracy ideology to extremes; their school systems are designed around high achievement,5 causing students to overwork and overstress themselves. This is because extreme meritocracy conflates self-worth with our

educational or professional accomplishments – a form of conditional self-love. Competitive pressure from schools and unrealistic parental expectations have sadly resulted in suicides of school children due to fear of failing. There were a reported 27 student suicides within the age group 10-19 in Singapore in 2015 (Jelita, 2017). Besides, wage discrepancies between countries exist because of immigration controls that artificially maintain rich countries’ wages (Chang, 2011:27). This reasoning contradicts free-market ideology that opposes regulation in support of competition. At the same time, free-market ideology opposes unionisation, on those very same grounds.

As a result of declining labour unions and due to labourers’ dependence on employers, employees find it difficult to discuss these job-related anxieties and negotiate wages. Many liberal economists, such as Friedman and Friedman (1980) and Hayek (1960), have been outspoken against unionisation. This is because they believed labourers tend to negotiate for higher wages, which in turn changes product pricing, which reduces profit return, which eventually produces market inefficiency. Thus, the freedom that neoliberalism offers empowers the already privileged. There is irony in this, as

capitalism holds liberty sacred yet offers freedom selectively in accordance to its needs – Thatcher often justified her neoliberal political agenda with the slogan “There Is No Alternative” (Robinson, 2013). In sum, Monbiot (2016) aptly describes the repercussions of prioritising efficiency and profit:

Freedom from trade unions and collective bargaining means the freedom to suppress wages. Freedom from regulation means the freedom to poison rivers, endanger workers, charge iniquitous rates of interest […] Freedom from tax means freedom from the distribution of wealth that lifts people out of poverty

4 It also pressures students into education streams and professions in which they may have interest in due to

the belief that education in ‘desired’ professions will eventually result in financial security (e.g. medicine, engineering). Obviously, working in a profession that one has little affiliation with causes unhappiness.

5 This often revolves around optimising memory recall instead of critical thinking, making it a questionable goal

(17)

Undeniably, profit does act as a motivating incentive. Yet, the focus on monetary incentives promotes opportunities for greed, and in turn, distrust. The underlying logic here is that we would need to pay for trust, which simply cannot be the foundation of meaningful relationships.

2.4 Competition and Competitiveness

In capitalist economic systems, regulation is perceived as a barrier to capital accumulation and free-markets are seen to ameliorate the quality of products and encourage efficiency through competition – survival of the fittest. While this can certainly improve the overall quality of services and products by increased patronage for services and products of higher quality and innovation, and broaden our freedom of choice,6 the promotion of free-markets to bolster GDP figures, which is perceived to be the tide that lifts all boats (and wellbeing) has its own problems. Too much competition, especially in less economically developed countries where domestic markets are in their infancy or undergoing development, can be harmful to domestic businesses and local livelihoods. Furthermore, market competition is the determinant of prices and distribution of services, and products, and fluctuating prices can cause harmful instability for consumers and producers, especially in the agricultural sector, where many farmers do not have diversified crops and rely on income from one or a few products. Fluctuating prices would then be a cause of great concern and anxiety when prices drop

unexpectedly. On the other hand, an inflation in prices caused by competition often fails to go together with an increase in income, which can significantly increase the cost of living for many. This phenomenon is treated in the sticky wage theory, which proposes that labourers’ wages tend to respond slowly in relation to an organisation’s performance and inflation. This affects workers abilities to afford basic amenities such as food, healthcare, or housing; their ability to save for emergencies and retirement; and their ability to repay debt. Consequently, many workers have to work side jobs – as 40% of Americans7 currently do (Bersin, 2018). Instead of redistributing wages amongst workers or providing other benefits to their employees, companies return profits to shareholders in order to increase their stock price (e.g.: Apple; Bersin, 2018). For companies less well-off than Apple, or during economic recessions, layoffs are preferred to decreasing labour wages due to profit-orientation, as it is difficult to decrease wages once raised. In the US, up to 20 million workers are laid off per year in the private sector (Magdoff and Williams, 2017). This practice is not beneficial towards those who were laid off, the workers that remain and even towards the businesses themselves (Bersin, 2018). The practice of laying off for profitability can cause remaining workers to develop the “survivor’s

6 However, this freedom is the freedom to choose and consume more within the boundaries of the capitalist

(18)

syndrome”, which affects engagement with their work and can also lead a business to fail (e.g.: Circuit City; see Bersin, 2018).

On the other hand, competition can certainly motivate people to boost performance in order to win – to achieve better personal outcomes and status or to be more successful than competitors.

Nonetheless, is winning always the desired end goal? Valuing competitiveness over collaboration can drive a wedge between people and ignite rivalry due to feelings of jealousy, feeding cynicism and resentment, waning trust and forgoing collective interest for self-interest. Competition may also intensify anxiety due to a need to constantly perform well and outperform others, and the pressure to meet the ideals of normative ‘success’. Within capitalist ideology, personal success is often correlated with having a well-paying job in order to consume more and own private property. Some may lean on this as a form of compensation for satisfying relationships8 or, in more extreme cases, some may perceive this as vital to their identity. This involves constant comparison between oneself and one’s peers, which may also lead to one’s sense of confidence being externally instead of internally sourced. In the long run, this can be harmful to one’s self-esteem and mental health.

Success in a corporate sense is often correlated with an organisation’s net wealth and profit. As a result, people with traits associated with fostering competitive advantage are favoured during the hiring process. Traits such as being more dominant, charismatic, less empathetic, devious, self-centred and/or narcissistic are associated with a preference for undertaking high risk investments and dynamic strategies (Zhang et al, 2017). A study by Brooks, a forensic psychologist, has found that 21% of senior executives are psychopaths who exhibit a lack of care for morals in order to win (Brooks in Marks, 2016). This can of course negatively impact workers lower in the hierarchy or affiliated persons through unethical conduct (Amernic and Craig, 2010).

This is not to say that competitiveness should not be valued at all. As previously discussed, competition does cultivate motivated employees and provide them with freedom of choice. A shortage in competition and choice can result in monopolies, which is behind the logic of promoting free markets and reducing regulation by advocates of neoliberal capitalism. There is fear of the state dominating markets and industries, resulting in dictatorship. However, reality is not so black and white – unregulated markets or markets with little regulation can result in market monopoly. Today, corporate monopoly is pervasive, giving a small proportion of companies concentrated economic and political power. Companies such as Microsoft, Google, Amazon and Facebook are buying out smaller companies, expanding their vast wealth in shares, often by breaching antitrust laws such as the

8 Bartolini and Bilancini’s (2011) paper shows that US citizens who have fewer and unsatisfactory relationships

(19)

Sherman Act of 1890 (Hubbard, 2019). For example: Facebook now owns Instagram, WhatsApp and Snapchat and has plans to integrate these social media platforms to combat rival services by Apple and Google (Isaac, 2019). The processes through which companies create monopolies were mentioned in 2.1. This places power in the hands of large companies, resulting in monopolistic competition but also less competition from smaller companies, as they are less able to compete against their larger, wealthier counterparts. This can also, in turn, undermine democracy. It is difficult not to appreciate the irony in how neoliberalism’s alleged fight against concentrated power has resulted in exactly that.

“If we would not submit to an emperor, we should not submit to an autocrat of trade…” – Senator John Sherman, (Hubbard, 2019).

In sum, competition has its virtues in incentivising innovation and motivating individuals to work, but competition often breeds rivalry instead of friendships, and can result in monopolistic competition. Placing emphasis on competition over other important values has negative consequences that result in a decline in social trust. Instead, more importance should be placed on collaboration and

cooperation.

2.5 Individualism

Hayek (1944 in Monbiot, 2016), a popular defender of classical liberalism, argued that government planning reduces individualism which inevitably leads to totalitarian control. Many other proponents of liberal economics encourage citizens to be individualistic and self-interested as self-interest is equated with self-love, and this motivates individuals to act in their advantage, which may in turn, contribute to the greater good. As discussed in the previous sub-chapter, this has not been the case as free markets have also enabled concentration of power.

Individualism sees people in an atomised manner, not as part of a collective. For clarity’s sake, individualism does not necessarily lead to self-interest, but individualism is a prerequisite to the emergence self-interest and rationality. Smith, another popular, early proponent of individualism, asserted that humans generally make decisions rationally and in their self-interest – laying the foundation of rational choice theory. He also claimed that even when people make decisions for collective interests, this is merely self-interested, as they derive pleasure from the happiness of others.

Every man is, no doubt, by nature, first and principally recommended to his own care; and as he is fitter to take care of himself than of any other person, it is fit and right that it should be

(20)

so. Every man, therefore, is much more deeply interested in whatever immediately concerns himself, than in what concerns any other man – Smith, [1759] 1976:9, 82-83 in Song, 1995

This quote assumes that everyone is inherently and should be self-interested. Perhaps, rationally, people should be, as only each person himself knows what ails, benefits and interests him and therefore, what may help him; and this is required for survival. Smith proposes that this allows an individual to pursue his self-interest, and this itself allows us to be productive and efficient as a society, which is, according to Smith, in our general interest. This is somewhat paradoxical, as Stiglitz (2013) neatly describes it: “selfishness as the ultimate form of selflessness”. More realistically, people face cognitive constraints on making rational decisions as discussed in 2.1; and some people are more conscious than others of the factors that influence their actions and behaviours. Moreover, one’s desire for bettering one’s own conditions and social esteem is highly dependent upon one’s

environment and upbringing (Firestone, 2011). People can inherit fatalistic worldviews due to socio-political circumstances such as being subject to highly corrupted governments. Additionally, people can have a penchant for self-destructive behaviours.

Besides that, the promotion of pursuing self-interest corrodes trust, which is not productive in many domains, including business. Trust is essential for the signing of contracts, partnerships, trade and other transactions; trust is also vital for the functioning of corporations. If employers and directors were to constantly doubt the motives of their employees and partners, business would be virtually impossible to run, as they would be inclined to micro-manage everything individually (Chang, 2010). This would lead to a total meltdown. For instance, the decline in trust between banks indirectly contributed to the 2008 crisis, as banks were aware of their unethical practices of predatory lending which stifled interbank lending (Stiglitz, 2013; further discussion in 2.6).

Notwithstanding its flaws, individualism is commonplace in developed capitalist regions such as Europe and the US today. We see declines in organisational and communal memberships, e.g. in labour unions and fraternities, and increases in divorce rates, home entertainment, social media and computer game usage (Whitley, 2017). Studies have shown that individualism is on the rise in highly economically developed countries and such a shift is chiefly linked to socioeconomic changes such as the shift towards urbanised societies, post-industrial economies, a decline in social trust, and higher education, income and occupational prestige (Santos et al, 2017:1229). These factors may decrease the need for an individual to rely on others, but it does not mean social ties should be rendered unimportant.

I define individualism by three aspects: valuing uniqueness, the commitment to independence and personal freedom, and the pursuit self-interest. Again, none of these aspects are negative in isolation.

(21)

Solitude can be beneficial to individuals to wind down and process our thoughts and emotions, especially after experiencing highly stimulating events, particularly for more introverted individuals. It is valuing individualism over other values, such as valuing uniqueness over harmony or valuing self-interest at the expense of others or the environment, that can be damaging towards planetary and mental health. In the case of the environment, the link and outcome are clear. Self-prioritisation in leisure or convenience, e.g. in the form of fast fashion or single-use plastics, is harmful to the environment and leads to copious amounts of waste, as discussed in chapter 2.1, 2.2 and later on in 2.6.

Self-prioritisation is also reflected through the low importance placed on the wellbeing of future generations and their ability to freely access social goods and free nature, and this is also influenced by capitalist ideology. The focus on economic growth and the accumulation of private goods portrays a lack of confidence in the benefits of social capital and collective action as a means of improving the human condition. Current efforts that aim to shift towards more sustainable economies tend to prefer individualist over collective action, for instance through ethical consumption or by saving and accumulating private goods which are to be passed on to our familial descendants. Thus, caring for future generations can lead to the pursuit of private wealth, which does not contribute to producing intrinsic meaning, as discussed in 2.2 and 2.6, and is not as effective in tackling the converging crises as collective action. Furthermore, the importance placed on private wealth may cause one to perceive sustainable behaviours to be ineffective for helping our future generations, and to be a cost not worth paying for. Thus, collectively sustainable behaviour is framed in economic and self-sacrificial ways, which conduces citizens to earn more income and to fight for survival privately, instead of placing trust in collective action (Bartolini, 2014:594).

The decline in social trust also has important implications for our mental health, social lives, political institutions, and business. Western Europe’s slump in voter turnout reflects deteriorating trust in our societies and political institutions to handle our socio-ecological crises. This, again, places trust in private instead of collective strategies, which, in turn, has also led to increased trust in economic elites in political decision-making, undermining democracy. When it comes to mental health, the decline in social trust also has negative consequences, as it impedes one’s ability to trust and open up about one’s problems to one’s friends and family for support. Research shows that the causes for mental health or mood disorders such as depression and anxiety are an interplay of socio-cultural and genetic influences – as argued by the culture-gene coevolutionary theory. Chiao and Blizinsky’s (2010:529) findings suggest that collectivism safeguards genetically susceptible populations from the

(22)

likelihood of developing affective disorders.9 In other words, social ties and support protect mental health. They have found that despite a high prevalence of alleles associated with genetic

predisposition to mental health disorders in East Asian countries, incidences of depression are significantly lower there than in more individualistic countries. Another study by Crawford and Prince (1999:1419) found that higher rates of suicide coincided with increases in the proportion of people living alone, unemployment and levels of isolation and social deprivation.

Thus, individualism can lead to more personal expression and autonomy, which is beneficial for one’s self-esteem, but we need to be wary of how self-expression and self-prioritisation can be socially disruptive too. Excessive individualism can negatively impact our relationships and mental health. So, a balance must be struck between the pursuit of individual and collective interests, between

independence and interdependence, between individuality and belonging.

2.6 Materialism, Consumerism and Private Ownership

With the prevalence of individualism, consumerism is often advertised and accepted as the way to improve not only the economy but also individuals’ wellbeing. We are incentivised to work to buy material possessions and to own private property, which is not ecologically sustainable with booming global populations. The pursuit of wealth, material possessions and private property is often linked to the pursuit of praise, prestige and status. Those who pursue these extrinsic goals and values are typically in search of ‘the good life’; however, having intrinsic goals and values instead has been proven to be more beneficial to wellbeing and mental health (Joseph, 2015; see further discussion in 4.1). First, I will discuss the effects of the systematic push for materialism and mass consumptio, then privatisation and the central role of private-property ownership.

2.6.1 Materialism and Mass Consumerism

Mass industrialisation has successfully cut down the costs of production, making products more affordable and accessible to those of the lower classes – seemingly closing the rift between social classes. It has enabled the working class to afford more basic and leisurely amenities such as fast and/or fancy food and fashion, but it also has its pitfalls. There has been an increasing focus placed on producing speedy and low-cost products – as exemplified by the fast food industry. The mass

consumption of meat followed by intensive industrial agriculture negatively impacts the ecosystem and is ethically questionable – a well-known case of this is McDonald’s, as discussed in 1.1. Similar outcomes for the environment can be observed in other intensive industrial domains, such as the

9 However, cross-country studies have observed that collective societies that prioritise families and

collectivism, such as southern Italy and Japan, can harbour lower generalised trust towards outsiders

(Fukuyama, 1995 in Kenworthy, 2017). This could make it difficult for migrants to integrate, which could affect their mental health.

(23)

fashion industry. Furthermore, mass industrialisation and consumerism also have unfavourable impacts on our mental health. We are exposed to advertisements daily through social media, websites, TV, billboards, etc. These advertisements and their associated marketing techniques have been successful at amplifying our insecurities, and even creating new insecurities, to then offer solutions to our anxieties championed by their products – ‘retail therapy’ as a means to avoid our real problems which may be stress from our working or social lives.

In many cases, marketing works through creating insecurities in us to manipulate us into purchasing products that promise to help. For instance, a Veet (company selling waxing strips) advertisement portrayed an unshaved woman turning into an obese hairy man whom those around her were disgusted by. Such manufactured physical insecurities disproportionately target women, whose products are usually more expensive than men’s (Mahdawi, 2016). This adversely impacts mental health, especially adolescents’ and young children’s as they are less aware of advertising interests. Plus, their identities and confidence tend to be less consolidated than adults’, making advertisement more likely to affect their self-esteem. This perpetuates the mental health epidemic.

A study by Twenge et al (2019) has found that mood disorders and suicide attempts have both risen since the mid-2000s amongst American teenagers and young adults. Studies have shown that consumerism and materialism affect wellbeing, although these relationships may vary across demographics such as age, gender and socio-economic affluence (Sweeting et al, 2012). Equating material possessions with happiness is problematic, given the association between the importance granted to material gains and emotional disorders (Kasser and Aaron, 2002). Retail therapy may produce dopamine in the brain from the momentary pleasure of purchasing desired products to substitute for whatever distress one experiences, and this can become a vicious cycle. This approach sees money and consumption as the solution to our real or perceived ailments, and as the foundation to our identities – I consume, therefore I am – depicting us as ‘homo economicus’ (Bartolini,

2014:590). However, this is not sustainable or meaningful intrinsically, as one cannot simply go on a shopping spree whenever emotionally distressed; and the satisfaction acquired from retail therapy and from owning material possessions cannot replace the satisfaction of having real-life interactions or actual therapy.

Another example of mass consumerism comes in less material and more virtual form – the growing usage of social media – which Twenge et al’s (2019) study identifies as one of the reasons for the mental health epidemic.10 Here, we see that even relationships and friendships have become

(24)

commodified and efficiency maximised within them. Although social media has its benefits, such as being able to connect and communicate with those at a great geographical distance and creating platforms for virtual civic engagement, it diminishes real-life social connections and increases isolation and loneliness with increased usage. Moreover, there is considerable importance placed on curating our self-image in social media, especially with platforms like Instagram. The focus on self-image and the element of competition and comparison between people are extrinsic values and goals which can be harmful to one’s wellbeing as discussed in section 2.4. More recently, social media have also been used as a data pool to collect personal information about online habits, tastes, and personalities to gauge one’s potential desires to sell to advertising companies. Magdoff and Williams (2017) call this the commodification of personalities. As more and more parts of our lives become commodified, it becomes an entrapment that many may not even realise they are in, making it difficult to break out of consumerism and materialism.

2.6.2 Privatisation and Private Ownership

Now, to turn to the problem of privatisation. The privatisation of natural resources and social services, for example: water, education and mental health services, deprives the poor of these basic amenities and services, as these social goods become rarer and costlier. Some may argue that the privatisation of such basic resources impinges upon human rights, as we deserve free access to fundamental needs like water (Barlow, 2001). Oftentimes, privatisation comes at low cost for the new owners and at most cost to the most vulnerable. A good example of this is the advent of granting patents to pharmaceutical companies for medicines. This allows companies to raise drug prices as they see fit and reap high profits from patented drugs. For example, the price of the antibiotic doxycycline has risen 90 times between 2013 and 2015, surely, not due to a reflection of its value (Archer, 2018). Companies argue that price hikes are vital to fund innovation. However, research shows that 78% of approved patents in the US are for existing medications, and disease domains that are perceived to be unprofitable are ignored (Mazzucato, 2018). Patents are also used to block knowledge creation and sometimes to protect new drugs that are only slightly tweaked from the original drug, allowing companies to dominate the market and create monopolies. Moreover, in the US, drug research is funded by taxpayers while large pharma companies (e.g. Pfizer) have spent more on buying shares to boost their shares than on research and development (Mazzucato, 2018). Ultimately, monopolistic

reinforces the argument made in 2.2 that more wealth does not always lead to better life outcomes. Besides that, the authors also conclude that sleep deprivation caused by internet usage contributes to these trends. Nonetheless, insomnia and sleep deprivation can also be a result of many other reasons, such as relationship or work-related stress. Moreover, it is hard to pinpoint certain causes of mental health trends, as there is never a sole cause and due to a lack of historical studies.

(25)

practices are rife within the pharmaceutical industry as a result of private patents;11 this is perverse considering that the goal of the pharmaceutical industry should be helping the ill.

On the other hand, some have argued that privatisation of resources like forests leads to them being efficiently managed, as people are more likely to care for their own property whereas communal resources tend to be abused by individuals who have short-term visions for their self-benefit and do not consider the long-term consequences (Hardin, 1968). However, Ostrom (1990) refutes this by showing that communal resources tend to be used by those within close vicinity or are held in

common by a community that is inclined to protect them too. Furthermore, the price of private goods or properties seldom reflect the true value of its social and environmental inputs, or the value that reflects sustainable use (Liverman and Vilas, 2006). This situation is now improving with more sustainable and ethical products in the market, but there are associated disadvantages with placing responsibility on consumers, too (as discussed in 2.1 and 3.2).

The promotion of private-property ownership is linked to the logic of individualism and materialism described in 2.5 and 2.6.1 as well as to the drive for privatisation whereby more and more goods are commodified, leading, e.g., to the incorporation of the real-estate industry into the expanding capitalist system. This privatisation drive occurs in both top-down and bottom-up fashion, as people are encouraged to purchase their own individual and private spaces. Eventually, this drive becomes normalised and accepted as part of what a successful life should include. Private-property ownership was incentivised, e.g., by Thatcher in the UK and the promotion of the American Dream in the US. For example, with time, our houses have become larger and less eco-friendly. This is related to our normative conventions of what success and comfort is. Normative success is often equated with

11 Near-monopoly has intensified competition for companies that are less powerful. This is a form of

(26)

having a well-paying job, so we can consume more and buy larger homes, as popularised by the American Dream.

US-Americans’ homes are typically their largest assets and are linked to their wealth. Many economic policies aim to incentivise people into acquiring or improving private homes

(Zandi, 2009:45). Many of us subscribe to these ideals due to a fear of alienation from our peers and being outcasta of societies’ expectations; this can be a source of anxiety for many. As for normative comfort, we increasingly prefer private and bigger bathrooms, more controlled indoor temperatures, longer showers to relax – stemming from the need for privacy and seeing homes as refuges from the rest of the world. The evolution of these conventions and their social aspects are illustrated in Figure 4 with bathing as an example. Our pursuit of comfort and convenience12 has been routinised,

resulting in larger ecological footprints with surging consumption rates of water, self-care and hygiene products, more material required for larger houses, the list goes on. Our ever-growing demands are well reflected by Shove’s (2003:400) metaphor of the ratchet of escalating consumption and the impossibility of backward movement (see Figure 5).

Moreover, our ideals of larger, more ‘comfortable’ and more private homes have resulted in high debt accumulation. This creates financial bubbles that are susceptible to bursting, as we witnessed in the financial crisis of 2008. This was the result of financial deregulation that encouraged risky and sub-prime mortgage lending by banks which led to massive mortgage defaults and mortgage debts for family residences of approximately USD$10million (Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 2018). These processes in the financial system were technical and oftentimes too

complicated to explain to the general public. Furthermore, sub-prime borrowers are individuals with imperfect credit rating, less adept at financial management, and in turn, more likely to default. A study by Crossney (2017:140) has found that predatory lending practices in Philadelphia were more pervasive within African American, lower-income and lower-educated neighbourhoods with high unemployment rates – exploiting already vulnerable populations. On top of that, sub-prime lenders were charged with higher interest rates on loans due to the perceived risk of them not being able to

12 Convenience often comes at the expense of care (back to the McDonald’s example again). On the other

hand, it also creates more time for more meaningful activities like spending quality time with friends and family.

(27)

repay loans. Due to a lack of understanding of what they were getting into and the incentivisation of risk-taking behaviour, the situation spiralled out of control. This is a form of predatory lending due to salespersons having an informational advantage and customers having obscure information about their ability to repay the loan (Argawal et al, 2014). As a result of these practices, governments had to bail the banks out – losses that were incurred by private banks became public losses – transferring responsibility onto taxpayers. Recession occurred as banks were reluctant to lend money, which led to a decline in economic activity. Consequently, governments had to direct cash flows to fix the situation, and austerity policies were endorsed to cut down on public spending on social services such as welfare and education. This kickstarted a downward spiral, where economic demand and

employment opportunities waned and the cost of living increased. Hence, profits accumulate privately but

losses are shared publicly, which stimulates recessions and crises. Studies have shown that global poverty levels are susceptible to financial crises (see Figure 6). The expansion of capitalism over space creates even larger bubbles, and in the event of a crisis, the effectiveness of coping mechanisms

becomes more limited as more countries are incorporated into the capitalist system. Capitalism is prone to such crises, determining whether they are epochal or terminal is an arduous task. Nevertheless, should we not make changes before crises become terminal? However, challenging the status quo is difficult. Those who express

dissent against neoliberal austerity are threatened by large blocs like the World Bank, EU and IMF – the Greek people voted for a left-wing anti-austerity party only to be threatened into submission by these blocs (Gillespie, 2015).

Crises may not be entirely bad news. “They [crises] function like laboratories in which the future is

incubated” (Varoufakis 2011 in Gillespie, 2015) – providing a window of opportunities for change.

However, since the 1970s, the post-crises windows of opportunities have mostly been used to

promote the same wholesale neoliberal policies and reforms that caused these crises in the first place Figure 6: Source: Gottschalk, 2004 in Gillespie, 2015

(28)

the weight of voting, as people are encouraged to exercise choice through consumption instead. In turn, some may believe that governments are to blame, creating an aversion to ‘politics’ and rage against those who are believed to be the ‘elite’. This is dangerous, as some factions may exploit times of economic failure to promote political ideologies that not only intensify neoliberal policies but are discriminatory, as we have witnessed with the recent rise of fascist movements (e.g. fascist marches in Poland; Taylor, 2017). With the use of emotionally-charged slogans, symbols and sensations, the ‘losers’ who feel marginalised and alienated economically and politically by the current system are now politically enabled to support these extreme movements. The political ideologies they support tend to draw from their anxieties and fears and tend to project them onto the ‘other’ – who are often minority populations. This leads to bullying and discrimination against minorities which clearly harms their mental health.

To summarise, neoliberal solutions are often the favoured solutions to our crises and often have further adverse socio-economic impacts. Efforts from within this system to mitigate and reverse environmental crises, such as green capitalism and capitalist conservation, do, undeniably, have their virtues. Nonetheless, they do not tackle the roots of the issue, which I propose are the capitalist values previously discussed. The penchant for market solutions only consolidates the place of such values within our society and incorporates more domains and spaces into the capitalist system. Moreover, these values generally tend to focus on extrinsic instead of intrinsic meaning, which is less significant in terms of improving mental health. In the next chapter, I discuss how capitalist self-criticism has acknowledged its place in contribution, specifically to climate change and ecological damage, and how capitalists have attempted to rectify these problems. Nonetheless, as we will see, these efforts can sometimes replicate the capitalist values-problematique, particularly the problems associated with the man versus nature dichotomy, the prioritisation of efficiency and profit, and the promotion of competition, mass consumerism and privatisation.

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

– Voor archeologische vindplaatsen die bedreigd worden door de geplande ruimtelijke ontwikkeling: hoe kan deze bedreiging weggenomen of verminderd worden

The actual density profile and the density profile from the state estimates obtained using the extended Kalman filter and the ensemble Kalman filter are shown.. The density profile

'n Verder gevolgtrekking wat gemaak kan word is dat die nuwe Kooperasiewet (1412005) we1 in verskeie opsigte verskil van die 1981 wet, en dat die regering ten doel het om die

To describe the effect of gap junctional coupling between cortical interneurons on synchronized oscillations in the cortex, we introduce a diffusion term in a mean-field model..

General issues that justify the relevance of aiming at in-depth understanding of scientific knowledge and scientific research relate to ‘becoming a better scientist’, such as,

Therefore, a high level of job significance might lower the influence that self-efficacy has on procrastination, which will lead to a linear and flatter

The current study analysed whether mental health status is associated with time preferences from the individual perspective, to contribute quantitatively to the rationale for

Nature-based solutions for the contemporary city/Re-naturing the city/Reflections on urban landscapes, ecosystems services and nature- based solutions in cities/Multifunctional