The Spirit Level

In The Spirit Level, Pickett and Wilkinson explain that material inequality harms a country’s social relationships and sense of community. Pickett and Wilkinson paint a positive picture of egalitarian countries, which tend to enjoy higher levels of social trust. They write, “In Norway it is not unusual to see cafes with tables and chairs on the pavement and blankets left out for people to use if they feel chilly while having a coffee. Nobody worries about customers or passersby stealing the blankets” (54). According to the authors, it is generally people’s similarity in status that makes such social trust possible, since people with similar incomes are more likely to relate positively to each other than those who are divided by vastly different class experiences.  

The authors establish that people in egalitarian societies are more likely to share neighborhoods and public spaces, which fosters a sense of community amongst them. In contrast, people in more hierarchical places are literally divided by their unequal incomes, which separate them geographically into starkly different neighborhoods. As income inequality becomes entrenched in populations, high earners are concentrated in wealthier neighborhoods, away from lower earners, while the poorest neighborhoods become more ghettoized. The authors refer to studies which demonstrate that “increased income inequality is responsible for increasing the segregation of rich and poor” (162). This segregation decreases the chances of people from different social classes mixing socially and professionally, creating disconnected, distinct subcultures that cannot relate to each other.

According to Wilkinson and Pickett, relatability and social connections form the foundation of social trust, and this explains why the most egalitarian developed countries such as Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, and Denmark also have the highest social trust ratings. In these nations over 60% of participants agreed that “most people can be trusted” (53). Meanwhile, in unequal countries like Singapore and Portugal, fewer than 20% agreed with that statement. The authors elaborate, “So just within these rich market democracies, there are more than sixfold differences in levels of trust, and, as the graph shows, high levels of trust are linked to low levels of inequality” (53).

The authors build on these observations by using examples to emphasize how social trust is not merely a cultural quirk, but a consequential feature of society that can profoundly impact people’s well-being. For instance, during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, local people coped with the destruction of their homes and the flooding of the city while armed soldiers looked for looters. The authors contend that the military’s focus on law enforcement, rather than humanitarian aid, was a sign of social distrust and the result of the chasm between people of different classes. They write, “Television news screens showed desperate residents begging for help, for baby food, for medicine, and then switched to images of troops, cruising the flooded streets in boats, not evacuating people, not bringing them supplies, but, fully armed with automatic weapons, looking for looters” (49). This frightening example highlights how social distrust can have dire consequences and fuel negative interactions between people of different social groups. The authors agree with political scientist Eric Uslaner that “trust cannot thrive in an unequal world” and invite the reader to consider how reducing inequality might help their own society develop more social trust (55).