The Spirit Level Summary

Even a casual observer who looks at the world can see that inequality exists in society. But what exactly does inequality do to a society? Is inequality a result of multi-factored social mechanisms, or does inequality itself cause the social issues? Furthermore, while people see that inequality exists, they may not know where to begin in repairing societies defects. Richard G. Wilkinson, author of The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger, rightly argues that inequality is the acting social factor that divides society. To support this claim, Wilkinson presents data from various studies which draw an inverse correlation between the level of inequality and the height of social cohesion. His analysis shows that inequality

affects trust, leading to a breakdown in society, and by addressing inequality there will be a later rise in trust between people promoting a healthier society. Wilkinson does not give practical applications on how to reduce inequality, but by identifying the directional relationship of inequality’s ultimate effect on society, used through analytical data and emotional appeals, he gives the reader a clear idea of the underlying conceptual basis that needs to be addressed before practical considerations can be applied.
As the chapter begins, Wilkinson directs his focus towards our society in the United States that is experiencing a problem, and he uses a disaster the U.S.

experienced to serve as an example of this larger problem. In 2005 Hurricane Katrina hit the southern coast, and the worst effects were seen in New Orleans, where most of the city was underwater after the city’s levee system failed. The result was thousands of trapped citizens and this catastrophe illustrated an interesting observation on how the government responded. Wilkinson writes, “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 bringing them supplies, but, fully armed with automatic weapons, looking for looters (50).” Essentially, the example of the New Orleans disaster exposes an important observation that engages the reader to be sympathetic towards others- at some level citizens were treated in an unequal fashion. Most people know that inequality exists, but the extent of its reach may not be fully understood because people also see the U.S. as having a high standard of living for its citizens. By opening the chapter with the government’s response to a contemporary disaster, and the plight of real U.S. citizens, Wilkinson prompts the reader to become receptive to the idea that there is a misapplication of treatment that, indeed, is systemic in our

society.
The analysis of the government’s actions during Hurricane Katrina concludes that there was a lack of trust between the government and its citizens. This is where Wilkinson’s primary thesis starts to take shape. A lack of trust is just a response action; there must be an underlying issue at play that affects the ability to trust certain people. The variable that was consistent with the citizens of New Orleans was well-known inequality present in that community, and because of this high-level inequality, there was a subsequent lack of trust, ultimately negatively impacting this community. Wilkinson provides a thesis that has a logical progression which enables the reader to grasp the concept. There is inequality present in society, inequality directly influences a lack of trust between different social groups, and this level of trust will affect the quality of the society implicated in this dynamic.
To substantiate this primary thesis, Wilkinson draws his conclusions based on national and international research that measures inequality vs. trustworthiness and applies these values against the countries relative socioeconomic status of its citizens. Summarizing each study that measured the relationship between trust and inequality yielded the same results- when inequality was greater there was a lower level of trust. Now, referring back to the causal factor that influenced the government’s response to Hurricane Katrina, we are given the necessary background information that New Orleans was “one of the most unequal,” (54) and the subsequent “mistrust” (54) led to the loss of lives and lower quality of life for those citizens.
Not only do the studies support Wilkinson’s thesis, the effectiveness in persuading the reader is also a result of the sources he uses in his argument. Many of these sources were performed by government entities, implying that there is a high level of credibility in the data, greatly increasing his academic status by only accepting sources from recognized, reputable, sources. Additionally, Wilkinson increases his arguments effectiveness by taking national studies and correlating their results across countries. We see an effective example of this where Wilkinson states, “North Dakota has a level of trust similar to that of Sweden… Just as with international data, low levels of trust among the United States are related to high inequality” (54). Not only are the sources credible, but his ability to draw correlations between individual studies indicates he has an understanding of this data, providing the reader with a sense of professional expertise in this subject.
Wilkinson uses respected sources to also substantiate the other main part of his thesis inferring inequality affects trust and not the other way around. Specifically, Wilkinson refers to the work done by Eric Uslaner, a political scientist at the University of Maryland, and author of The Moral Foundations of Trust. Uslaner and his colleague Bo Rothstein measured that trust declined around the same time inequality increased. Again, he uses credible sources in the formulation of his thesis. Perhaps the most important aspect that Wilkinson uses to his advantage is through the use of intellectual honesty. He explicitly states during his conclusion that “… We have shown that levels of social trust are connected to income inequality, but of course showing a correlation is not the same thing as showing causality” (61). There is a clear sign that while Wilkinson believes strongly in this thesis, he is maintaining impartiality to the facts and being careful to not infer absolutes in the relationship of a causal linkage.
The last part of Wilkinson’s thesis explains that with a high level of trust, through the promotion of equality, the goal of a healthier society can be attained.

Wilkinson relies on historical events to contrast the difference between communities with low vs. high levels of trust. He refers to the sociologist Eric Klinenberg, author of Heat-Wave, where we have a historical event with two separate communities, and the health of these communities was impacted by the level of trust. African-American neighborhoods suffered more deaths compared to Hispanic neighborhoods because the African-American communities were less trustful compared to the Hispanic communities. It should be noted that these communities were prefaced as being “equally poor,” (57) indicating their relative socioeconomic equality was at the same level; however, Wilkinson’s thesis still stands valid because while different communities may trust differently, the overall rise of equality will bring directly increase trust, a phenomenon that’s consistent between nations that have widely different social

backgrounds.
To end this rhetorical analysis we can confidently say that Wilkinson adequately validated his thesis. His use of logical, ethical, and emotional appeals meant that each reader, regardless of their affinity for certain types of arguments, would be able to find an area that resonated with their values. The referenced information given in this chapter was highly credible, compelling the reader to “trust” Wilkinson’s thesis. As stated in the introduction, there were no direct applications on reducing inequality, but that’s because Wilkinson wants us to look at the bigger picture. His thesis is a systematic approach to identifying a problem, namely inequality, determining how inequality directly affects trust and realizing the societal benefits that come from reducing the systemic problem of inequality.