IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ese/iserwp/2007-22.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Inequality and quiescence: a continuing conundrum

Author

Listed:
  • Spencer, Liz
  • Pahl, Ray
  • Rose, David

Abstract

How may we account for the fact that most people appear to accept widespread social and economic inequalities? This is a question that has often been posed in the social sciences. One possible explanation is that individuals tend to make comparisons with others like themselves and so, as a result, do not appreciate the full range of inequality. This was the conclusion drawn by research in the 1960s and was re-affirmed by further research in the 1970s. However, more recently, it has been suggested that social and economic change in the intervening period may have had effects on the range and type of comparisons people are able to make. In particular, it has been argued that the growth of the mass media has exposed people to a broader range of lifestyles and the expansion of the consumer society has created ever greater desires. In these circumstances, it is thought that people’s horizons will have expanded so that they no longer have such restricted points of reference for their social comparisons. In this paper, we use evidence from a small scale pilot qualitative study to investigate social comparisons in the 21st century. We find that, in many ways, social comparisons are still narrow and knowledge of the true extent of inequality is still limited. What comparisons people do make appear to be based on lifestyle and consumption. Hence, they are neither resentful of the superrich, nor of others closer to themselves who have done better in life. However, they are very aware of their advantages compared with less fortunate members of society. Our respondents see themselves as members of a comfortable middle mass of ‘ordinary, hard-working families’. The paper concludes with some reflections on the nature of social cohesion in the UK today.

Suggested Citation

  • Spencer, Liz & Pahl, Ray & Rose, David, 2007. "Inequality and quiescence: a continuing conundrum," ISER Working Paper Series 2007-22, Institute for Social and Economic Research.
  • Handle: RePEc:ese:iserwp:2007-22
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/files/working-papers/iser/2007-22.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Andreas Georgiadis & Alan Manning, 2012. "Spend it like Beckham? Inequality and redistribution in the UK, 1983–2004," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 151(3), pages 537-563, June.
    2. Lin Yang, 2018. "The relationship between poverty and inequality: Resource constraint mechanisms," CASE Papers /212, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, LSE.
    3. Lin Yang, 2018. "The net effect of housing-related costs and advantages on the relationship between inequality and poverty," CASE Papers /211, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, LSE.
    4. Yang, Lin, 2018. "The relationship between poverty and inequality: resource constraint mechanisms," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 103463, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    5. John Flint, 2019. "Encounters with the centaur state: Advanced urban marginality and the practices and ethics of welfare sanctions regimes," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 56(1), pages 249-265, January.
    6. Andrea Lizama-Loyola, 2022. "Teachers’ Narratives of Life Satisfaction, Social Mobility, and Practical Sense of Inequalities in Chile," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 27(2), pages 342-360, June.
    7. Sarah Smart, 2012. "Feeling Uncomfortable: Young People's Emotional Responses to Neo-Liberal Explanations for Economic Inequality," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 17(3), pages 183-194, August.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ese:iserwp:2007-22. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Jonathan Nears (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rcessuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.