Board the Metro train underground in Southeast Washington, D.C., and head up toward leafy Montgomery County, Md. With each mile you travel, life expectancy increases about a year and a half. The average suburbanite near the Shady Grove station will live 20 years longer than the typical city dweller around Capitol Heights. She will also outlast her counterparts in Dupont Circle and Chinatown. And, along the way, she'll enjoy better health, less stress and more autonomy. The same pattern holds in your office. The CEO will likely live longer and (by most measures) better than the vice president, the secretary will be healthier and happier than the receptionist, and so on. Education helps, so the staff attorney will outlive the sales manager, even if their salaries are identical. You're not exempt if you work in an unconventional field, either. According to a recent study, Academy Award-winning actors outlive unsuccessful Oscar nominees by roughly four years. Thank you, Academy, indeed.
Conventional accounts of American inequality portray it as a two-sided phenomenon. We have "two nations, one rich, one poor," or an "other America" hidden from view. But a subway ride through the capital and a bird's-eye view of the workplace suggest another condition. There is a social gradient, a status hierarchy, and everyone has a position in it. For most of us, that spot determines longevity and quality of life.
What causes the status syndrome? Money matters, particularly for the poor...Yet income is not the whole story. Life expectancy in Israel, New Zealand, Malta and Greece is higher than in the United States, even though the GDP per person is less than $20,000 in each of these nations and more than $34,000 here...Extreme status disparities and social segregation at the national level undermine public health, whereas relative equality, social cohesion and strong public education systems promote collective well-being. Perhaps it's not surprising that the three countries with the longest life expectancy are Japan, Sweden and Canada.
Above a certain threshold it's deprivation relative to others in one's society that matters, even for those (like the Oscar nominees) near the top of the ladder. The reason, Marmot argues, is that social participation -- rewarding relationships, access to a community, and the respect of others -- and individual autonomy are crucial determinants of health and happiness. High status usually affords more opportunities for social involvement and control of one's conditions. Low status means that external forces -- a mean-spirited boss, a company that dumps toxic waste near your neighborhood -- are more likely to determine one's fate, social support is less reliable, and insecurity is a feature of daily life. Although the meaning of full participation varies from places to place, Marmot claims that the beneficial effects of being connected are constant.
To Have and Have Not
Reviewed by Eric Klinenberg
Sunday, August 1, 2004; Page BW03
THE STATUS SYNDROME
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25983-2004Jul29.html