Relative deprivation
Relative deprivation is the lack of resources to sustain the diet, lifestyle, activities and amenities that an individual or group are accustomed to or that are widely encouraged or approved in the society to which they belong.[1] Measuring relative deprivation allows an objective comparison between the situation of the individual or group compared to the rest of society. Relative deprivation may also emphasise the individual experience of discontent when being deprived of something to which one believes oneself to be entitled, however emphasizing the perspective of the individual makes objective measurement problematic.[2][3][4]
It is a term used in
Social scientists, particularly political scientists and sociologists, have cited relative deprivation, especially temporal relative deprivation, as a potential cause of
In response to exploration of the concept of relative deprivation, the term "relative gratification" has emerged in social psychology to discuss the opposite phenomenon.[11][12]
According to a June 2015 report by the IMF, the defining challenge of our time is widening income inequality. In advanced economies, the gap between the rich and poor is at its highest level in decades. Inequality trends have been more mixed in emerging markets and developing countries (EMDCs), with some countries experiencing declining inequality, but pervasive inequities in access to education, health care, and finance remain.[13]
Theory
In one of the first formal definitions of the relative deprivation, Walter Runciman noted that there are four preconditions of relative deprivation[14] (of object X by person A):
- Person A does not have X
- Person A knows of other persons that have X
- Person A wants to have X
- Person A believes obtaining X is realistic
Runciman distinguished between
Deprivation Theory is that people who are deprived of things deemed valuable in society, money, justice, status or privilege, join social movements with the hope of redressing their grievances. That is a beginning point for looking at why people join social movements; however, it is even more important to look at relative deprivation theory, a belief that people join social movement based on their evaluations of what they think they should have, compared with what others have. On the contrary, absolute deprivation is people's actual negative condition; relative deprivation is what people think they should have relative to what others have, or even compared with their own past or perceived future. Improved conditions fuel human desires for even better conditions and so can spark revolutions.
Relativeness
Feelings of deprivation are relative, as they come from a comparison to
Consider the following examples: in 1905 cars were a luxury, hence an individual unable to afford one would not feel or be viewed as deprived. In 2010, when cars are common in most societies, an individual unable to afford one is much more likely to feel deprived. In another example, mobile phones are common today, and many people may feel that they deserve to have one. Fifty years ago, when there were no mobile phones, such a sentiment would not exist.
Relative deprivation may be temporal; that is, it can be experienced by people that experience expansion of rights or wealth, followed by stagnation or reversal of those gains. Such phenomena are also known as unfulfilled rising expectations.[16]
In an example from the realm, the lack of the
Relative and absolute deprivation
Some scientists, for instance John Kenneth Galbraith, have argued that relative differences in economic wealth are more important than absolute deprivation, and that it is more significant in determining human quality of life.[17] This debate has important consequences for social policy, particularly on whether poverty can be eliminated simply by raising total wealth or whether egalitarian measures are also needed.
A specific form of relative deprivation is
Critique
Critique of this theory has pointed out that this theory fails to explain why some people who feel discontent fail to take action and join social movements. Counter-arguments include that some people are prone to conflict-avoidance, are short-term-oriented, and that imminent life difficulties may arise since there is no guarantee that life-improvement will result from social action.[16]
See also
- Anxiety
- Depression (mood)
- Frog pond effect
- Group conflict
- Identity performance
- Jealousy
- Keeping up with the Joneses
- Objective deprivation
- Positional good
- Rat race
- Relative fitness
- Status symbol
- Social comparison theory
- Social media
- Social status
- Social stress
- Subjective theory of value
- Tocqueville effect
References
- ISBN 0-520-039769,[1]
- ^ ISBN 0-521-80132-X, Google Books
- ^
- ^ Schaefer defines it as "the conscious experience of a negative discrepancy between legitimate expectations and present actualities.Richard T. Schaefer, Racial and Ethnic Groups, 11th Ed., not in this book Pearson Education, 2008, p.69
- ^ "Relative Poverty, Absolute Poverty and Social Exclusion". Retrieved 2014-01-04.[2]
- ^ "relative deprivation". Oxford Reference. Retrieved 2021-04-10.
- ISBN 9780691021676.
- ^ a b Robert K. Merton, "Social Structure and Anomie". American Sociological Review 3: 672-82, 1938.
- ISBN 0-691-07528-X
- ISBN 0-02-926790-0
- ^ Dambrun, M., Taylor, D. M., McDonald, D. A., Crush, J., & Méot, A. (2006). The relative deprivation-gratification continuum and the attitudes of South Africans toward immigrants: a test of the V-curve hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(6), 1032.
- ^ Dambrun, M., & Taylor, D. M. (2013). The Counterintuitive Association Between Life Satisfaction and Racism. SAGE Open, 3(3), 2158244013505756.
- ^ Era Dabla-Norris; Kalpana Kochhar; Nujin Suphaphiphat; Frantisek Ricka; Evridiki Tsounta (June 15, 2015). Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality : A Global Perspective. International Monetary Fund. Retrieved June 16, 2015.
- OCLC 70408990 – via Internet Archive.
- ISSN 2397-8570.
- ^
Further reading
- ISBN 0-89859-704-8, Google Print
- Wallace, Anthony F.C. 1956. "Revitalization Movements", American Anthropologist 58: 264–281.Wayback Machine