Danny Dorling
Having been politically awakened at a young age, he went on to study
visualisation and publish The Atlas of the Real World. He talks to
Olivia Edward about growing up in the part of Oxford that tourists don’t
see and why wealth inequalities in Britain are as damaging to the
nation’s health as smoking.
I become aware of social injustice very early on in my life. My parents were quite politically active, and Oxford, where we lived, is a very divided city. You can’t grow up there and not have a sense of ‘us and them’. On one side, you have some of the richest young people in the world attending these Brideshead Revisited university colleges, and on the other side, there’s a car factory. My school was a feeder for the car factory.
I had to go through a subway to reach school. Children from different estates took different routes to reach that subway and at the age of 16, I realised that, whether the children from my area left school at 15, or took A-levels, or did a secretarial course depended almost entirely on the route they took into that subway. It wasn’t about whether you were clever or lazy – if you came from a particular council estate, you had almost no chance.
The postcode you’re born into is the biggest predictor of where you’ll end up in life – the length of education you’ll receive, the type of house you’ll live in, the job you’ll have and when you’ll die.
Britain’s wealth inequalities are ancient. Other rich countries – such as France, Germany and Japan – had their wealth redistributed due to wars or revolutions, but we’ve never had a revolution, and the last time we were invaded was 1,000 years ago. British attitudes are descended from a time when there was still a squire and villagers. We took those attitudes into the towns and are still much more about cap-doffing and knowing our place than other European countries.
London is probably the most economically unequal affluent city the world has ever seen, outside of slavery. The richest ten per cent of people have 270 times more than the poorest ten per cent. That means that if 270 of the poorest people were to spread all their stuff out on a football field, it would be equal to the belongings of one of the richest people. Now, you would think that that rich person would spend their money more wisely and eat less and pollute less, but that isn’t what happens. People in unequal countries are fatter, they pollute more, and they recycle less. The richest people feel the need to work long hours and reward themselves with five or six holidays abroad a year, and the people at the bottom are getting into debt trying to keep up with the lifestyles of those at the top.
Inequality is bad for everyone, both rich and poor. Pop stars in the USA, which is also very unequal, tend to die far earlier than those in more equal countries, such as Scandinavia. The classic case is Michael Jackson versus Abba. The members of Abba have bought fairly modest houses and are fairly happy, while poor old Michael Jackson felt the need to buy Neverland. It happens with Oscar winners, too. If you’re brought up in a more equal country, you have a far sounder idea about what might make you happy, and as a result, don’t feel the need to indulge in conspicuous spending.
We have enough housing in Britain. There are enough rooms for everyone to have two bedrooms each. We don’t need to build millions of council houses. Our problem is sharing it out. We’re very bad at that, and we’re getting worse. We’ve had increases in second homes, third homes and fourth homes, and programmes such as Relocation, Relocation are normalising the idea that you have a city flat and a country house. As a result, the proportion of properties that are empty is much higher than it used to be, and at the same time, older people are often rattling around in houses that are far bigger than they need.
The level of inequality in Britain has the same effect on our life expectancies as if everyone in Britain smoked. We have to realise that it’s a problem – a bit like we did in the ’70s with the green movement. Once you’ve accepted that it’s a problem and decided you want to reduce it, then you can start doing something about it.
I don’t want a revolution; I want to nudge things in the right direction. It’s all about how we can help people use resources in a better way, rather than everyone trying to satisfy their individual needs at a particular moment.
Visit www.geographical.co.uk to find out why Danny Dorling believes that most atlases are wrong and that the world doesn’t have an overpopulation crisis.
Curriculum vitae
1968 Born in Oxford
1981–86 Attended Cheney School, Oxford
1989 Graduated from the University of Newcastle with a first-class degree in geography, mathematics and science
1991 Completed PhD in the visualisation of spatial social structure at the University of Newcastle
2000–03 Professor of quantitative human geography, University of Leeds
2003–present Professor of human geography, University of Sheffield
2008–present Honorary president of the Society of Cartographers
2009 Awarded Royal Geographical Society (with IBG) Back Award for outstanding contribution to the development of national and international public policy
August 2010
I become aware of social injustice very early on in my life. My parents were quite politically active, and Oxford, where we lived, is a very divided city. You can’t grow up there and not have a sense of ‘us and them’. On one side, you have some of the richest young people in the world attending these Brideshead Revisited university colleges, and on the other side, there’s a car factory. My school was a feeder for the car factory.
I had to go through a subway to reach school. Children from different estates took different routes to reach that subway and at the age of 16, I realised that, whether the children from my area left school at 15, or took A-levels, or did a secretarial course depended almost entirely on the route they took into that subway. It wasn’t about whether you were clever or lazy – if you came from a particular council estate, you had almost no chance.
The postcode you’re born into is the biggest predictor of where you’ll end up in life – the length of education you’ll receive, the type of house you’ll live in, the job you’ll have and when you’ll die.
Britain’s wealth inequalities are ancient. Other rich countries – such as France, Germany and Japan – had their wealth redistributed due to wars or revolutions, but we’ve never had a revolution, and the last time we were invaded was 1,000 years ago. British attitudes are descended from a time when there was still a squire and villagers. We took those attitudes into the towns and are still much more about cap-doffing and knowing our place than other European countries.
London is probably the most economically unequal affluent city the world has ever seen, outside of slavery. The richest ten per cent of people have 270 times more than the poorest ten per cent. That means that if 270 of the poorest people were to spread all their stuff out on a football field, it would be equal to the belongings of one of the richest people. Now, you would think that that rich person would spend their money more wisely and eat less and pollute less, but that isn’t what happens. People in unequal countries are fatter, they pollute more, and they recycle less. The richest people feel the need to work long hours and reward themselves with five or six holidays abroad a year, and the people at the bottom are getting into debt trying to keep up with the lifestyles of those at the top.
Inequality is bad for everyone, both rich and poor. Pop stars in the USA, which is also very unequal, tend to die far earlier than those in more equal countries, such as Scandinavia. The classic case is Michael Jackson versus Abba. The members of Abba have bought fairly modest houses and are fairly happy, while poor old Michael Jackson felt the need to buy Neverland. It happens with Oscar winners, too. If you’re brought up in a more equal country, you have a far sounder idea about what might make you happy, and as a result, don’t feel the need to indulge in conspicuous spending.
We have enough housing in Britain. There are enough rooms for everyone to have two bedrooms each. We don’t need to build millions of council houses. Our problem is sharing it out. We’re very bad at that, and we’re getting worse. We’ve had increases in second homes, third homes and fourth homes, and programmes such as Relocation, Relocation are normalising the idea that you have a city flat and a country house. As a result, the proportion of properties that are empty is much higher than it used to be, and at the same time, older people are often rattling around in houses that are far bigger than they need.
The level of inequality in Britain has the same effect on our life expectancies as if everyone in Britain smoked. We have to realise that it’s a problem – a bit like we did in the ’70s with the green movement. Once you’ve accepted that it’s a problem and decided you want to reduce it, then you can start doing something about it.
I don’t want a revolution; I want to nudge things in the right direction. It’s all about how we can help people use resources in a better way, rather than everyone trying to satisfy their individual needs at a particular moment.
Visit www.geographical.co.uk to find out why Danny Dorling believes that most atlases are wrong and that the world doesn’t have an overpopulation crisis.
Curriculum vitae
1968 Born in Oxford
1981–86 Attended Cheney School, Oxford
1989 Graduated from the University of Newcastle with a first-class degree in geography, mathematics and science
1991 Completed PhD in the visualisation of spatial social structure at the University of Newcastle
2000–03 Professor of quantitative human geography, University of Leeds
2003–present Professor of human geography, University of Sheffield
2008–present Honorary president of the Society of Cartographers
2009 Awarded Royal Geographical Society (with IBG) Back Award for outstanding contribution to the development of national and international public policy
August 2010
