Inequality: The View from Manywheres <\/strong>by S\u00e9amus Power <\/strong>explores competing perspectives on economic inequality, capitalism and social mobility through a lens of anthropology and cultural psychology. Power\u2019s nuanced, pluralistic approach offers a valuable framework for understanding inequality beyond economics alone, according to Michael Jindra.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n Inequality: The View from Manywheres<\/em>. S\u00e9amus A. Power. Cambridge University Press. 2026.<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n In Inequality: The View from Manywheres<\/em>, S\u00e9amus Power enters an important debate on inequality in an even-handed way. As an anthropologist and cultural psychologist, he is uniquely equipped to take this on. His \u201cview from manywheres\u201d means that he considers multiple viewpoints on an issue, which is a major strength of the book. Instead of hammering on one thesis like one of his interlocutors, Thomas Piketty, \u201cmanywheres\u201d shifts back and forth between arguments that view inequality as either needing to be eliminated (\u00e0 la Thomas Piketty<\/a>), or as a normal part of both economic growth and the associated decline of absolute poverty.<\/p>\n Protests often occur not in the worst of times economically, such as during the 2008 financial crash, but when times are booming as people feel that only certain people are benefiting [\u2026] they feel \u2018relative deprivation\u2019 when comparing themselves to others<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n In Parts I and II, Power is balanced on capitalism, presenting and sympathising with critiques of it from Piketty and people like geographer Danny Dorling<\/a> or sociologist Michael Savage<\/a>, but ultimately defending it as the best solution to getting people out of poverty, despite the inequality it produces. After he lays out the virtues and vices of capitalism, he then gives us interesting case studies on people\u2019s attitudes to their political economic systems in various countries, including his native Ireland. He observes that protests often occur not in the worst of times economically, such as during the 2008 financial crash, but when times are booming, like in Ireland from 2013-2015, as people feel that only certain people are benefiting. They feel \u201crelative deprivation\u201d when comparing themselves to others \u2013 a basic and crucial human tendency, as Power explains in the book.\u00a0<\/p>\n In a chapter on populism, Power describes it as: \u201ca backlash to growing economic inequality, feelings of relative deprivation, fears for the future, and exploitation of a desire for hope and clarity in those who are or feel impoverished and incapable of pursuing their human capabilities in unequal societies.\u201d In general, the focus on economic discontent, which likely reflects his European context and his presumably left-leaning audience, may not resonate with readers based elsewhere.\u00a0The authoritarian populist right has become the main alternative to mainstream parties in many areas of Europe and most recently in Latin America and South Asia. Except for a few cities like Mamdani\u2019s New York, socialism in the US is a losing proposition. Inequality doesn\u2019t seem to bother Americans as much, with a strong subset of the population, many lower-income, supporting a corrupt billionaire president. Their anger is directed more at the cultural elite<\/a> than the economic elite, and they see Trump as defending their values<\/a>.<\/p>\n When he does address the US, he states that the US \u201crust belt\u201d label is \u201ca perfect representation of the stagnation and feelings of deprivation felt by many people living there.\u201d \u00a0This seems a little out of date and too simplistic. Major coastal states like Massachusetts and California are now losing population to the interior<\/a> because of high costs and poor governance. The Midwest, the South and the intermountain West are now seen as among the most attractive places<\/a> to live because of their low cost of living, low taxes, and low unemployment. Overall, the US has been doing better economically than most of Europe, with Britain and France now poorer than the poorest American states<\/a>, even though the US has a higher generational poverty problem<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n Not all people are driven by material aspirations. Many prioritise things like sociality, family and locality over the mobility and dislocation that often follows the pursuit of economic opportunities. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n His equality-difference paradox chapter at the end of Part II is arguably the strongest and most interesting part of the book. The paradox reveals something that most economists, including people like Piketty miss: diversity itself contributes to inequality. Not all people are driven by material aspirations. Many prioritise things like sociality, family and locality over the mobility and dislocation that often follows the pursuit of economic opportunities. It is not just capitalism that causes inequality, but the diversity of people<\/a>, and this diversity is not always bad.<\/p>\n In Part III, Power lays out \u201cthree possible futures\u201d: a status quo of increasing inequality, a counter-reaction to that in the strengthening of leftist control of the economy that will ultimately leave people worse off, and his favoured approach of \u201cpluralistic capitalisms.\u201d This involves a nuanced approach drawn from his \u201cview from manywheres\u201d but given a prescriptive basis through Martha Nussbaum\u2019s human capabilities approach<\/a>. Basically, he argues for \u201cfairer forms of capitalism that centre on creating, maintaining, and developing people\u2019s human capabilities\u201d that don\u2019t just focus on wealth, but the whole range of human experience.\u00a0<\/p>\n Because he ranges so widely, most readers will likely agree and disagree with different parts of the book. Some of the works Power highlights on inequality and poverty aren\u2019t the strongest. The 2009 book by Kate Pickett and Richard G. Wilkinson, The<\/em> Spirit Level<\/em><\/a>, has been heavily criticised<\/a> (along with Piketty\u2019s work<\/a>) on methodological and statistical grounds, to the point that its main claim that inequality itself somehow contributes to poor health cannot be supported<\/a>. The book\u2019s popularity among the left is more a reflection of the popular narrative it plays into. Sociologist Matt Desmond\u2019s work<\/a> is popular for the same reason and for its vivid portrayal of poverty, but lacks nuance on the issue. It sticks to standard left-leaning approaches rather than a fuller picture of poverty grounded in not only structures, but also subcultures and generational family dynamics<\/a> (such as children having few good or stable family role models<\/a>) that redistribution alone won\u2019t cure. Socialisation into middle-class habits of saving and planning<\/a> is crucial for success, but not all children experience this.\u00a0<\/p>\n The book could be seen by those on the left as too idealistic in its measured, hopeful approach that sensible regulation can adjust capitalism to reduce inequality. The underlying question is, why are people doing generally well, yet still so dissatisfied? Power\u2019s partial answer is perceptions of fairness involving inequality. It would go beyond the \u201cinequality\u201d scope of his book to delve deeply into wider answers, which likely involve the growth of the internet and social media<\/a> and, relatedly, frustration with the political rulers<\/a> (which can emanate from both the right and the left).\u00a0<\/p>\n Power\u2019s value pluralist \u2018manywheres\u2019 approach has to be the best starting point of any analysis.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Power\u2019s value pluralism \u201cmanywheres\u201d approach has to be the best starting point of any analysis. He comes down sensibly accepting growth, with lots of reasonable qualifications, such as needing to find a way to distribute it more equitably. But the challenge is great, and future writing on this subject would benefit from delving more deeply. Attempting to address global inequality requires going beyond economic considerations to an exploration of, for instance, how deeper \u201cmoral foundations\u201d<\/a> such as care, fairness, authority and purity (which is related to the work of Power\u2019s PhD advisor Richard Shweder) affect people\u2019s outlooks and political leanings in an era where various populisms will likely only become stronger.<\/p>\n Note:<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0This review gives the views of the interviewer and author, not the position of the LSE Review of Books blog nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science.<\/em><\/p>\n Read an interview with the author in LSE Research for the World Magazine The limits of inequality: why feeling poor matters in an age of abundance<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n Image:<\/strong><\/em> Malcolm Lightbody<\/a> on Unsplash<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n Enjoyed this post?\u00a0Subscribe\u00a0<\/a>to our newsletter\u00a0for a round-up of the latest reviews sent straight to your inbox every other Tuesday.<\/em><\/p>\n
\n\n
How people view their economic systems<\/h2>\n
Drivers of political leanings and aspirations<\/h2>\n
\n
Could \u201cpluralistic capitalisms\u201d work?<\/h2>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogsmedia.lse.ac.uk\/blogs.dir\/30\/files\/2026\/08\/Copy-of-Copy-of-25_0434-Cultures-of-Sustainable-Peace-10-1024x576.png\")
<\/a><\/figure>\nThe challenge inequality presents<\/h2>\n
\n
\n
\n
![\"Print](\"https:\/\/cdn.printfriendly.com\/buttons\/printfriendly-button.png\")