Oliver James argues that high levels of mental illness are essential to what he calls "selfish capitalism" (is there any other kind?), because needy, miserable people make greedy consumers and can be more easily suckered into perfectionist, competitive workaholism.
He further argues that inequality plus "affluenza" (defined as placing a high value on money, possessions, appearance and fame) are driving "English-speaking nations" in particular towards mental ill-health in unprecedented numbers.
Perhaps, in different groups of people, the triggers that lead to mental ill-health, vary? Perhaps, as a number of bloggers have pointed out, statistics can be customised to bolster almost any point. Perhaps Oliver James has overlooked or dismissed other modern factors that can make day-to-day life so toxic for some but not for others?
For instance, could it be that the total preoccupation with maintaining a state of happiness, rejecting the dips and valleys that come from darker moods, itself bruise the mind? In an essay in the New Internationalist magazine, John Schumaker described the psychological and social impact of a society fixated on the pursuit of personal happiness above all else; demanding the "right" to happiness. "No-one is less able to sustain happiness than someone obsessed with feeling only happiness."
Then, too, there is the impact of guilt updated to a contemporary setting. Adam Ma'anit, in the November issue of New Internationalist, argues that "the price we pay for our advance in civilisation is a loss of happiness through the heightening of a sense of guilt."
The guilt, for example of the political activist, the workaholic, the "perfect" parent; the green enthusiast and climate change missionary fed by the belief that whatever they do is never enough. An overload of guilt, Ma'anit argues, causes compassion fatigue, burn-out and a sense of impotency - all of which potentially can damage a sense of wellbeing.
He quotes from a poll conducted by the Norwich Union, which revealed that seven in 10 in the UK believe being seen to be green is the new "keeping up with the Joneses" - one in five saying they have no idea how to live live more ethically but nine in 10 say they tell "little green lies" to pretend to live in a more eco-friendly manner.
In itself, the green squeeze many not trigger unhappiness - but it's one more measure by which some can see themselves as failing and inadequate. A conscience too finely honed can bring its own mental pain.
Ma'anit quotes Penelope Leach, the child development specialist: "Guilt is the most destructive of all emotions. It mourns what has been while playing no part in what may be, now or in the future."
Guilt in all its various manifestations appears to play a large part in 21st century living (too fat, too thin, too ugly, too futilely saving the planet; maintaining a relationship; creating a career; doing enough for others, etc) - and not everyone has access to a confession box and penances.
Another thought: if "selfish capitalism" has such a dire effect, why do a significant proportion of citizens of the USA appear content, if polls are to be believed? In a comment piece in the New York Times in October, David Brooks wrote on "The Happiness Gap" - a gap that may also have a resonance in the UK.
According to the General Social Survey, Brooks says, 86% of Americans are content with their jobs; 76% are satisfied with their family income and 62% expect their personal situation to improve over the next five years.
Another survey found that 65% of Americans are satisfied overall with their own lives - one of the highest rates of personal satisfaction in the world today. Yet, the USA also has devastating rates of poverty, family break-up, violence and a chasm between rich and poor - so how to explain that conundrum?
Are the pollsters being told what interviewees believe they want to hear? Or is contentment authentic, generated - possibly - by the quality of one-to-one relationships; the strength of religious faith and the solidarity of neighbourhoods irrespective of levels of wealth?
Where Americans are overwhelmingly pessimistic, Brooks points out, is about the quality of their public institutions Only 25% of Americans are satisfied with the state of their nation. (Hardly surprising.) The 40-point gap between private and public happiness is the fourth largest in the world behind Israel (in itself interesting); Mexico and Brazil.
Americans are more pessimistic about government's ability to solve problems than they were in 1974 at the height of Watergate and the end of the Vietnam War.
"This creates a treacherous political vortex," Brooks argues. "On the one hand, it means voters are desperate for change" (a plus for Barack Obama?). "On the other hand, they are extremely cynical about those leaders and unwilling to trust them with anything that seems risky."
Brooks says what Americans want to sustain their personal sense of wellbeing isn't liberalism that "inserts itself into the crannies of life". It's not conservatism, suspicious of federal power. It's "strong government" restricted to "sharply defined tasks" that he lists as terrorism, health care, public debt, illegal immigration, global warming and the rise of China and India.
Brooks ends: "In 1933, Franklin Roosevelt could launch the New Deal because voters wanted to change the country and their own lives. Today, people want the government to change so their own lives can stay the same. Voters don't want to be transformed, they want to be defended."
In its own way, Brooks' analysis if true, is depressing: another manifestation, perhaps, of selfish capitalism? Oliver James argues that we in the UK do want to be transformed; we do want change - and he predicts it will be brought about by a passionate, charismatic and possible female (why?) leader who advocates what he calls "unselfish capitalism".
We obviously need less inequality in the UK but even if, one day, we have the smallest gap between rich and poor in the world, even if we do have "unselfish capitalism", will we be any more capable of counting our blessings?
