Social
Equality: Introduction
In 2017 Elizabeth Anderson, who The New Yorker called “the philosopher redefining equality,” published Private Government: How Employers Rule Our Lives (and Why We Don’t Talk about It). Anderson quotes Abraham Lincoln, “If any continue through life in the condition of the hired laborer, it is not the fault of the system, but because of either a dependent nature which prefers it, or improvidence, or folly, or singular misfortune,” and comments: “Lincoln's disparaging judgment of wage laborers is akin to blaming those left standing in a game of musical chairs, while denying that the structure of the game has anything to do with the outcome. Thus, what began as an egalitarian ideal ended as another basis for esteem hierarchy: to raise the businessman on a higher plane than the wage worker….”
Along with regimented factories, in the nineteenth century self-identified “liberals” promoted the rise of multiple “total institutions” based on order, routine, and submission that confined people for 24 hours a day—including the prison, the asylum, the hospital, and the orphanage. Jeremy Bentham’s infamous Panopticon, which enabled one guard to monitor a large number of inmates, was a model for these institutions, which claimed to serve inmates “for their own good.”
With her descriptions of authoritarianism in private workplaces, Anderson gets at the heart of the System: “In many cases, people willingly support the regime and comply with its orders because they identify with and profit from it. Others support the regime because, although they are subordinate to some superior, they get to exercise dominion over inferiors…. [This regime] impose[s] a far more minute, exacting, and sweeping regulation of employees than democratic states do in any domain outside of prisons and the military.”
Though these patterns may be slowly changing, this workplace authoritarianism is still often reflected throughout society. Parents rely on punishment to train children. When kids ask “Why?” parents reply, “Because I said so.” Schools socialize students to be quiet and obedient and memorize what they’re told. Adults learn that “someone must always be in charge.” Males are expected to initiate relationships and ask females to marry. The missionary position with the man on the top is the standard. On the dance floor, the man is expected to lead. The man opens the door and drives the car. In politics, leadership is defined as the ability to get followers to do what the leader wants, and voters learn to worship their “savior.” And through it all, the police are the ultimate enforcer of conformity, charged with keeping nonconformists and rebels in line, teaching them their place, busting up nonviolent demonstrations and strikes that challenge the status quo, using the threat of violence and actual violence to keep people in line. People learn to submit to the powerful and dominate the weak.
In her landmark essay, “What’s the Point of Equality?” Anderson called for democratic equality rooted in equal respect. She wrote: “Inegalitarianism asserted the justice or necessity of basing social order on a hierarchy of human beings, ranked according to intrinsic worth. Inequality referred not so much to distributions of goods as to relations between superior and inferior persons…. Such unequal social relations generate, and were thought to justify, inequalities in the distribution of freedoms, resources, and welfare. This is the core of inegalitarian ideologies of racism, sexism, nationalism, caste, class, and eugenics….”
However, she objected to the traditional liberal emphasis on “equal opportunity.” As Anderson sees it: “This ‘equality of fortune’ perspective is essentially a ‘starting-gate theory’: as long as people enjoy fair shares at the start of life, it does not much concern itself with the suffering and subjection generated by people's voluntary agreements in free markets…. Recent egalitarian writing has come to be dominated by the view that the fundamental aim of equality is to compensate people for undeserved bad luck…. [This perspective], which is dehumanizing, fails to advocate principles that express equal respect and concern for all citizens in three ways:
It excludes some citizens from enjoying the social conditions of freedom on the spurious ground that it's their fault for losing them. It escapes this problem only at the cost of paternalism.
Equality of fortune makes the basis for citizens' claims on one another the fact that some are inferior to others in the worth of their lives, talents, and personal qualities. Thus, its principles express contemptuous pity for those the state stamps as sadly inferior.... Such principles stigmatize the unfortunate….
Equality of fortune, in attempting to ensure that people take responsibility for their choices, makes demeaning and intrusive judgments of people's capacities to exercise responsibility and effectively dictates to them the appropriate uses of their freedom….”
She argued this approach has led to a paternalism that reinforces hierarchical domination and submission.
Human beings are essentially equal. Each individual holds intrinsic equal value. This essential equality does not mean everyone is identical. People have different skills, different desires concerning personal advancement, and different preferences concerning those with whom they socialize. It’s important that we learn to respect and be comfortable with these differences, find common ground, and learn to relate to others as equals.
As Anderson expressed it, “In seeking the construction of a community of equals, democratic equality integrates principles of distribution with the expressive demands of equal respect. Democratic equality guarantees all law-abiding citizens effective access to the social conditions of their freedom at all times. (emphasis added) It justifies the distributions required to secure this guarantee by appealing to the obligations of citizens in a democratic state. In such a state, citizens make claims on one another in virtue of their equality, not their inferiority, to others.”
Anderson asserts that “people may not claim rights without accepting corresponding obligations to others.” Democratic equality “conceives of justice as a matter of obligations.” Rights “do not depend on arbitrary variations in individual tastes.” They are not defined by “the satisfaction of subjective preferences.” These rights are agreed on democratically and objectified. These judgments are applied to human arrangements. “People, not nature, are responsible for turning the natural diversity of human beings into oppressive hierarchies.”
+++++++++++++++++++
Individuals have different skills, characteristics, and preferences. But everyone holds equal value as a human being and deserves to be treated with respect from cradle to grave. Humanity’s common dignity is inherent and can’t be measured. Human rights are universal and can’t be taken away. All humans are entitled to a decent standard of living and the freedom to maximize their potential and pursue a rewarding life.
Most social-change activists believe in these principles. But they contradict themselves when they don’t respect those who disagree with them, don’t try to understand their opponents, and don’t affirm their basic humanity. Overcoming this inconsistency will enhance prospects for transforming this nation into a compassionate community.
Heartland Americans resent being disrespected by coastal elites (including the wealthy who buy elections and bribe politicians, global corporations that avoid paying taxes or move to other countries, upwardly mobile professionals who look down their nose at ordinary Americans, big-city officials who neglect rural areas and small towns, prestigious University professors, and the mainstream media). This resentment breeds explosive anger.
Rather than empathize with this anti-elite anger and help channel it to support democratic, structural reforms that would limit the power of these elites, compassion-minded activists often scapegoat. They place total blame on one “enemy” or another — whether it be the President, the other political party, some other group, or a particular administrator. This excessive focus on symptoms diverts attention away from deeper problems.
Activists, myself included, often assume an air of moral superiority and demonize our opponents. We believe we have the answer and fail to really listen. We try to persuade those who disagree, or we dismiss them. We don’t place ourselves in the others’ shoes (as much as we can). Being judgmental blocks understanding and builds barriers. This arrogant approach undermines the potential for building alliances based on respect for human equality. In these ways, we drive away possible allies and reduce the potential size and power of our community. And we need every soul we can get.
Those who reject established rigid hierarchies often propose alternative rigid hierarchies. They reject ranking people based on money and then rank people based on their values. And they object to how Congress and the President exercise power and merely want to replace them (rather than restructure the government). Their enormous ambitions induce an intense, competitive fear of “failing” and “disgrace” — as do the dominant notions of high status. This hyper-competition for respect weakens self-confidence and undermines individual and collective empowerment.
The desire to be competent is natural, as are the desires to be acknowledged for what one has accomplished and to advance, be promoted, or earn more money. But these goals can be secondary, not primary. They can be a means to an end, not the end itself. They’re like icing on the cake, not the cake. What others think about you is external, not internal. Their opinions need not determine what you think about yourself. They need not touch you at your core. Mature adults don’t have to prove anything to anyone. Climbing one status ladder or another can be well and good if you don’t distort its importance or let it lead you to forget everyone’s essential equal worth and seek to dominate those you consider inferior.
We who seek to help transform this nation must be less judgmental and more respectful. We must seek to better understand those who disagree on some issues — and agree on others. We need to remember that all men and women are created equal in the eyes of God. I can live the way I want you to live, and respect your right to do the same. I can remember that I could easily have ended up in your shoes, that all people are still basically human, that most people just want to do good and cope as best they can under the circumstances. I can accept that no one can be my carbon copy. To nurture systemic, holistic, democratic transformation, every individual must cultivate respect for everyone’s essential equality and avoid judgmental assumptions of moral superiority. Jesus was right: Love your enemies.
To cultivate and practice equal respect, we need to engage in honest self-examination and support each other in our efforts to steadily undo our elitist conditioning. This requires vulnerability, which can be painful. So we tend to avoid it. As James Baldwin said, “A day will come when you will trust you more than you do now and you will trust me more than you do now. And we can trust each other…. I really do believe that we can all become better than we are. I know we can. But the price is enormous and people are not yet willing to pay.”
This approach need not involve thinking that you can always appease your opponents or always reconcile all sides. Some issues — like the death penalty and whether abortion is always illegal — are either/or. And sometimes the opponent is totally closed to compromise and must simply be defeated. But you can still be fair and judicious. You can still respect your opponent’s humanity, appeal to their higher angels, and leave the door open to reconciliation if they have a change of heart and become willing to seek a compromise.
This dedication to human equality is a basic starting point for compassion-centered transformation.
Equality Resources
Articles, Essays, Op-eds
Can Progressives Be Convinced That Genetics Matters? Gideon Lewis-Kraus.
"The behavior geneticist Kathryn Paige Harden is waging a two-front campaign: on her left are those who assume that genes are irrelevant, on her right those who insist that they’re everything... The perspective of 'gene blindness,' she believes, 'perpetuates the myth that those of us who have "succeeded" in twenty-first century capitalism have done so primarily because of our own hard work and effort, and not because we happened to be the beneficiaries of accidents of birth—both environmental and genetic.” She invokes the writing of the philosophers John Rawls and Elizabeth Anderson to argue that we need to reject 'the idea that America is or could ever be the sort of "meritocracy" where social goods are divided up according to what people deserve.' Her rhetoric is grand, though the practical implications, insofar as she discusses them, are not far removed from the mid-century social-democratic consensus—the priorities of, say, Hubert Humphrey. If genes play a significant role in educational attainment, then perhaps we ought to design our society such that you don’t need a college degree to secure health care.
In my conversations with her colleagues, Harden’s overarching idea was almost universally described as both beautiful and hopelessly quixotic. (read more)
The Fifth Narrative, George Packer.
“Can the Biden administration build a more equal America?… There’s a struggle within the Biden administration, still largely hidden, between two narratives. One is reflected in the equity executive order, the other in the agenda of Equal America. The first separates and counts; the second unites and empowers. The first sees Americans as victims of past injustices in need of redress, which implies an inferior status by group. The second sees Americans as individual citizens, all of the same status, deserving of the same respect, entitled by virtue of being American and being human to participate fully in our democratic life.” (read more)
The Equality Conundrum, Joshua Rothman.
“We all agree that inequality is bad. But what kind of equality is good?”
What is the Point of Equality?, Elizabeth Anderson.
“If much recent academic work defending equality had been secretly penned by conservatives, could the results be any more embarrassing for egalitarians? Consider how much of this work leaves itself open to classic and devastating conservative criticisms….” (see Elizabeth Anderson: Democratic Equality, Wade Lee Hudson)
The Philosopher Redefining Equality, Nathan Heller.
“Elizabeth Anderson thinks we’ve misunderstood the basis of a free and fair society.” (see Reflections on Elizabeth Anderson, Wade Lee Hudson)
Relational Equality: A Conceptual and Normative Analysis, Kathryn E. Joyce.
“This dissertation provides a conceptual framework for theorizing about relational equality. I demonstrate its appeal by using it to develop an account that attends to neglected aspects of relational equality, grounds its core commitments, and provides resources for addressing some of the most pressing objections raised against it.”
The Democrats: Technocrats Rule, Wade Lee Hudson.
“The Democratic Presidential candidates agree. What matters most is Congress and the President; ordinary people merely vote and get others to vote. The government is primary; the people are secondary. The focus is on public policy: How can the government fix a problem?….”
Democratic Equality and Democratic Dialog, Wade Lee Hudson.
“Equality is the goal; dialog, the method. These two forms of democracy are interwoven. …”