Participating in : TheJohnLockeEssayWritingCompetition.
INTRODUCTION-
Equality, as defined by the Oxford Dictionary* is the fact of being equal in rights, status, opportunities and so on. This principle of natural equality* only became recognized in the tradition of natural law as defined by Hobbes and Locke* in the 17th century. Formally documented, it came up notably in sources including the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, (1789), American Declaration of Independence (1776) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). The history of equality in its antiquity reveals that as a notion it is considered as a constitutive feature of justice. Therefore it is an inherent part of revolutions, and constitutions around the world. However, I believe that it means nothing for two people to be equal, because they cannot be, and I shall justify the same throughout the course of my essay.
‘To be equal’ is an assertion whereas equality is an umbrella term. Equality is not the same as being equal. Here, I would pose a question.
“Who do we consider ourselves equal to?”
Equality demands a balance in all classifications of life from gender to caste, class to race, we preach and preach freely, so much so that a person standing up in the name of equality is considered inspiring.
The Black Lives Matter movement has been one such with the stories of George Flloyd and Rosa Parks inspiring many. They saw white policemen being questioned in a court of law for an offence against a black man – one who ceased to just be black, and now appeared to have a life, a life which mattered. George Flloyd’s name mattered.Then the Montgomery Bus Boycott* which showed people the power of denial, the ability to refuse and to stand one’s ground while doing it.
Why were these incidents inspiring? Did Rosa Parks* really inspire us, or did George Flloyd upon his most unfortunate death? Were they equal to the officer who pinned Mr. Flloyd down* or the driver when he asked her to move to the back of the bus? They didn’t consider these people equal to them.
This comparison, the comparison of who is equal to whom, lies at the very root of this evil, and a social evil at that. The Pope tweeted*, “Inequality is the root of social evil”, deriving the source from the Bible’s verse* (5:1-12) where Jesus teaches his disciples that those who are less fortunate shall be blessed and fulfilled eventually*. Pope Francis, here, does not combat the theology directly, but matches the theme of his spirituality with world issues.
The idea was almost diabolically simple and effective in its relatability- school going students who are victims of bullying can relate to this “faith”, and so can the average man or woman who works everyday. From handling a difficult superior, to gender bias, or religious restrictions we see demonstrations of inequality everywhere and label them. We don’t know that at the same time, we are denying equality to several, while we point out the one.
This acted as a successful, direct campaign in his favour back in 2014. This play at equality shows us that it is a desire, both external and internal, to be equal to someone. When it is exploited, as in this case, when such a loophole is found that we can connect what Jesus said to what people fight for every day, that the idea of people being equal, or unequal, becomes dangerous.
Throughout the course of my essay, I shall take up demonstrations of inequality in the world today and with their help illustrate what position equality has taken in modern society and what it means for the future in terms of these revolutionary human rights* – of life, liberty, expression, opinion, work, education and, what we profess in the name of, freedom.
MAIN BODY (I)
Distinction is perhaps the greatest enemy of equality. When we categorise people into two categories, male and female, that typecasting of gender as a concept cements the idea of a male being predominantly the leader and provider and the woman as one inferior to the patriarchal society, better suited for housekeeping and marriage.
Today, as an educated whole of society, we know better than to follow these norms of ages past, which we often try to mask. In India and China alone, two of the most populous countries* female infant mortality rates are skyrocketing and has been skyrocketing for quite a while, about seven decades*.
Here, the history of gender inequality itself can be ranked into categories*- suffrage, marriage, parental rights and finally education.
When we say “people to be equal” we are unable to define what it means for two people to be equal, let alone the fact that the standards cannot be fulfilled. It is such parameters of gender and many more subcategories that narrow the people’s perspectives and so it is not the law, the rights, the guidelines that are defaulting here, it is us as a society. It is our mindset, and it is very hard to change these mindsets as we well know.
Therefore, it is safe to say that moving forward, although people shan’t be equal they will continue to fight for what is equal. It is not wrong nor right to prefer a male child, it is just not the way of nature. Humans adapt to the world around them which plays a big part in their considerations of superiority or inferiority. Our viewpoints are continuously changing throughout the course of our experiences. This inevitably leads us to continuously consider different people as superior or inferior to us. We have done this since the beginning of time- no tribe nor population, no city nor village has been equal. There has been a system of governance- democratic, monarchic, hierarchic, dictatorship or any other for that matter, a leader or leaders. Hardly ever, if in the natural order of things, can people be equal because they are not ranked nor wired to be.
MAIN BODY (II)
We know egalitarianism* to be some sort of unachievable virtue today. Through the pages of politics, enforced morality and even collective responsibility*, it is apparent that there are three sorts of egalitarianism*: intrinsic, instrumental and constitutive. Intrinsic egalitarians view equality as a good in itself. Treatment of equality as a derived virtue, a means for some self sustained or separate goal, is an instrumental point of view. Last but not the least constitutive states that the aspiration to equality is rooted in other moral grounds, namely because certain inequalities are unjust. Thus, social justice is constituted.
However, where does this categorization lead us? And why are we categorising the same? It is simply because only when we comprehend the root of our moral principles can we hope to apply them.
Let us take, for example, the concept of racism, which is a strong and harsh topic for debates around the world till present. What is a race? How do we define it? For that matter, how do we get away with putting standards to someone based on whether they’re black or white? It is almost a childlike impression to decide off a colour palette… Or does it go deeper than that? Is it some ancient inculcation based on historic settings? Shall we take for instance the words of Hazel V. Carby a Yale University scholar* when she said that the war prompted the emergence of Britain “as a modern racialized state.”
Did war bring with it racism? Associate Professor Richard Fogarty* from the University at Albany analysed the same and drew from it several convictions and conclusions. Many would argue the controversial origin of racism as a concept but world powers have argued the same for a long time, and will continue to do so. Action if any has been limited bjoy denial, inability to eradicate racism itself and the ultimately pressure of the people themselves.
How would egalitarians look at the concept?
Intrinsic, as in a virtue, to say all people are all equal and follow in Nelson Mandela’s very large footsteps? Instrumental, as in when a situation where a single racialist comes up to advocate his cause proves to society how worthless or worthy that cause really is? Or constitutive, where a demand for social justice exists because when we look towards equality is rooted in moral grounds; it boils down to immoral vs moral.
Whichever of these scenarios, (and many more) we pick up, it leads us back to another day full of these divides which humanity is unable to bridge. And even if we bridge one divide there is always a new one. Does this chaos constitute anarchy? Does this anarchy have some order in it amidst the chaos? These questions are answered by perspectives, and when a collection of perspectives come together we see a majority. This majority when told and retold constitutes, in turn, a narrative which then has the power to change or destroy another part of the world. This chain of events, for want of a better word, repeats without anyone stopping to witness it, unseen, unknown and annoyingly, omnipresent.
CONCLUSION-
William Graham Sumner an American political scientist* enumerated, in his Challenge of Facts* that the man who has capital possesses immeasurable advantages for the struggle of life over him who has none. The more we break down privileges of class, or industry, and establish liberty, the greater will be the inequalities and the more exclusively will the vicious bear the penalties. Poverty and misery will exist in society just so long as vice exists in human nature.
With this thought, I conclude my thoughts in the specific areas I have branched out toward. From summarising distinction in gender inequality, to fairly categorising egalitarianism in its aspects via racial prejudice, everything leads back to the same question
What, indeed, does it mean, for people to be equal?
I say it doesn’t mean anything. How could it?