EGALITARIANISM

There was once a time … when equality was taken for granted – it was logical and necessary. And I think most people can get the message that if it happened once, it could happen again            

– Adrienne Major

Since ancient times in practically all cultures some people enjoyed greater privileges that others. How this came to be is an interesting question, but the more relevant idea is that for many long centuries not all people had equal say, equal freedom, or equal rights, let alone equal material resources.

In most societies there were/are upper and lower classes: elevation and degradation depended usually on such factors as wealth, birth, lineage, profession, intellect, education, and accomplishment. So there were kings and subjects, nobles and serfs, Brahmins and Shudras, lords and laymen, Shis and Nongs, metics and slaves, and so on: all this, along with the universal hierarchy wherein males were in the upper (domineering) class and females in the lower subjugated class, following the rules set by the former.

Religions preach that all human beings are children of one and the same God. This noble idea seems to have had little impact on the everyday life of people in most cultures where some did the had labor that was necessary for the food and comfort of the members of the class that wielded power and prestige.

All this began to change barely three of centuries ago when certain basic rights were demanded by the citizenry in England which wanted to limit the power of the monarchy. Similar movements probably had occurred in other parts of the world at other times. In the Western world, one of the inspirations for this came from the writings of John Locke who argued against rulers having absolute powers. Such awakening seeped into other countries. French philosophers began to write against the age-old norm of social hierarchy. One effect of their writings was to open the mind and heart of people regarding the intrinsic injustice in human societies where people are hierarchically  categorized as belonging to upper and lower classes and castes.

An example of such classification was in the treatment of Americans in the colonies. They were obliged to pay taxes without appropriate representation in the British Parliament. This, as everyone knows, was one of the causes of the American Revolution. In this context, the authors of the American Declaration of Independence (1776) held it to be a self-evident truth that “all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” and that these rights included “Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness.” We see here how efforts to curb absolute power in kings let to the formulation of a generalized principle on the equality of all men, if not yet of all human beings. Like the ideals and prejudices of religions, this proposition, noble as it is in enlightened ethical terms, has little basis in reality: except in biology and physiology, all men are certainly not created equal, given that there are discernable differences even between babies a few months old, let alone full-grown humans with a whole range of physical, intellectual and moral strengths and weaknesses.

Less than two decades later (1789), the Rights of Man (Droits de l’Homme) manifesto was proclaimed in France. This precious document in human history begins with the assertion that “Men are born and remain free and equal in rights.” This again is by no means a self-evident truth. It is rather an enlightened demand or recommendation that men (by extension women also) should remain free and have equal rights. This inspired the French slogan of liberty, equality, fraternity (liberté, égalité, fraternité). By equality one meant that the laws of a nation must apply equally to one and all citizens. This also implies that every citizen must have the right to hold any office in government.

While not many will disagree with the notion of equality as a great concept, its implications and applications in various contexts have become matters for considerable exploration and debate. Thus, does equality under the law also mean that everyone in a country should have the same amount of wealth? This, of course, is not realistic in most modern societies. But, in principle, financial inequality can be checked from getting out of control by appropriate tax-laws.

Another aspect of equality is the demand that everyone in a country be given basic education. An associated idea is that all should have equal access to higher education. This, of course, is a worthy goal. However, from a crass practical point of view, it may not even be in the best interest of a country if it were to become a reality. Imagine for a moment that everyone in a country is a highly accomplished physician, engineer, lawyer, etc., all with a Ph.D. or the highest degree in the field. In that case there would be few applicants for jobs like plumbing, policing, garbage collecting, mail-delivering, etc. There won’t be people for managing modest jobs in banks, grocery stores and restaurants, let alone security personnel in airports. The point is, if actualized, equality in higher education, however appealing it may be at the theoretical level, will not serve all the country’s needs.

It is neither possible not desirable to achieve equality of this kind. So some have argued that one should not talk of equality as a goal for society. But there are other meanings of the word. Egalitarianism has different connotations in different contexts:

At the national level egalitarianism implies freedom for every citizen to aspire to and to do whatever one wishes without violating any law of the land. It also means giving every citizen the basic human needs including shelter, food and health-care. At the interpersonal level egalitarianism means recognition of the human dignity, worth, and sacredness of the person(s) with whom one interacts. At the religious and spiritual levels egalitarianism calls for practices, beliefs, and dress codes as long as these do not impinge adversely on the practices, beliefs, and dress codes of people belonging to a different faith system. In the context of man-woman interactions egalitarianism refers to mutual respect in relationships, equal rights in job opportunities, and equal pay for the same work. At the international level, egalitarianism means according equal weight to the voices and views of every nation in an international body.

These are some of the contexts in which the notion of egalitarianism can be applied.

A question that now arises is: Why should all citizens in a country, all nations in the world, and all genders in a species be given equal rights, respect, and freedom? One answer could be that this will best serve a community, nation, etc. This is only partially true. All through history inequality has often been to the advantage of the more physically powerful, more status-wise privileged, more materially endowed, and more intellectually equipped classes. The institution of egalitarian principles will always result in some loss for a section of a community.

Four conditions are necessary for the establishment of egalitarianism in any context. First, the underprivileged, exploited and marginalized sections must become consciously aware of the injustice inherent in inequality. Second, they should become a numerical majority. Third, a powerful voice (leader) must emerge in the marginalized group to articulate the morally legitimate demands. Four, there should be an awakening on the part of the privileged and stronger classes that inequality is ethically wrong.

The point is, egalitarianism is not a natural condition in human societies where, as in much of the animal kingdom, might is right has often been the norm. Egalitarianism is spurred by the ethical dimension in humans which often goes beyond the bare necessities of biological survival. Evolutionists try to explain the rise of egalitarianism by arguing that this is conducive to the long range survival of societies. But it is doubtful that individuals who subscribe to this principle are motivated by survival advantages. People bereft of a sense of social justice or respect for all will not willingly subscribe to egalitarianism.