Equality | PSIR Optional for UPSC (Notes) PDF Download

Introduction

The concept of equality is at the forefront of contemporary politics and political thought. In the past, social hierarchy based on birth was considered natural, but this is no longer the case. Modern political thinking begins with the assumption that all human beings are equal. The French Revolution of 1789 and the American Civil War are two historically significant events that shaped the ideas of democracy, equality, and freedom. The French Revolution challenged medieval hierarchies, while the American Civil War highlighted racial inequalities.

• Despite these advancements, the acceptance of equality was not easy. In 1931, R.H. Tawney criticized what he called the ‘Religion of Inequality’ in British society. He was troubled not only by the existence of inequalities but also by the widespread acceptance of them as natural and inevitable. However, in the post-World War II period, significant changes occurred, and the idea of equality gained broader acceptance. The struggles in the colonized world and the women’s movement also added important dimensions to the debate on equality.
• Today, equality is recognized as a fundamental principle in organizing human life. However, intense debates continue regarding the application of equality, particularly in the distribution of wealth and income. Recently, there has been a resurgence of anti-egalitarian thinking, with arguments suggesting that egalitarian measures hinder market efficiency and ultimately harm everyone.
• Egalitarians are now challenged to refine their arguments, clarifying that they do not advocate for absolute equality or uniformity. Instead, their goal is to preserve variety while promoting fairness and justice in society.

Different Types of Equality

Formal Equality

• John Locke, the English philosopher, was a strong advocate for the idea of equality based on the natural equality of all individuals. However, it is important to note that Locke did not consider women in his concept of equality.
• Kant further supported this idea by emphasizing universality and equality as a result of our shared humanity. Formal equality, therefore, means that all individuals should be treated equally because of their common humanity.
• The principle of legal equality or equality before the law is the most important expression of formal equality. It means that the law should treat all individuals equally, regardless of their caste, race, color, gender, religion, or social background.
• While this principle was a significant step in the fight against special privileges based on race, gender, and social background, it has its limitations. Formal equality does not take into account the overwhelming disadvantages that some individuals face due to their caste, gender, or social background. These disadvantages can make it difficult for individuals to benefit from the equality that the law provides.
• Marx addressed this issue in his essay "On the Jewish Question." He argued that while formal equality was an important advancement, it could not lead to true human emancipation. Although the market freed people from social rank barriers, it created class differences based on private property.
• Marxists view formal equality as market equality, which merely hides the deep inequalities in society. Today, egalitarians have shifted away from the idea that all human beings are inherently equal and deserve equal rights. Instead, equality is now seen as a prescriptive concept, supporting policies that promote the ideal of equality without relying on inherent characteristics of individuals.

Equality of Opportunity

• Equality of opportunity simply means removing all obstacles that hinder personal self-development. It ensures that careers are open to talent and promotions are based on abilities, without interference from factors like status, family connections, or social background.
• This concept is attractive because it focuses on the starting point in life, implying that everyone should begin from a level playing field. However, the outcomes need not be egalitarian. Because everyone starts equally, unequal outcomes are acceptable and justified by differences in natural talents, hard work, or even luck.
• Framed this way, equality of opportunity allows for competition in a system that remains hierarchical. It emphasizes merit but rests on the distinction between natural and socially constructed differences. Variations based on natural qualities like talents and skills are morally acceptable, while those arising from social conventions, like poverty or homelessness, are not.
• However, the boundary between nature and convention is not as clear as proponents of equality of opportunity suggest. This principle is institutionalized through keeping careers open to talent, providing fair opportunities, and various forms of positive discrimination. These measures make the system of inequality seem reasonable and acceptable, based on the assumption that as long as competition is fair, advantage is beyond criticism.
• A system based on equality of opportunity creates individuals focused solely on their talents and attributes, disconnecting them from a sense of community. It risks forming a community of the successful and a community of the unsuccessful, where the latter blames itself for its perceived failures.
• Another issue with equality of opportunity is its artificial separation of the successes and failures of one generation from the next. The liberal stance on equality is rooted in equality of opportunity, which leads to unequal outcomes.
• This principle is more concerned with the process than the outcomes, aligning with the liberal view that individuals are the basic units of society and should be allowed to pursue their interests.
• However, egalitarians would not disregard equality of opportunity. They would adopt a broader definition that enables everyone to develop their capacities in a satisfying and fulfilling manner. An egalitarian society would ensure that no one is denied the genuine opportunity to develop their capacities, aiming to create social conditions that allow all individuals to lead worthwhile lives.

Equality of Outcomes

• Another way to understand equality is through the concept of equality of outcomes, which shifts the focus from the starting point in life to the final result. Marx believed that any claim to equality within a capitalist framework is inherently limited. He advocated for complete social equality, achievable only through the abolition of private property.
• Proponents of equality of outcome argue that ensuring all other forms of equality would be insufficient without guaranteeing equality of outcome. Critics, however, contend that pursuing equality of outcome could lead to stagnation, injustice, and even tyranny. Hayek, for example, argued that individuals have different aspirations and goals, and treating them equally can actually result in inequality.
• The push for equality, according to critics, comes at the expense of individual liberty. Imposing socialist egalitarian measures is said to undermine individual dignity and self-respect, as well as deny individuals the ability to make rational choices.

Some Basic Principles of Equality

Egalitarians believe in the importance of equity, but they do not advocate for everyone to be identical or for society to be a mere mathematical equation. Here are some core principles that egalitarians uphold:

Basic Needs

• Egalitarians emphasize the right of every individual to have their basic needs met. They oppose societies with large disparities in living standards.
• The goal is to create a society where living conditions are not just tolerable but capable of providing a fulfilling life for all.

Equal Respect

• This principle opposes any form of degrading treatment or circumstances, promoting a society based on fellow feeling.

Income and Wealth Disparities

• Egalitarians oppose significant differences in income and wealth not just between individuals but also between nations.

Democratic Control

• This entails democratic control of the economy and the workplace, ensuring everyone has the opportunity for dignified, interesting, and safe work.

Political Equality

• Political equality goes beyond the right to vote or hold public office. It involves a network of civil rights and democratic participation in all aspects of life, enabling individuals to significantly control and shape their lives.

Sexual, Racial, Ethnic, and Religious Equality

• These are integral components of the complex idea of equality, reflecting the diverse aspects of social equality.

The concept of equality is reformative and dynamic, allowing for various interpretations and applications in different contexts.

Some Arguments Against Equality

Critics argue that the concept of equality is impractical because society is like a competition where not everyone can succeed. This objection, often associated with thinkers like Hayek, Friedman, and Nozick, suggests that egalitarianism threatens freedom.

Nozick's Critique

• Nozick criticizes liberals like John Rawls and Dworkin for promoting welfare provisions to enhance equality of opportunity.
• He argues that inequality does not undermine self-respect, but rather egalitarianism does. Inegalitarian societies respect individuals by recognizing their distinctiveness.
• Nozick's perspective is that self-esteem is based on differences like power,rank,income, and social status. An egalitarian society lacks these differences, leading to a lack of basis for self-esteem.

Strengthening the State

• Another strong objection is that attempts to establish equality strengthen the state and weaken individual freedom.
• This concern is central to the debate in Western political theory about the relationship between equality and liberty.

Liberal Justification of Inequality

• Liberals reject the idea of treating people differently based on sex, race, or class. However, they believe that inequalities are just and fair if they are earned and deserved based on different levels of merit or desert. According to liberal theory, inequality is acceptable as long as it can be justified by rewards or desert for special qualities, abilities, or contributions to society. What is considered meritorious, special, or a contribution to society is determined by the specific context of each society. It is often challenging to measure an individual’s contribution, and if someone withdraws after contributing, it raises questions about the value of their contribution. This perspective seems to contradict the basic liberal belief in the equal worth and respect of all individuals, reducing people to a set of talents and abilities.
• In recent times, modern liberals like John Rawls and Ronald Dworkin have moved away from using merit and desert as criteria for justifying inequality. They advocate for equality of consideration based on the equal moral worth of all individuals, regardless of their differing talents or skills. Rawls, for instance, argues against distributing rewards based on ability or effort, viewing differences in abilities and skills as natural facts that should not determine an individual’s success or failure. He suggests treating these natural abilities as social assets, aiming to structure society so that these differences benefit the least fortunate.
• Rawls introduces the Difference Principle, which aims to prevent natural assets from creating unfair advantages. This principle states that social and economic inequalities should be arranged to benefit the least advantaged and be attached to positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity. Unlike traditional liberal ideas, this approach justifies unequal rewards not based on differing abilities but as incentives to benefit the least advantaged.

Dworkin shares similar views, expressing dissatisfaction with traditional liberal notions of equality and acknowledging the need for some redistribution and welfare policies. Criticisms of Rawlsian equality, such as those by C. B. Macpherson, argue that Rawls overlooks the impact of class-based inequalities on power relationships and other aspects of equality.

Equality and Feminism

• Feminists examine the concept of equality through the lens of gender. In her influential book Justice, Gender and the Family(1980), Susan Okin argues that equal opportunities legislation and redistributive justice cannot achieve genuine equality because they operate within an environment already tainted by gender inequality. This inequality is perpetuated by social practices that, although not explicitly discriminatory towards women, reinforce and legitimize their subordinate status.
• Feminists highlight that women’s substantive inequality—characterized by their limited influence in family decision-making, the burden of child-rearing, and subsequent withdrawal from the labor market—is not a result of natural choices but rather socially constructed roles. While feminists acknowledge the need to address gender inequality, they also recognize the challenges of state intervention in family life to eliminate gender differentiation.

The key issue lies in raising awareness among women about their subordinate roles in the family and encouraging them to reshape social constructs. Without such awareness and active participation, achieving gender equality remains difficult.

Equality and Liberty

• Some argue that liberty and equality are fundamentally opposed, with this conflict seen as irreconcilable. De Tocqueville viewed equality as a potential threat to liberty, fearing mass conformity and the tyranny of the majority. Thinkers like Friedman, Nozick, and Hayek also posited that efforts to establish equality inherently involve coercion and a loss of liberty.
• These critics equate equality with uniformity, suggesting that an egalitarian society is not one of uniformity but rather one where individuals, despite their differing talents, can lead equally worthwhile and satisfying lives. They argue that attempts to correct inequalities through coercion infringe upon individual liberty.
• Proponents of the negative conception of liberty see it as the absence of interference in an individual’s life. They contend that the positive conception of liberty is a misrepresentation. In contrast, egalitarians argue that positive liberty is about access to social and institutional power, material and economic needs, and education. They believe that equality in these areas is crucial for ensuring everyone has a meaningful and satisfying life.
• Egalitarians maintain that liberty is not merely about being left alone; power, wealth, and education are fundamental sources of liberty. A society that fails to ensure equality in these aspects cannot be considered free. Thus, liberty and equality are not only compatible but interdependent.
• In the 20th century, equality was widely accepted as a central principle for organizing societies. However, towards the end of the century, there emerged intellectual and political arguments portraying equality as morally undesirable. Critics claimed that the inviolable right to property and the plural nature of society would be jeopardized by a pursuit of equality.