O P Gauba Summary: Concept of Equality | Sociology Optional for UPSC (Notes) PDF Download

Introduction

Social Justice

EQUALITY is a fundamental political ideal in today's world, just like LIBERTY. The French Revolution of 1789 was fought for the principles of 'liberty, equality, and fraternity.' Together, liberty and equality represent the necessary conditions for human freedom. They act as powerful voices against injustice and advocate for changing unfair social conditions. In this sense, liberty and equality can be seen as complementary principles. However, there are situations where they may appear to be in conflict. Therefore, it is essential to understand the nature and essence of equality to determine its proper relationship with liberty and justice.

Historical Perspectives on Equality

• The debate over equality and inequality has been present in political thought since ancient times.
• Aristotle noted that certain forms of inequality could lead to rebellion within states.
• He defined justice as treating equals equally and unequals unequally.
• This perspective emphasized the recognition and maintenance of existing inequalities, such as:
  • Between master and slave
  • Between rich and poor
  • Between morally superior and morally inferior
• In contrast, the modern view of equality aims to reduce inequalities that are considered unjust based on current social standards.

Equality as a Principle of Right, Not Fact

Equitable Diversity

Equality is not a description of how things are, but a statement about how things should be. It is based on the idea that all people deserve to be treated the same way, regardless of their differences. For example, we believe that everyone has equal rights because they have the same basic needs, even if they are not the same in every way.

• We think that people are rational and capable of making good decisions because they have reason.
• We believe that God created all people to be equal.
• We argue that everyone has similar physical, emotional, and mental needs, which is why they should have equal rights.

When we talk about equality, we don’t mean that everyone is the same in terms of their abilities, looks, or talents. Sometimes, we point out physical differences to make our case, like how different skin colours don’t matter because everyone has the same blood. Nature doesn’t create people with completely different qualities. For instance:

• A medicine works the same way for a Jew and a Gentile.
• A Black person can give an eye or kidney to a White person, helping them see again or saving their life.

This shows that differences between races are not natural, which is why we believe in a basic equality among people—equality as a right supports our claim for equality as a fact.

Some people argue that natural law does not support the idea of equality and that it is not based on reason. They believe that nature has made everything unequal, from the sun and moon to men and women, and that is why the principle of equality does not apply. These arguments are often used by those who want to keep their privileged position. They worry that equality will take away their achievements and think that liberty allows people to gain unlimited wealth and power, while equality threatens this.

This view comes from a misunderstanding of liberty. Real freedom in society can only exist when it is seen as the equal freedom of everyone. Unrestricted liberty would let the strong oppress the weak. For liberty to be genuine and not just a license for abuse, it must go hand in hand with equality. Specifically:

• One's freedom should not violate the equal freedom of others.
• This idea applies not just in legal terms but also in political, social, and economic contexts.

As R.H. Tawney pointed out in his book *Equality* (1938), if liberty means that everyone can freely satisfy their desires without limit, it conflicts with economic, social, civil, and political equality. This is because it prevents the strong from fully exploiting their advantages. For example, freedom for the strong (like a pike fish) can lead to the destruction of the weak (like minnows). Therefore, equality should not be seen as opposing liberty but as a necessary complement to a specific understanding of it. By promoting equality, we are not diminishing liberty but making it more relevant and meaningful. Equality aims to prevent any group from accumulating unlimited wealth, power, or prestige, thereby limiting exploitation and ensuring that all members of society benefit fairly. It seeks to widen the distribution of societal benefits, making sure they are not monopolized by a small, vocal minority at the expense of the majority. Liberty and equality, as human rights, do not come from different sources. They are based on the same reasoning and aim to achieve similar social goals.

Equality as a Modern Concept

The modern idea of equality, which aims to rectify unfair disparities in society, is a relatively recent development. Historically, significant differences in wealth, prestige, and power have been a common and almost universal feature of social structures. However, as observed by Tom Bottomore in his *Classes in Modern Society* (1965),

Equality As An Idea Of Social Change

Social Justice

Equality is a strong idea that leads to social change. It means treating everyone the same and giving them the same chances, no matter who they are or where they come from. This idea is very important in today’s world because it helps make societies fairer and better for everyone.

In the past, many people thought that social inequality was something natural and unchangeable. Ancient and medieval thinkers often tried to explain and justify this inequality, connecting it to religious beliefs about the origin of social classes. It was only after events like the American and French Revolutions that social class became a subject of scientific study and criticism.

Traditional thinkers viewed social inequality as something God had decided. They believed that people could lead a good life within the limits of their social status. This view was common in societies based on slavery, feudalism, or caste systems, where scientific reasoning was not yet established. These thinkers saw social order as fixed, like natural law, and believed it couldn't be changed by human effort.

Rise of Scientific Thinking

With the advent of the scientific era, people learned to control natural phenomena through rational and empirical methods. This newfound understanding prompted them to explore social structures and inequalities with the same scientific approach. Thinkers began to investigate:

• How much of the existing social inequality was due to social arrangements that could be changed.
• Which of these inequalities were justifiable by reason and could be altered.

The aim was to identify and eliminate inequalities that were unreasonable and subject to change through human action. This scientific approach to social structures led to calls for social change. J.J. Rousseau, in his Discourse on the Origin of Inequality (1755), made a crucial distinction between two types of inequality in society:

• Natural Inequality: This refers to differences in age, health, strength, and mental abilities. These differences, while influenced by nature, can be affected by societal factors.
• Conventional Inequality: This involves disparities in privileges such as wealth, power, and status, which are largely created by human actions.

Impact of Rousseau's Ideas

Understanding conventional inequality paves the way for questioning social distinctions and reimagining social relationships based on new principles of justice. The French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (1789), inspired by Rousseau's ideas, asserted that “Individuals are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions can be based only upon public utility.”

Changing Nature of Inequalities

As scientific knowledge and technology progress, many aspects of natural inequality are becoming changeable. For instance:

• Health and physical strength can be significantly improved through proper nutrition and exercise.
• Education and training can enhance mental abilities and skills.
• Physical deformities and mental health challenges can be addressed through timely medical care and interventions.
• Cosmetic procedures and surgeries can alter a person’s appearance, although access to these options often depends on socioeconomic status and technological advancement.

It is becoming increasingly clear that many individuals are denied the benefits of modern society due to existing social inequalities rather than a divine system. Therefore, the call for equality is essentially a call for social change, focusing on aspects of society that are changeable and unjust. John Rees, in his Equality (1971), emphasized that “It is when individuals see certain inequalities as unjust and alterable that equality as an ideal becomes a powerful force in political life.”

Understanding Inequalities

Before any inequality can be perceived as unfair and subject to criticism, it must be alterable. However, not all alterable inequalities are viewed as unjust; some are accepted as beneficial or socially useful, depending on differing perspectives on what constitutes injustice. This nuanced understanding of inequalities is crucial in the ongoing pursuit of social justice and equality.

Introduction

Equitable Opportunities

The given passage discusses the concept of equality and inequality in society, highlighting the historical perspective and the views of thinkers like Marx and Engels. It emphasizes that inequality is only a cause for concern when perceived as unjust and that the idea of equality does not imply identical treatment for all individuals. Instead, it advocates for equal opportunities for individuals to develop their unique abilities and talents.

Equality Does Not Imply Literal Equality

• Inequality becomes a cause for complaint and resentment only when it is perceived as unjust.
• Equality calls for a gradual decrease in inequalities that are viewed as unreasonable, but it does not mean that everyone should be exactly the same.
• What is considered 'reasonable' or 'unreasonable' inequality in society is shaped by the current understanding of social justice.
• In ancient slave-owning, medieval feudal, and early capitalist societies, the inequalities between master and slave, lord and serf, or capitalist and worker were seen as reasonable.
• As the socialist perspective on justice evolved, particularly through the ideas of Marx, this inequality was viewed as unjust and unreasonable, leading to challenges against it.
• Marx and Engels showed that the division of society into classes, such as capitalists and workers, results in exploitation, which harms the overall happiness of humanity.

Understanding Equality

• The concept of equality does not mean that all goods, national income, or educational opportunities should be distributed equally among everyone.
• Instead, it means that individuals, who differ in their physical and mental abilities, skills, and talents, should have equal chances to develop their personal qualities and capabilities.
• This can be achieved through access to material resources, comforts, education, and training.
• R.H. Tawney explained that different types of energy require different conditions to be expressed.
• The sense of justice is fulfilled not by giving everyone the same treatment, but by treating individuals similarly when their needs are the same, and differently when their needs vary based on different services.

Rational Grounds for Discrimination

Social Support

If equality does not imply an identical distribution of rights and benefits, it necessitates the acceptance of discrimination based on specific criteria. These criteria are grounded in the idea of equality based on 'reason' or 'logic.' Therefore, equality permits discrimination on 'reasonable,' 'rational,' 'logical,' or 'relevant' grounds. The determination of what is reasonable varies according to the social awareness of a society.

Rational Grounds for Discrimination

Generally, two main areas where special provisions may be made, allowing discrimination in favor of specific cases on rational grounds, include:

• Special Provision in the Case of Need
• Special Rewards for Excellence

It is essential to note that these are not simple formulas, and each situation must be carefully examined before any discrimination occurs.

Special Provision in the Case of Need

Special provisions in the case of need can apply to both the distribution of responsibilities and benefits. Examples include:

• Progressive Taxation:. system that exempts lower income groups while increasing taxes for higher earners. This aims to reduce economic inequality, as lower-income individuals often live at subsistence levels.
• Social Services: Provision of services based on the needs of different groups rather than solely on their tax contributions. Examples include affordable transport, postal services, schools, hospitals, libraries, and entertainment venues.
• Scholarships: Grants based on a merit-cum-means basis, prioritizing financial need over academic merit.
• Disaster Relief: Public funds should be available to assist individuals affected by disasters such as fires, floods, famines, earthquakes, epidemics, wars, or crimes. The state is responsible for providing essential supplies and services, such as transport, water, electricity, fuel, food grains, milk, and vegetables, at subsidized rates to meet the community's genuine needs.
• Job Reservations: Benefits for disadvantaged groups, including women, the disabled, and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, align with this principle.

SPECIAL REWARD FOR EXCELLENCE

Harmonious Progress

Equality is sometimes referred to as the 'philosophy of poverty' because it focuses on supporting the needs of the poor. However, there are concerns that it may lower society's standards of excellence. David Hume believed that equality could negatively impact the qualities of art, care, and industry. Instead of preventing hardship for a few, it could lead to suffering for the entire community. These concerns about equality stem from a misunderstanding of its true meaning. Some people mistakenly think that equality means giving the same rewards regardless of talents, efforts, or needs. However, a more sensible view of equality recognizes that it does not imply identical outcomes or the disregard of excellence.

In fact, special provisions for excellence are an essential aspect of the equality principle. This is applicable when basic needs are mostly fulfilled, allowing for the reward of exceptional talents and efforts that benefit society. For instance, in an orchestra, if the best instruments are given to less skilled musicians and poor instruments to the best, a similar performance may be achieved. This concept can also extend to students or individuals in different contexts. However, such interpretations of equality are often raised by critics and are not desirable or reasonable. The true aim of equality is to ensure that talents are not wasted and efforts are acknowledged. A rational perspective insists that, after meeting basic needs, the best resources should be allocated to the most deserving individuals, as this fosters a sense of fraternity and societal benefit.

The principle of excellence should not be mistaken for an unconditional endorsement of the 'market society model,' which prioritizes private profit over public good. Instead, it emphasizes recognizing and rewarding contributions to society, promoting a sense of fraternity. If the principle of equality is viewed as allowing certain discrimination to support deprived groups, it may face challenges, as seen in debates about 'reverse discrimination' in the United States.

Affirmative Action

Affirmative action refers to public policies that aim to rectify past injustices by offering special concessions in areas such as education, employment, housing, and healthcare. These policies are designed to benefit groups that have historically faced discrimination and were denied fair opportunities in competitive environments. The primary goal of affirmative action is to compensate relevant groups, such as women, black individuals, and backward communities, for the injustices they have endured in the past. By providing these groups with preferential treatment, affirmative action seeks to promote greater equality and address the disparities created by historical discrimination.

Affirmative Action Debate

Social Equality

Critics of affirmative action, especially those who support neo-conservatism, argue that the focus should be on equal opportunity rather than attempting to achieve actual equality. They believe that affirmative action could undermine the respect for merit and authority, which are crucial for social stability and progress.

Some opponents claim that affirmative action violates procedural justice. They argue that giving preference to blacks and women as groups, rather than evaluating individuals, may benefit more privileged blacks and women at the expense of poorer whites and men. Additionally, they contend that current whites and men should not be held accountable for the historical injustices faced by blacks and women, as punishing them for actions they did not commit is unfair and contradicts the principle of substantive justice.

Furthermore, critics suggest that personal dignity and self-respect are essential to equality. If individuals believe their success is due to preferential treatment rather than their own abilities, it could harm their self-esteem and foster feelings of inferiority.

Reverse Discrimination in India

In India, the issue of reverse discrimination is not as prominently discussed as in America, as Indian society is generally more accommodating of disadvantaged groups. However, the challenge lies in accurately identifying those who genuinely deserve assistance. In a country grappling with widespread poverty and limited resources, there is a concern that more vocal individuals from so-called backward classes might monopolize the benefits intended for the truly deprived.

To mitigate this risk, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that the creamy layer within backward classes should be excluded from the benefits meant for these groups. This ensures that support reaches those who genuinely need it. The Court has also emphasized that total reservations for all eligible categories should not exceed 50 per cent, as surpassing this threshold could lead to reverse discrimination.

Additionally, to prevent frustration and a lack of motivation among the younger generation, it is essential to provide adequate educational and professional opportunities for backward classes. This will enable them to compete effectively with the general category. Therefore, addressing the issue of reverse discrimination requires a nuanced and careful approach.

Creamy Layer

The creamy layer refers to the relatively advanced and affluent segment within a backward community. This group is typically excluded from the benefits designated for the backward community.

The concept of equality can be applied across various dimensions of social life, including legal, political, and socio-economic aspects. By examining equality from these different perspectives, we can better understand its significance and implications in society.

Legal Equality

Justice for All

Legal equality, the initial form of the concept of equality, refers to the idea that every individual in society should possess the same legal status, irrespective of their background, physical or mental capabilities, or any other differences. In his Social Contract published in 1762, J.J. Rousseau emphasized that ensuring legal equality for all citizens is a fundamental aspect of civil society. He argued that rather than eliminating natural equality, the social agreement substitutes the physical inequalities imposed by nature with moral and legal equality. This means that despite variations in strength or intelligence, individuals become equal through shared agreements and legal rights.

Legal equality is rooted in moral principles and serves as the foundation for equal rights for all individuals. In his Principles of Social and Political Theory published in 1951, Ernest Barker contended that the state bestows legal personalities or masks upon individuals, treating them equally because it cannot recognize their differences. He further asserted that equality implies that the rights granted to one person must also be extended to others and vice versa.

While legal equality is often taken for granted today, it was the result of a long and arduous struggle throughout human history. Ancient civilizations rarely acknowledged the concept of legal equality. For instance, the Manusmriti, an ancient Hindu scripture, prescribed varying punishments for identical crimes based on the offender's caste, typically imposing harsher penalties on lower castes. It also established different interest rates for borrowers, with higher castes facing lower interest rates. Similarly, Aristotle, a prominent ancient Greek philosopher, proposed different punishments for freemen and slaves, arguing that slaves were less responsive to punishment. Barker provides a comprehensive account of the historical struggle for legal equality, highlighting instances such as:

• In 1772, slaves in England were not recognized as legal persons and lacked any rights.
• Starting from 1918, individuals receiving poor relief had restricted legal capacity and voting rights compared to others.
• Prior to 1870, married women did not have the legal right to own property, and all women were denied voting rights until 1918.

The principle of legal equality, also known as equality before the law, is essential for ensuring legal justice in contemporary society. J.R. Lucas, in his Principles of Politics published in 1976, emphasized that equality before the law does not guarantee identical treatment but ensures equal access to the law, considering only the factors deemed relevant by the law. This means that individuals, regardless of their status, can approach the courts, and everyone must adhere to the law, with disputes being resolved fairly and impartially. In essence, legal equality signifies that all citizens are subject to the law equally and receive the same legal protection.

Nevertheless, legal equality alone does not guarantee justice in societies with significant wealth and poverty disparities, such as India. Equality before the law can only lead to equal benefits when all citizens have the means to access the courts for their rights or compensation. If legal expenses are high, legal procedures are complex, and economic inequalities are pronounced, formal equality may fall short of delivering justice. Harold J. Laski, in his State in Theory and Practice published in 1935, noted that:

• Wealth plays a crucial role in determining the ability to leverage legal opportunities for safeguarding rights.
• Even with legal aid provisions, the financial burden of legal action remains substantial, often favoring the affluent.
• Generally, the most skilled lawyers are accessible only to those who can afford their services.

Political Equality

Justice and Equality

Political equality refers to the concept that all citizens should have equal political rights and opportunities to participate in the decision-making processes of their country. This principle is based on the idea that every individual, regardless of their background, is capable of making rational political judgments. Here are the key aspects of political equality:

• Equal Political Rights. Every citizen should have the same political rights, including the right to vote, run for political office, and participate in political activities.
• Non-Discrimination. No individual should be excluded from political participation based on their birth, religion, gender, or any other characteristic. There should be no privileged classes that have special political rights.
• One Person, One Vote. Political decisions should be made on the basis of equal voting power for all citizens, ensuring that each person's vote carries the same weight.
• Universal Suffrage. All citizens should have the right to vote without any restrictions.
• Freedom of Political Expression. Citizens should have the freedom to hold and express political opinions without fear of retribution.
• Right to Organize. Citizens should have the right to form groups and organizations to influence political decisions.

The concept of political equality emerged alongside legal equality, with both being seen as essential for a just society. Historical figures like D.D. Raphael and Alexis de Tocqueville emphasized the importance of political equality in reducing arbitrary privileges and ensuring that political rights were not limited to the wealthy and well-born.

Initially, political equality was a progressive idea that contributed to the establishment of democracy in the Western world. However, as socio-economic inequalities became more apparent, the demand for political equality was accompanied by calls for socio-economic equality. Tocqueville, in his observations, predicted that the gap between political equality and economic inequality would lead to social and economic struggles, paving the way for socialist theories that focused on socio-economic equality.

Socio-Economic Equality

Social Equity

Socio-economic equality refers to the concept of fairness in both social and economic aspects. Although these two areas are interconnected, they require a comprehensive understanding, especially since socio-economic equality is a driving force for social change. Legal and political equality is often seen as merely the absence of discrimination, but socio-economic equality delves deeper into the need for equity in both social and economic spheres.

Historical Background

The term "social equality" was coined by socialists to differentiate their goals from the earlier notions of equality that emerged during the French Revolution.

• In 1789, the focus was on "equality before the law," which aimed to eliminate noble legal privileges and feudal obligations.
• The Jacobins and later Republican factions sought "political equality," advocating for universal voting rights.
• Socialists argued that these objectives were insufficient on their own and viewed them as preliminary steps towards achieving genuine social equality.
• They believed that without social equality, "political equality" was rendered meaningless.

Socio-Economic Equality

Socio-economic equality is distinct from legal-political equality in its measurement and objectives. While legal equality focuses on recognizing each individual's legal status and political equality emphasizes the principle of 'one person, one vote,' socio-economic equality does not advocate for 'equal shares for all.' Instead, it aims to reduce inequality based on social justice principles.

Since there is no fixed standard for socio-economic equality, it promotes the gradual extension of social benefits to disadvantaged groups. This shift represents a move from formal to substantive equality, from negative to positive equality, and from static to dynamic equality. For instance, legal equality might ensure that everyone has access to education, employment, and other opportunities without discrimination. However, this does not guarantee that these opportunities are genuinely accessible to everyone.

Formal equality may not bring about significant changes in the socio-economic landscape; it can create the illusion of available opportunities while limiting access to a select few. In contrast, socio-economic equality calls for a continuous increase in opportunities for all individuals.

The Role of Socio-Economic Equality

• The concept of socio-economic equality gained prominence as a response to the limitations of legal-political equality. Initially, legal and political equality aimed to empower the middle class and facilitate the transition from feudalism to capitalism. However, once the capitalist class secured political power, these notions became tools for maintaining the existing order.
• Socio-economic equality emerged as a necessary continuation of the progress agenda, addressing the shortcomings of capitalism and advocating for the rights of the working class.
• Proponents of socio-economic equality, such as R.H. Tawney, argued that capitalism only provided formal freedom in legal and political spheres while a small group of property owners exerted control over the majority. Those who possess essential natural resources and property can secure favorable conditions for themselves and significantly influence the lives of others.
• Socio-economic equality seeks to empower the working class, enabling them to shape their destinies and ensuring that opportunities are genuinely available to all, not just a privileged few.

Conclusion

Liberty and equality are fundamental to a fair society, but conflicts between them arise from biased interpretations. In economics, viewing equality merely as equal treatment for everyone, regardless of merit or needs, undermines both liberty and the true essence of equality. As H.J. Laski pointed out, equality should not equate to identical treatment because individuals have different wants, abilities, and needs. For instance, a mathematician and a bricklayer cannot be treated the same way. While reconciling liberty and equality in legal and political contexts is relatively straightforward, the socio-economic domain presents more complex challenges. Legal equality can be rendered meaningless if socio-economic disparities persist. Historically, the quest for liberty has often been intertwined with the call for equality, which aims to eliminate privileges for certain groups, ensuring legal and political equality for all citizens. 

In the socio-economic realm, some advocates of liberty argue against equality, claiming that liberty allows individuals to pursue wealth and success, while equality imposes limits on these opportunities. They believe that equality hampers initiative and potential, and should only guarantee a minimum standard of living to avoid hindering the ambitious. Many equality proponents agree that equality should ensure equal opportunities rather than identical treatment, allowing for differential rewards based on individual contributions to society. However, if this viewpoint is taken too far, it risks justifying extreme socio-economic inequalities. The relationship between equality and justice varies based on interpretations; Aristotle suggested that justice means treating equals equally and unequals unequally, cautioning against the belief that equality in one respect necessitates equality in all.