Respect for Equality - Quareness Series 97th "Lecture".
Isn't it odd how so many of us are flummoxed by the rise of Donald Trump whom we tend to regard as an uncouth disrespectful individual, when it's clear he must have won some respect from the many who voted for him. How did this happen?
When we think of inequality we usually tend to do so in economic terms...income and wealth provide convenient gauges of the distance between the affluent and the rest. However, there is a deeper kind of inequality caused by a lack of respect rather than any lack of resources. In alluding to "free persons" as those who "can speak their minds, walk tall among their fellows, and look each other squarely in the eye" the 17th century English poet John Milton can be read as implying that when we treat each other with mutual respect, we are equal in a relational sense. Lowering our eyes out of deference may render ourselves inferior. When we consider ourselves morally superior to others, we are said to "look down" on them. The danger in either case is that we may miss the basic humanity and moral sameness of the other... indeed the fundamental equality that exists between us.
We are equals when we "meet each other’s gaze"...a social interaction that requires and reflects mutual respect and a "truth" perhaps missed by Hilary Clinton back in 2016 during the course of the US presidential campaign when she was perceived as disrespectful to millions of her fellow citizens upon describing some of her opponent's supporters as "a basket of deplorables". These words seemed to confirm a sense amongst many working-class Americans that the professional elite "look down" on them. Donald Trump, on the other hand, seemed to "look them squarely in the eye". What I'm talking about here is perception, whatever the full reality.
Today most people seem to be in favour of some kind of equality but the real question is equality of what. Basic equality underpins human rights which are normally regarded as universal and unconditional. But basic equality tends towards just a thin legalistic egalitarianism...I can defend a person's right to a fair trial without respecting her/him as my equal in any broader sense. With material equality the focus is more on justification or otherwise for reallocating resources (typically economic ones) between persons, with no real account taken of the relationship between them. In contrast to both of these orientations, however, relational equality is created between us in our relationships with each other sustained by our interacting attitudes in daily life. And this last form of equality seems to rely on notions of social non-domination and civic equality within a concept of freedom as a state of independence free from the arbitrary will of others. With unequal relationships tending to undermine respect both for ourselves and others, could it be that our true freedom cannot be achieved without this kind of independence and standing as citizens in a community of equals?
Although they are distinct variants, basic, material, relational equality can (and often do) reinforce each other. But the last cited (relational) is what most fosters equality of the other kinds.
It seems obvious that relational equality requires a combination of independence (for self-respect) and inclusion (for mutual respect)...and empathy is likely a better foundation for social justice than sympathy. Redistribution of resources can undermine relational equality through inducing dependency or indeed encouraging paternalistic attitudes towards the poor. Policies intended to lessen resource inequality need to be designed and implemented in ways that are sensitive to their potential impact on respect. And respect cannot be commanded vertically from above, rather it has to be generated horizontally by each of us. An egalitarianism focused on relational equality has to be concerned not only about the resources people have but also about how they came by them, and whether the ways they are distributed create or destroy mutual and self-respect.
While it's likely that some features of economic equality (e.g. spatial segregation) are contributing to the corrosion of respect, so too may be the ideology of meritocracy commonly used nowadays to justify it.
Michael Young (a British sociologist) warned us of the dark side of this ideology in his 1958 novel The Rise of the Meritocracy. The book depicted a future society in which a social revolution has swept away power structures based on inheritance, and replaced them with a society based entirely on "merit" (IQ and effort) in which there is "rule not so much by the people as by the cleverest people; not an aristocracy of birth, not a plutocracy of wealth, but a true meritocracy of talent". The inevitable widening gap between the rich (no longer weakened by self-doubt and self-criticism) and the poor is seen by those in power to be wholly justified on moral grounds...as just reward for their own capacity, efforts and undeniable achievements. Thus the ideology of meritocracy comes to weaken the foundation of mutual respect and becomes the connective tissue between material and relational inequalities.
Young also pointed to an inevitable loss of self-respect among the poor...people who have had a chance to show their skills, but have been found to simply lack them. As he explained...having been repeatedly labelled "dunce" they cannot any longer pretend; their image of themselves is more nearly a true, unflattering reflection. Are they not bound to recognise that they have an inferior status - not as in the past because they were denied opportunity but because they are inferior? For the first time in human history the inferior man has no ready buttress for his self-regard. Life in a meritocracy is psychologically comfortable for those who possess whatever particular kind of merit is valued. But it is hard for those who do not. In an explicitly non-meritocratic hierarchy, these pains are fewer; the pauper knows he can never be a prince. But when everyone can, at least in theory, be a CEO or a president or rich, your failure to do so must be your own fault.
The loss of self-respect among some of meritocracy’s losers (driven perhaps by a creeping epidemic of stress and fatalism) tends to be accompanied and amplified by a loss of respect between classes - the winners and losers. Those who are economically productive and successful may not see a broken labour market...they may see broken people making bad choices and who are less worthy of respect...or they might simply be unable to imagine themselves in those others' shoes. In this way an economic gap becomes an empathy gap, which in turn becomes a respect gap. A conviction about equal dignity gets harder to retain as people's ways of living become not just unfamiliar but unintelligible to each other.
When economic inequality evolves into class separation (by neighbourhood, school, workplace, lifestyle or culture) the seeds of destruction for relational inequality are planted. Rather than looking the less fortunate "squarely in the eye", the better off might instead come to look down on them as unworthy of respect. And this social distance from people in poverty can increasingly exist in a sort of mutually reinforcing cycle of felt contempt. Mirroring this it seems that the less successful may now be "returning the favour" given the apparent recent sharp decline in widespread respect for "elites"...a situation with potentially profound political and social consequences.
In the coming years unstoppable economic forces could render paid work either unavailable or undignified for more and more of us, and we may need to reduce our reliance on the labour market both as a means of resource distribution and a generator of respect. Nevertheless we surely need to reduce growing economic gaps as well as the physical separation of social classes and the deep challenge here is to gain/restore respect, especially for those who are different or have different views to us.
Disagreement is one thing and disrespect is quite another. For all our sakes (better societies) we need to foster and restore respect...an everyday task for each and every one of us.
Sean.
Dean of Quareness.
September, 2018.