Theory #1: Why not equal?

Before we start, equality, as used in this text, is not equality of outcome, or solely equality of opportunity, but that coupled with equality of condition, forming substantive equality of opportunity. In other words, no one is given an outcome on the sole merit of being, there are fair competitions that determine what outcome who will earn, but, as some members are of no choice of theirs given a disparity of starting conditions, such as their parent’s wealth, and thus, in the example, a better chance at education, the field is to be evened to the degree it is possible to, without hindering the better off, but by elevating the worse. As Paul Krugman said: “If you admit that life is unfair, and that there’s only so much you can do about that at the starting line, then you can try to ameliorate the consequences of that unfairness.”

In theory, Equalitarianism is the trend of thought that favours all people equally.

In theory, Feminism, Masculism, Racial integration and others are sub-trends of equalitarianism, each with respect to a group within a community.

In theory, this means that a person that is equalitarian, is also all of the subcategories of it.

In praxis, there are differences between those movements, that shift with time. Sub-equalitarianisms are very active, with the trade-off of being more prone to being radical, to the point of not being equalitarian anymore. While there are people, who want equality for all people, there is also the raucous subset of those who want to advance its group without regard for other groups that may be harmed in the process.

Equalitarianism itself is a passive movement, within which people don’t act upon the ideals, but rather observe, and try not to step on the toes of others. In the good case scenario, a person concerned with and informed on the problems of others, in the bad case scenario, the metaphorical bystander in drastic events, not helping, just watching.

My proposition is, that people from the sub-equalitarian groups, whose beliefs coincide with the equalitarian beliefs, should choose this mantle over the more specific ones. The theory behind this is, that with more active people from those communities, equalitarianism  would become a more active movement, getting things done towards the equalisation of all humanity by focusing on specific problems one at a time, rather than trying to contemplate them all at once. The benefit for the sub-equalitarianisms would be that they would sever the connection to the externally-harmful parts of their community, loosing the bad connotation of the activities those parts were involved with. One drawback of such an arrangement would be the loss of active members, as the short term goals of the harmful subset usually paralleled the whole groups, even if the long term goals were more radical. Another would be the necessity to let the own name deteriorate. That movements headed by such prominent figures as Elizabeth C. Stanton or Martin L. King Jr. should be allowed to be taken over by people, who do not understand what they stood for, is regrettable.

Personally, I feel as if those downsides don’t overweigh the perks, as there is still the possibility of cooperation with the outskirt groups, if the need arises, even if it would be harder, as they are now more distant from the cause. I would also have no problem with letting a name go, as long as the ideals it stood for lived on.

Lastly, there is a point that, depending on how you view it, might be an advantage, or a disadvantage. By the very nature of the conjunction of groups that such equalitarianism would become, getting anything done would be either self-harmful or slow. This is because of the many viewpoints this trend represents, and has to maintain. Actions would either have to be disputed from all involved sides, to make sure they are not harmful to any group, while equalising another, or would be done, with the fallout possibly creating another problem the group would have to unravel, the act repeating and mimicking the movements of a damped harmonic oscillator. I see this a a benefit, as I have never really felt the pressure of time, and the effects are equality, with ways to combat both under- and overshooting. I can see, however, how one could not stand for the elongation of the process of progress. Still, I encourage to wait a bit, but think before acting, as even if this is not always the best way to do things, it helps one understand the inner workings of the medium, and allows for easier solving of later problems. It is the way with more of a future.

Now that this has come to an end, I implore you to tell me, where I went wrong, what points for or against my idea have I missed, and if you find it to your liking, possibly share it with others. Maybe something good will even come from this.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s