When Inequality is Good
This is not an argument for the treatment of individuals unequally under the law. This is a necessary discussion of the value of inequality and individualism, which can snap the cage-bars of group identity and group think. We are all different, and those differences mean unequal abilities and interests. Lest we become mannequin men, devoid of individuality, mouthpieces for a machine mind, we need inequality, and should celebrate it in its positive form.
Despite this seeming obvious to many, I am still shocked into voicing these facts. About a year ago, I was in a political philosophy class in which “equality” was referred to as a royal decree, an absolute good proclaimed by God. Consider the differences in individual choices and their effects on income? “But, equality!” How about differences in ability? “Equality!” More frightening than the adherence to the Doctrine of Equality by its eunuch priests, was the unwillingness of its detractors to speak up (save one Republican whose speech was accompanied by marked trembling).
This is not a state I wish to be in. All aims contain negatives; circumstances are many in which equality would be detrimental to human flourishing. By elevating equality beyond its station, by making historical inequalities (which I am not denying) that groups have suffered from fundamental, one removes the autonomy of such groups. By proclaiming historical determinism, the newly liberated choices of the marginalized are killed in the cradle. The right to determine one’s own destiny is again chained to the mast by that vicious slave owner Ideology. Is it possible to discuss our cultural shibboleths critically, with ease of spirit, and without being branded an iconoclast? Our reaction will determine the answer.
Reason I: Progress relies on inequality.
I enjoy weightlifting. It is a performance of archetypal proportions; man versus gravity, Mother Nature’s sledgehammer. What small victories there are, are a reminder of our continual contention with nature’s abuses. Those victories are predicated on inequality. That is to say, the weight I’m lifting now, is unequal to the weight I lifted two months ago. There is an intrinsic inequality to individual progress.
No matter what situation I’m in, if I wish to progress, or regress for that matter, I implicitly endorse inequality. Do I want to become thin? Then I want an unequal distribution of body fat between now and my future self. Do I want a college degree? Then I want an unequal number of degrees, compared to myself in a former slice of time. Do I want to order food? Then I want an unequal distribution of food compared to my other self.
Intrinsic inequality is a difference in states between two selves, each at a different point in time. And we all rely on it for progress.
Reason II: Success is reliant on inequality.
One’s measurement of personal progress, though a more healthy aim when regularly applied, says nothing about one’s relative station within the community. Just how strong, smart, or talented are you? This answer demands a comparison to other contenders. And that comparison relies on inequality.
Strength is relative. This means that one is stronger than, not just strong. Strength is what emerges out of weakness. As weakness wanes, strength waxes. How strong you are, in a more objective sense, is determined by how strong you are relative to someone else. (We ought not get bogged down in definitions of “strength” here. If you bench press 300 pounds and I bench press 200, then you are stronger by comparison. If you handled a personal challenge better than I handle that same challenge in my life, then you are stronger.) If you are stronger than that individual, you have a measurement. Put explicitly, one has unequal abilities.
This is extrinsic inequality. Competitive weightlifters, powerlifters, bodybuilders, chess players, singers and guitarists all rely on it to determine success. The winner of the competition is unequal to the individual in second place. The goal of that competition acts as a measurement of success, it is that which one is better at. However, that nuance does not change the fact that there are unequal distributions of skill relative to a goal, and the individual who best exemplifies that goal has a difference of ability. Progressive success within a hierarchy, success, and competition are all reliant on extrinsic inequality.
Reason III: Inequality is relieving.
The philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre said we are “condemned to be free.” We are free to make any choice we want. There are consequences to those choices. We are responsible for every outcome. This is condemning. This is a crushing responsibility.
Here, choice paralysis rears its gorgon head. Which choice is the right choice? Most Westerners alive have experienced this on Netflix, scrolling through film after film unsure of what they should spend their time on. This is an arbitrary decision, dwarfed by the goliath decisions of everyday life. What class should you take? What career should you choose? What person should you marry? Should you have children?
One way to ameliorate this paralysis and the pain inflicted by overflowing choice is by process of elimination. If I’m choosing a career field to get into, I’m going to look at myself, see that I’m 5’9”, 28 years old, have terrible knees, and immediately rule out a career in basketball. These unequal aspects, extrinsically unequal to professional NBA players, are relieving.
The anxiety induced by a constant flood of potential options is assuaged, in part, by a process of elimination aided by unequal aptitude.
Reason IV: Inequality minimizes responsibility.
Closely related to Reason III, the fact that I can’t do something that someone else can, suggests that it isn’t my responsibility to do so. On any team, including a society, the differences in aptitude between individuals means that some individuals are suited for some positions, while other individuals are better suited for others. Creatives can be artists, the conservative, an accountant. It is then, one’s responsibility to lean into their abilities, relieving you of the burden of those responsibilities you are not built for.
While it is a dangerous mind that expects others to accomplish things for them, it is still wise to recognize your strengths and weaknesses, pursue your strengths and pray for others to cover your weaknesses. It is responsible to offload actions that one is incapable of onto another. If you are a terrible painter, you will do a poor job. It is better to leave this job to someone who will not create more pain than necessary while completing it. In a society, you cover each other’s weakness; a phalanx against the onslaught of nature and man. Unequal abilities offload one’s responsibilities.
Inequality is necessary for progress and success, and it partially relieves us of the dual burdens of freedom and responsibility. To take equality as inherently good, to plaster it on walls, uniforms or bumper stickers, is evidently silly. When an individual trumpets equality without consideration for its shortcomings, one should regard them with suspicion. Say nothing of their intent, pure though it may be, the specifics of every circumstance must be weighed. I make this argument so that we may not rely on the equality-call as a crutch; that we may address issues of inequality with a sophisticated mind, taking next to nothing as inherently good. Equality is good relative to its functionality for any given aim. Like a hammer is good for sinking nails, but a poor scalpel. This must be understood, and equality needs to be employed only in the circumstances in which it is best suited, wherein it can behave as an apotropaion against prejudice, without warding off individuality or will.