Equal - Part 3

By Mike Lundy


Part 1 of this article looked back at some famous historical conflicts staged in the name of equality, and the documents celebrated as icons of humanity's moral progress toward a more egalitarian society. It pointed out that those famous conflicts were less about a belief in equality and more about resenting and rebelling against oppression.

Part 2 then explored the history of society to see whether inequality is an inherent 'natural' feature of human beings, finding instead that inequality was a trade-off for the more efficient resource production of agrarian society. Western* society developed from an egalitarian society through agriculture and an industrialised society that was increasingly hierarchical, with an unfortunate dearth of social controls over the behaviour leaders, other than outright revolt. In sum, appeals to 'nature' do not in any way support an argument for denying people equal rights before the law.

The structure of Western society has become less rigid over the last 100 years, and more people have equal voting, economic and legal rights.

However, one group of people find this all very distasteful.

This third and final part of the Equal series explores the growing influence of this group, the alarming future they represent and discusses what can be done about it.

Equal - Part 2

By Mike Lundy

Part 1 of this article looked back at some famous historical conflicts staged in the name of equality, and the documents celebrated as icons of humanity's moral progress toward a more egalitarian society.

Those who led the revolutions may have used the rhetoric of egalitarianism but, while they fought for their own 'equality', they continued to believe they were superior to others, for example, indigenous people, poor men, slaves or women. The men who wrote and signed those famous documents were satisfied that things were finally hunky-dory: at last 'All men are equal'… except for those that are not.

As I said in Part 1, the 'newly equal' continued to believe in a hierarchical arrangement of humanity, they just moved up the ranking. They drew the line of people who were 'unequal' below them. This reality was captured succinctly by playwright Henry-François Becque: the defect of equality is that we desire it only with our superiors.

Far from striving for equality, history's revolutions consisted of one section of society rising up against an individual (e.g. King) or a group (e.g. the church) that was usurping their assets and food, restricting their activities or options, oppressing them with gruelling work, or generally just being brutal to maintain control and take money from them. The revolutions were actually about securing the material needs of living and a sense of dignity by ending these various abuses of power.

History's famous egalitarian revolutions were more like the school yard retort: 'You're not the boss of me' or Monty Python's 'Don't you oppress me'. 

That's a long way from a belief in equality with everyone else.

Equal - Part 1

Mike Lundy

In the contest of ideas about society, the question whether all people are equal is pretty fundamental. (This is Part 1 of a 3-part article about the history of this question.)

The dictionary gives a range of meanings for equal; I've extracted those most relevant:

1a: equivalent/same in mathematical value or logical denotation; b: like in quality, nature, or status: c: like for each member of a group, class, or society  2: impartial regarding or affecting all objects in the same way

I hold the view that all people are of equal value and status. I recognise that people are different in temperament, ability and life story, but I believe everyone should have the same basic rights and impartial treatment before the law. I realise that many people do not share this view.

From the adjective equal we indirectly get the noun for the principle of human equality: egalitarianism. 

1: a belief in human equality especially with respect to social, political, and economic affairs 2: a social philosophy advocating the removal of inequalities among people

I say 'indirectly' because English borrowed the word egalitarian from the French égalitaire, originally from the Latin aequalitas meaning 'equality' and added the English noun-building ism. (And sure, equal-ism doesn't sound like an inspirational principle, unlike the more mellifluous egalitarianism.)

Like me, you may have been taught the last 500 years of Western history* has been a dogged struggle to achieve legal and social equality for more and more people. Famous words have been written - 'all men are created equal' - and held up as icons of the moral progress of humanity. 

But lately, my world view had a massive shake up. I learned that the majority of people who took to armed conflict in the name of 'equality' did not believe that human beings were equal at all. They were actually fighting for something else. 

TATKOP 110

There Are Two Kinds Of People - those who think everything is a miracle and those who think nothing is (Albert Einstein).

View all the posts in the TATKOP Series by Fred Shivvin here.

Alternate grief

By Fred Shivvin

Have you ever corrected someone's dreadful grammar, fixed their awful punctuation, or pointed out that they used the wrong word?

I get it - those errors can be very irritating. They distract your focus from the meaning. And certain errors are particularly 'triggering' for some of us. A whole online army seem fully occupied waging war against you're errors.

But have you ever considered that in your battle against 'errors', you might be fighting against the natural process of language change? 

I'm starting to think I might be doing just that when I react to one of my 'trigger' words errors - alternate, the adjective form. I consider it an error to use alternate when it should be alternative. I frequently hear alternate used wrongly in both formal and informal contexts, and I always correct it (at least to myself!) However, deep in my word nerd heart, I am starting to feel I might have to accept the word alternate is just changing its meaning, like so many have before.

TATKOP 109

There Are Two Kinds Of People: those who see growing up as learning about the world and those who see it as learning about ourselves.
(See all the posts in the TATKOP Series by Fred Shivvin here.)