I have to this point, over the last several postings,
described three orientations concerning equality. I thought a review at this time would be
useful given that a prominent candidate for president is an avowed
socialist. To many Americans this might
sound bizarre and un-American. One way
to couch any consideration for Bernie Sanders would be to compare his position
or views against the views of others. Socialism
is primarily concerned with equality. In
this blog, I have described socialist ideas and ideals as they pertain to
critical theory – a vying construct in the study of curriculum. I pointed out
that critical theorists hold equality as their trump value. So the question I have been addressing is how
socialist views compare with other views Americans have held concerning
equality through their history.
Previously, in the last three postings I have described three
orientations about equality; they have been genetic elitism, earned elitism, and
equal condition.
Each of these orientations, in turn, is a view of social
structure starting with the most elite and working toward the most
egalitarian. There are two more
orientations left. While each
orientation has been in the past supported by significant numbers of Americans
at one point or another, one can generally say that at any given time, there
are people in this nation who will ascribe to any of these orientations. This posting will look at the next more
egalitarian view and I have given it the name regulated condition. You can also call it regulated equality or,
more descriptively, equal opportunity/limited rewards. As with equal condition, the view has some
philosophical justification for its stance on equality. Let’s see what that might be.
First, let me give this view a definition. Regulated condition is a general belief
orientation in which individuals who enjoy superior human assets (e.g.,
intelligence, physical dexterity, humor, etc.) do so due to effort for the most
part, but also are “blessed” in having been exposed to favorable conditions – more
on this below. Their superiority
entitles them to above normal consideration and limited only to areas
associated with their earned accomplishments.
Any entitlements are time limited as a recipient must continue to demonstrate
his or her worthiness, but said rewards, other than status, must be
purchased. Monetary rewards –
compensation or income – are paid in exchange for the individual’s labor and are
calculated by reasonable standards to represent that labor’s contribution to
the welfare of the society. In
actuality, reward relies generally on market forces but can be manipulated to
reflect that contribution through mostly taxes or minimum wage provisions. This orientation allows the individual to
negotiate his compensation, but this process is regulated in some fashion –
either by law, by custom, or some other expectations which are broadly accepted
as being legitimate. Sometimes
regulations limit compensation by the nature of the labor involved; does it, for
example, relate to essential services (medical, religious, educational, or
security related services such as serving in the armed forces)? If so, the general feeling is that such
services cannot charge whatever the market allows. Another example would be if market determined
salaries are too exorbitant. Such
considerations take into account how much of the national income is going to
the various income groups. The question
would be: is there, for the health of
the economy, sufficient distribution of income to sustain functional levels of
consumption? In other cases,
compensation can be bolstered in cases when market determinations would render
less than a living wage to some workers.
There might be other considerations such as whether concentration of
wealth and income is providing inordinate levels of political assets to certain
groups at the expense of others and distorting the democratic quality of a
given polity. Most policies governing manipulations
of income are or should be conscious of their effects on supply; that is,
distortions can arise and supply can become too limited if prices including
compensation are too low. For example,
if the salaries doctors receive are below market price, fewer will provide
their services, as is presently the case with Medicare. As one would suspect, policy that has so many
ramifications would need to be justified, especially when you are limiting a
person’s income derived from his/her labor or property.
Since in a
moneyed society, income is the source of determining how economic goods and
services are distributed, the topic of income is highly related to
justice. A number of years ago, a
prominent philosopher passed away. His
name was John Rawls.[1] He thought and wrote about justice and his
arguments have been used by what we currently call liberals or
progressives. His main argument is best
understood, I feel, by looking at what he felt justice to be. He doesn’t give us a straight definition, but
instead gives us a mental exercise.
Rawls asks
us, in this exercise, to think of a group of people starting a society (the
“original position”) with a particular limitation. That is, no one in the group, ahead of time,
knows what his or her position will be in this new society (“veil of
ignorance”). Therefore, the individuals
in this exercise will not know if the advantage in the new society will fall to
the talented, the strong, the swift, the dullard, or to any other person with a
particular asset or detriment. Their job
is to set up the basic rules for this society.
You might be able to think of practical problems with such an
experiment, but Rawls' point is that without knowing how one will fare in such
an arrangement, each participant would seek to establish the fairest system
possible which includes providing the most equal opportunity on the off chance
that he/she will not have an advantaged position. Under such conditions, according to Rawls, a
just society can emerge.
While this
line of thought addresses equality to a certain degree, Rawls went
further. He questions the right of
anyone to claim any advantage, even those advantages that are accrued through
personal effort. Generally, Rawls is
concerned with how responsible an individual is for his or her good standing,
status, or level of success. He asks a
set of basic questions. How responsible
is a person for his or her talents and skills?
Are they inbred, in which case the person is not responsible at all? Are they the product of having the good
fortune of being raised by parents, households, and communities that nurtured
such development? Or is it the result of
attending adequate schools? Again, the
individual has, at best, a limited say in how he or she will turn out. Therefore, the responsibility a person has
for his or her success or lack of success is, at best, limited. Another source of success is the endeavor a
person chooses to pursue. Does the
person just happen to be interested in a skill that is in high demand and short
supply? These, again, are conditions
outside the person's full control. Even
when the development and execution of such talents and skills are derived from
hard work, how much is the person's disposition toward such work the product of
the appropriate family and other social milieus, the right neighborhoods, the
right schools, the right churches, and so forth? All in all, even if hard work is involved, in
a just society how much is the person entitled to receive in terms of compensation,
status, and other rewards? Seeing
advantages through these lenses, one might come to the conclusion that such
rewards should be limited.
Rawls was not
a socialist. He believed in private
property, self-initiative, and receiving rewards from property and other
resources. He even wrote about moral
hazard, a result in which people who are rewarded without warrant, as in the
case of illicit behavior, will learn lessons leading to unproductive behaviors
and strategies since rewards lead to repeated actions. But he felt we needed to be realistic. We need to be honest when it comes to what can
be truly attributed to a person and, therefore, how we view a person's
rewards. There is a multitude of factors
that determines how a person's career and other endeavors will turn out and, in
reality, a person has little control over those factors. All in all, therefore, there should be limits
to the rewards a person can garner.
I think Rawls’
argument gives us the rationale for an orientation about equality that I am
calling regulated equality or conditions – the fourth orientation I am
presenting. Here are its beliefs:
1.Some people develop talents and they should be rewarded
according to how they use those talents to help society. Society should be set up so that those who
have demonstrated the abilities and intelligence to do a job should be rewarded
in equal value to their contributions.
2. Laws should be passed that guarantee that only the skills and knowledge needed for
a job should be taken into account when people are trying to find work. Another way to express this belief is to say
the orientation is for equal opportunity in its most literal sense.
3. Those who have sacrificed to become talented should be
judged by the same standards as the
rest of us.
4. Laws should be in
place that put limits on compensation so that several social ends can be
accomplished. These include a functional
distribution of income to allow sufficient demand for goods and services and an
avoidance of concentrated political assets that undermine the ability of
portions of the citizenry to reasonably compete for favorable governmental
decisions.
5. Poor people are
generally those who have not been granted the appropriate opportunities to either develop a useful skill or have
been unwilling to develop that skill due to social circumstances.
This
orientation emphasizes those practices that promote equal opportunity. It recognizes that the influences of wealth,
no matter how justified by the conditions of its accumulation, give some people
opportunities over others and that that offends our commitment to equality. This orientation does not give much credit
for past contributions. Yes, past
contributions can be cited as proof that a person has certain skills and
knowledge, but that evidence has a “short shelf life” and, as with equal condition,
the general attitude is: what
contributions has the person achieved of late?
Our current
political discourse, to a great degree, seems to be split on the differences
between the last two orientations I presented.
Conservatives and the Republican Party seem to support the equal
condition, unlimited rewards orientation.
Liberals or progressives and the Democratic Party support the regulated
condition or equal opportunity, limited rewards orientation. The last orientation, regulated condition, is
also sensitive to historical conditions that have affected members of groups in
negative ways – such as the effects of discrimination – and that pose
competitive obstacles in the present. In
such cases, the orientation would support remedial policies that are aimed at
eliminating the obstacles, if possible, or reasonably ameliorating their
effects. Therefore, past discrimination
might lead to policies that provide advantages to affected group members such
as quotas in which a certain percentage of employment or educational positions
are reserved for members of victimized groups.
This is done for a set amount of time or until the discrimination and
its effects are deemed to have ended.
The former
orientation, equal condition, unlimited rewards, places a higher degree of adherence
to raw liberty, the merits of competition, self-initiative, and the sanguine
benefits given to individuals who deal independently with the harsh realities
of life. Advocates believe to a greater
extent in a government that protects but does not, as they see it, coddle its
citizens.
The latter
orientation, regulated condition, places a high allegiance on liberty, but
softens that devotion with a consideration for what truly constitutes real
opportunity. Along with a belief in government protecting us, the orientation
promotes a government that is capable and actually provides an agenda of
compassion and nurturing policies to assist people, especially those who cannot
fend for themselves. The advocates of regulated equality see success as having
a corresponding obligation; that is, the expectation that those who are
successful are willing to support societal efforts to provide those programs
and institutions that genuinely level the playing field, as far as that is
possible. Why? Because such a commitment furthers the health of the society by
promoting justice as Rawls would have defined it. It also acknowledges the observation among
those advantaged that “there but for the grace of God (or nature), go I.”
[1] A good overview of John Rawls’ theory of justice can
be found in Kukathas, C. and Pettit, P.
(1990). Rawls: A theory of justice and
its critics. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
