In sharing the various
elements of liberated federalism, the proposed view by which to develop a
civics curriculum, this blog is offering equality as a central concern. In the last posting, using the ideas of
Philip Selznick,[1] it
described and explained the implications of what Selznick calls baseline
equality. This posting will now review
his other form of equality, equal treatment.
This next aspect, equal treatment, as with the case of
baseline equality, is based on the belief in the dignity and integrity of each
member of a union. Such a belief leads
to the aspiration for creating a commonwealth in which all its members can enjoy
equal treatment or condition.[2]
As
baseline equality was a fundamental right, equal treatment is a derivative
right and is based on an equal evaluation of everyone’s welfare. In pursuing this right, to the extent it
exists, dissimilar treatment for people in different categories can be considered
and deemed rightful under what is judged to be the appropriate conditions.
Dissimilar
treatment must be justified on some grounds in which circumstances show that a
level of disrespect to the dignity and welfare of certain groups exists. “The objective is fairness based on moral
equality, not consistency for its own sake.”[3] In other words, government should treat
people differently if to do so would be to respect and advance the ideal that
everyone has intrinsic worth. This can
meaningfully give substance to a moral equality standard, i.e., to afford
treatment to individuals as equals but realistic as to their situations.
This
dissimilar treatment is not meant to down-level people, but to raise them to
create a community in which all are ideally – and to a great extent actually –
well-born. So, therefore, a study of
government should include inquiry and debate over the connection between the
social equality that exists in fact and the equality which is advocated by this
element of the liberated federalist model.
In addition, inquiry should be extended to ask what this element of
moral equality would prohibit or set limits on public or private sector policy
within a commonwealth.
This
blogger in other venues has made a distinction among how advocates of natural
rights, critical theory, and liberated federalism define equality. Natural rights view sees it as being the
establishment of equal conditions, as in equality before the law. This blog identifies that condition as an
attribute of baseline equality.
Critical
theory defines it as equal results – that there should be minimal variance in
the distribution of assets – such as wealth.
And liberated federalism sees equality as regulated equality in which government
and other authorities see to it that where factors, such as historical ones,
place disadvantages in the path of certain groups, authoritative regulations
should be put in place to alleviate or rectify the resulting disadvantages.[4] A minimum wage would be such a regulation.
A
commonwealth is then faced with a double-edged sword. On the one hand, the inevitable ranking of
individuals leads to an uneven distribution of material values. Such a reality, though, threatens the level
of moral equality in the commonwealth.
But this sort of ranking is not only pervasive among societies of all kinds
but is readily justified within those societies. Calls to end uneven distributions are
unrealistic and attempts will (and have) caused unacceptable costs to other
values.
For
example, would attempts to even out distributions act to squelch the motivation
of those who would otherwise work creatively and assiduously to advance
technological and other business-oriented activities which result in higher
production and productivity? The
experience of collectivist societies, such as in purely socialistic societies
where such attempts have been made, seems to indicate that such motivation
would be squelched.
The
key to resolving the dichotomy of values is the classical liberal call for
equal opportunity. Selznick describes these
values as follows:
No
one should be hampered, no door should be closed to anyone, because of a prejudice
against that person’s social origin.
Whatever opportunities exist should be open to all without regard to
social class or (as later extended) to race, creed, ethnicity, or gender. Thus equality of opportunity has the limited
objective of overcoming prejudice while maintaining the legitimacy of differential
rewards.[5]
In short, the focus is on
ending any caste elements within the commonwealth.[6] Affirmative action, under such a value, is
limited to the following activities:
·
identifying and
providing appropriate training to those victimized by discrimination,
·
helping members of a
discriminated group, or to demand evidence that public or private agencies have
dealt with discriminated groups in good faith, and
·
exert meaningful
effort to rectify past incidences of discrimination by actual accomplishments.
Helping
efforts might be extended to those who have not even been discriminated
against, in order to upgrade the group as a whole. In addition, public agencies, such as
schools, should provide resources to poorer members of the commonwealth to
encourage recipients to compete economically for limited material values. At its base, the commonwealth would rely on a
meritocratic standard that allows those who produce or have good fortune to
benefit from their effort or luck, but it dismisses as illegitimate the ideal
that holds that “winners” are inherently superior.
Inequalities
in such a value system are tolerated on the grounds that to eliminate them
would be costly, impractical, and too disruptive and counterproductive to the
general creation of wealth of material and other assets. This would ultimately work to the disinterests
of all, including the disadvantaged and the discriminated. Therefore, the moral equality that is sought
is based on a reciprocal advantage, not on sympathy, pity, or benevolence.
Under
such a system, all should support an arrangement as if anyone making up the
commonwealth could be at the bottom – “there but for the grace of God go I.” This reciprocal nature calls on a meaningful
reality that (1) allows an opportunity to improve one’s position significantly,
and (2) sets up a cooperative mode of social interaction.
It
allows for rational decision-making, maximizing one’s benefits and minimizing
one’s costs, but is more encompassing than the marginal analysis of the systems
approach (reviewed earlier in this blog).
It considers the potential and often real distribution of assets. Where significant imbalances exist – when
basic humanity is threatened for an individual or group – leading to a lack of
respect and dignity where anyone or anyone’s loved ones can find themselves in
desperate and deprived conditions, appropriate welfare should be allotted.
The
reciprocal nature of this proposed arrangement has strong support within its
logic for a fraternal ethos upon which community can be built and a meaningful
commonwealth can be maintained. But
there exists under this logic the temptation to see all inequalities as counter
to moral equality. One needs to be clear
about the functions of inequality.
Selznick comments:
Historically there have been four main
justifications for inequalities as contributing to the common good. It has been claimed that inequalities are
essential for: (1) effective
organization for prosperity, education, public safety, and similar social
goals; (2) achievement of excellence and high standards, especially in the
realm of “high culture”; (3) protection of freedom, including the freedom to
become unequal in possessions and personal attainment; and (4) commitment to
ascriptive unities, especially family membership, which depend on recognition
of special benefits and privileges. None
of these objectives can justify unlimited or unrestrained
inequality.[7]
The argument can be made
that some level of inequality is both practical and moral, i.e., that a moral
commonwealth should support an elitist element within its midst. The elites, who are committed to democratic
and republican ideals, are those the commonwealth depends upon to lead in the
pursuit of a moral society under those ideals.
Included
in this ideal is the goal of establishing a community in which the elites and
non-elites can live in an overall cooperative venture. In summary, that cooperative effort is to
seek equality that restrains arbitrary power, encourages democratic
participation, and promotes effective economic opportunity. These qualities serve as the bedrock of a
liberated federalist guided polity and should be at the core of a civics curriculum.
[1] Philip Selznick, The
Moral Commonwealth: Social Theory and
the Promise of Community (Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press, 1992).
[2] The term, “equal treatment,” as it is often used by
those who ascribe to the ideas of natural rights, is limited to the notion that
all should be treated in similar fashion by those in governmental
authority. Here, Selznick expands on
this ideation of what “equal” or “equality” means.
[3] Ibid., 491.
[4] See for example, Robert Gutierrez, Toward a
Federated Nation: Implementing National
Civics Standards (Tallahassee, FL:
Gravitas/Civics Books, 2020).
[5] Selznick, The Moral
Commonwealth, 492.
[6] Is “caste” too strong a term when considering the US? To address that question readers are directed
to Isabel Wilkerson, Caste: The Origin
of Our Discontents (New York, NY: Random
House, 2020/2023). She makes a
convincing argument that this nation has sufficient conditions to classify it
as harboring a caste system.
[7] Selznick, The Moral Commonwealth, 499, emphasis in the original.
No comments:
Post a Comment