« previous post | Main | next post »
December 27, 2004
Egalitarian scholarship
David Schmidtz: December 27, 2004
So, I'm on the list on contributors, and haven't contributed anything yet, although I've been reading posts with interest, often finding them genuinely edifying. Anyway, David V is prodding me, so here's something I've been thinking about for a while. It's the first time I've ever contributed anything at all to any kind of blog. I welcome your corrections, or simply reactions.
Recent developments in egalitarian scholarship are promising in two ways. First, egalitarians like Michael Walzer, Iris Marion Young, and Elizabeth Anderson seem to be regrouping under the banner of an egalitarianism that has roots in a 19th century rebellion against oppression, when egalitarianism was a genuinely liberal movement, allied with 19th century utilitarianism in opposing authoritarian aristocracy. Where this first development recalls the civil libertarianism of 19th century classical liberals and of civil rights leaders of the 1960s, a second development in egalitarian scholarship recalls the humanitarian element of those same movements. What I have in mind is that egalitarians like Richard Arneson are reformulating egalitarianism in such a way that it has a point that can be appreciated even by those who do not already subscribe to a radically egalitarian ideology. “The point of equality I would say is to improve people’s life prospects, tilting in favor of those who are worse off, and in favor of those who have done as well as could reasonably be expected with the cards that fate has dealt them.” This new egalitarianism is not the revolt against economic mobility (sometimes deceptively packaged as an empirical thesis that upward mobility is a myth) that egalitarianism seemed to become for a while in the mid-20th century.
Egalitarianism cannot survive inspection as a proposal for forcibly maintaining a static pattern, but that is not what liberal egalitarianism was. Societies whose members do not grow and change and distinguish themselves do not survive; a workable egalitarianism makes room for growth and change. There is room, though, within a genuinely liberal theory of justice, for egalitarianism focused on improving (not leveling) general life chances. Likewise, there is room for egalitarianism focused on proportional justice—on things like equal pay for equal work. Societies that succumb to a temptation to experiment with more dictatorial forms of equality must soon either abandon those experiments or be suffocated by them.
When the topic is oppression, it becomes critical to be aware of ways in which society is not a zero-sum game. To fight oppression in a nonoppressive way, we must aim for gains in freedom from oppression that come not at someone else’s expense (that do not merely shift the target of oppression to classes who “cannot reasonably complain”) but that are instead universally liberating. This will of course seem utopian to those (and there are some) who think the only way to win is to make other people lose.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834536ae669e200d8345ad52a69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Egalitarian scholarship:
» David Schmidtz Live on Left2Right! from The Fly Bottle
I'm thrilled to see that David Schmidtz has started posting at left2right. As his inclusion on L2R attests, Dave is one of the best political philosophers of his generation. Additionally, he's one of the nicest people you'll ever meet. And... [Read More]
Tracked on Dec 28, 2004 10:17:11 AM
» DAVID SCHMIDTZ debuts in the blogosphere from PRESTOPUNDIT -- "An intense brain-buzz, guaranteed" (2blowhards)
with a posting on egalitarian scholarship. A teaster: Recent developments in egalitarian scholarship are promising in two ways. First, egalitarians like Michael Walzer, Iris Marion Young, and Elizabeth Anderson... [Read More]
Tracked on Jan 7, 2005 5:32:13 PM
Comments
Posted by: Keith Burgess-Jackson
Welcome to the blogosphere, David!
Posted by: Keith Burgess-Jackson | Dec 27, 2004 2:11:46 PM
Posted by: Luka Yovetich
Here's my reaction to the post. It is wonderful and interesting. Thanks for it! I've been waiting for you to post Prof. Schmidtz! I also hoping for some straight up libertarian posts from you. I'm especially intersted in where you think libertarians fit (if at all) in this dialog between the right and left.
Posted by: Luka Yovetich | Dec 27, 2004 2:12:03 PM
Posted by: a reader
Just so we understand you better, can you be more specific about what you mean by "oppression?" The phrase is often misused in political discourse to mean something akin to "a government I really don't like," and I think it may be helpful to define how you mean it before using the term.
Posted by: a reader | Dec 27, 2004 2:58:03 PM
Posted by: Steve
first impressions?
1st Thesis: “The point of equality I would say is to improve people’s life prospects, tilting in favor of those who are worse off, and in favor of those who have done as well as could reasonably be expected with the cards that fate has dealt them.”
How is this not a tautology? How could the point of equality NOT be to improve people's life prospects, tilting in favor of those who are worse off? (would tilting in favor of those who are BEST OFF qualify as egalitarianism?)
2nd Thesis: "There is room, though, within a genuinely liberal theory of justice, for egalitarianism focused on improving (not leveling) general life chances."
Reaganomics made this same argument (trickle-down theory). Is that what you intend? I'm assuming its not. But what do you intend? And where do you say it?
3rd Thesis: "When the topic is oppression, it becomes critical to be aware of ways in which society is not a zero-sum game."
Ok. Like what?
Frankly, lots of really big words that don't really say anything.
Also:
Are you really a libertarian (as an earlier commentator suggested)? "Likewise, there is room for egalitarianism focused on proportional justice—on things like equal pay for equal work."
If so, libertarianism ain't what it used to be.
Steve
Posted by: Steve | Dec 27, 2004 3:11:09 PM
Posted by: Unemployedcritic
What's egalitarian about opposition to oppression? Amelioration of oppression goes to the bottom and lifts it, lifts it by cessation of clear violations of fundamental rights. If all oppression ceased, need there as a consequence be any reduction of differences in wealth, status, and power between all those not oppressed?
The foregoing presumes that for instance, women in America today are not oppressed. If they are, then the egalitarian project and amelioration of oppression may coincide. I observe that most women don't think themselves oppressed. Perhaps their consciousnesses have been falsified.
Even gays, a prime candidate for "oppression," may no longer qualify: odd that an oppressed group would be apologized to and embraced by a solid majority of the Supreme Court.
Anderson and Walzer, by confining their attention to outright oppression, have left the standard of equality lying in the dust, and are going to have a hard time finding an enemy that the libertarian won't join them in chasing down.
Posted by: Unemployedcritic | Dec 27, 2004 3:58:18 PM
Posted by: Jay F
I really couldnt find any real insight or content in this post. Alot was said, but nothing could be gained from reading it. It's not like I disagree with what was posted, but thats only because its nearly impossible to disagree with empty generalities and tautologies.
I guess I've been reading the last few posts at this site, and I have felt that the quality has dropped significantly recently. Way too much sloppy, unfocused, and meaningless writing. Has this site run out of things to say? I will keep reading in the hopes that things may improve,
Jay F
Posted by: Jay F | Dec 27, 2004 4:03:14 PM
Posted by: frankly0
The ideas in the post might be interesting if fleshed out.
So start fleshing.
Posted by: frankly0 | Dec 27, 2004 4:52:36 PM
Posted by: Terry J
“The point of equality I would say is to improve people’s life prospects, tilting in favor of those who are worse off, and in favor of those who have done as well as could reasonably be expected with the cards that fate has dealt them.”
So, in this Richard Arneson quote, did Bill Gates qualify as one of "those who have done as well as could reasonably be expected with the cards that fate has dealt them.” Defend your answer, citing specific instances in which he achieved, or failed to achieve, his reasonably expected. Repeat the exercise with Warren Buffet and Michael Moore and George W. Bush. Who does qualify, and why?
"Likewise, there is room for egalitarianism focused on proportional justice—on things like equal pay for equal work. Societies that succumb to a temptation to experiment with more dictatorial forms of equality must soon either abandon those experiments or be suffocated by them." Why do you believe that "equal pay for equal work" is not a "dictatorial form of equality"?
Do results matter? If the salesman completes the sale in an hour rather than in a month, should her compensation be reduced on that sale? Compensation issues get rerally messy when trying to deal with input schemes (hourly compensation) and output schemes (percentage of transaction, or incentive). The laborer put in one hour and wants the $20 promised. The salesman put in one hour and wants the 6% of the $100,000 sale promised. Have either of them "done as well as could reasonably be expected with the cards that fate has dealt them.”
My apologies for this quibbling, but I just know there is a pony under that pile of words, and I want it. Please continue this thought and develop it so that those of us who don't deal in the subject can understand where you want to go.
Posted by: Terry J | Dec 30, 2004 2:13:31 AM
Posted by: Lipo
David,
I fear that your post won't be very popular among the leftist faithful. Please don't dispair. I urge you to continue this dialogue - and in exactly the same vein.
While I would argue that freedom and equality are diametrically opposed in the sense that an emphasis on one leads to a dimunition of the other, it is interesting to contemplate an ideology that attempts to have both in full measure (as much as possible).
Thanks for your refreshing and thoughtful post.
Lipo
Posted by: Lipo | Dec 30, 2004 5:12:54 AM
Posted by: John
Problem with the left: Life is not easy.
There are always losers; losers are a result of many things, not the least of which are the differences among the members of the human community. But the simple fact is that some win and some lose: of course there are degrees of loss and degrees of wins, and the whole enterprise is relative. The only way to change this is by leveling, that is,to demand from each according to his ability and to each according to his needs. There is no middle ground here; it has been tried with horribly regrettable results.
Nevertheless, the left will continue to argue for a middle ground, but it is always at the expense of the working people of all classes: they pay the bucks for these experiments in social modeling. Of course, the armchair academics(milords), and the limo libs are not affected. These people sit in their cloistered habitats dissemimating drivel: postmodernism; deconstruction;pragmatism; multiculturalism, etc., while the rest of the country goes to work everyday, balancing work and family, saving for college, putting a little money away for a vacation, and hoping above all hope that the government will not raise their taxes, beyond their means to pay.
Hardworking people are not interested in winners or losers, or in academic gymnastics: they are interested in their jobs, their families, and yes, their communities. If they are winners, they they could care less except that they are willing to work hard, to the best of their natural ability, not to become losers.
This is the way it is people; God threw us out of the Garden; we cannot get back in as long as we are on this side of the grass. So let's face up to the reality of the human condition,viz., that we certainly are all equal in terms of our liberty; but were are not equal in terms of our ability.
One thing more: Sometimes success is failure, and failure is success. Think about it.
Posted by: John | Dec 31, 2004 8:46:30 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.