On equality

By

Stuart Yates

As a Quaker I subscribe to the testimony of equality: that everyone is equal before God. This testimony is not appropriate for non-believers and also begs the question, what does "equal" mean? Let us start by defining what it does not mean. First of all let us rid ourselves of the meaningless phrase "equality of opportunity" so beloved of Tony Blair. Equality of opportunity purports to assert that if politicians provide a "level playing field" to use another hackneyed phrase, for all children, then it is up to each child to make what s/he chooses of life. This tries in effect to absolve politicians of all responsibility for their citizens' lives. If you end up in a low paid job, or with no job at all, it's as a result of your poor choices. You were provided with "equal opportunity." Schools vary widely in their facilities and the quality of their teaching staff, to say nothing of the mix of abilities and relationships amongst pupils. No equality of opportunity here. Even assuming that all schools are roughly equal in facilities and teaching staff (which is not the case) then the argument still fails. Simply take two children of equal ability at, say, mathematics. Both attend separate schools, both schools have excellent maths teachers. The first child responds well to the teaching style and personality of the teacher and performs well. The other cannot easily respond to the teaching style (equally as good as the first) and their personalities are not complementary. This pupil fails to perform as well. I can speak from personal experience. I failed to thrive in maths under an excellent teacher, the Head of Maths at the school and was heading for failure. In the final year a new (straight out of college) teacher arrived with whom I had an immediate rapport. In one academic year maths moved from imminent failure to being my best subject in terms of exam results. The creation of specialist acadamies distorts the flawed principle of equality of opportunity even further. Say the local academy specialises in maths, the nearest one, 30 or more miles away, specialises in languages. Compare two pupils, living in the catchment area of the first, indeed they could be siblings. One is good at maths, one at languages. Both go to the local academy. What equality of oppportunity is there in this situation, which is duplicated across the whole of the country.

Let us look at another flawed definition of equality: treat people equally. This also connects with the maxim: treat others as you wish to be treated, which is also flawed. Take a family with three children, one of 3, one of 7 and the other of 11. Would any parent even attempt to treat the three year old in the same way as the eleven year old? Of course not. They have different needs and need to be treated according to those needs. Are children a special case, can adults be treated equally? Demonstrably not. Physical and mental disability, different age, different gender, different emotional and intellectual capabilities all mean that treating people equally does not produce equality, rather the reverse. It is because of this and the wish to make people more equal that positive discrimination grew up in order to provide that "level playing field" again. Yet this does not produce equality. It moves society to treating people more fairly - an aim I support. Fairness and equality are not the same thing. As for the maxim treat others as you wish to be treated, this would only be true if we were all equal, in every respect, with equal needs and desires. In other words, if we were all clones. As it is, we have differing needs, aims, desires. I do not respond in the same way to a person who is seeking emotional support as against one who is aggressively trying to prove me wrong. A better maxim would be: "Treat others as they wish to be treated.", with the usual caveat of "as fas as you are capable." In other words, I respond supportively to the one needing emotional support, unless I too have insufficient emotional resources at that moment; I would hope to respond calmly to the person who is aggressive, but, again, if my resources allow. In no way am I treating them equally nor should I treat them equally, but I hope to treat them fairly and appropriately to their condition.

So what do I mean by equality? I turn to another Quaker testimony: "There is that of God in everyone." This is recognisable to all those of faith: Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists etc. How we define the supernatural, that part of us which we all have and which is both individual and universal, does not matter. People of faith believe that we all have that soul, spirit, call it what you will, in equal measure. In this respect we are equal, even though we manifest that, let us call it spirit, differently and in different degrees. As a result, we seek to connect with it, or, perhaps more accurately, we seek not to get in the way of the spirit in each one connecting with the spirit in the other and with the universal spirit. In practical terms, we treat others with respect, we assume the spirit lives within them and will respond. So we are courteous to the Big Issue seller, we do not kow-tow to the people of power but treat them as equals, which they are in spirit. It is this fundamental equality at the spirit level which motivates the "good works" of the people of faith, a motivation which is not ego-driven or carried out in order to gain something, but simply in recognition of the reality that we are all part of another whole, not disparate individuals all struggling to keep a foothold on life, but a community. A community which may not understand the purpose of this life and individuals within this community which probably do not understand their own purpose within the greater purpose, but which neverthless is dimly perceived and experienced.

And those of no faith? Well, the Quaker testimony can easily be re-phrased: "There is good in everyone." Again this is a belief, a different act of faith in humanity, but when believed and acted upon enables us to connect with the positive in others. Anyone who believes that rehabilitation is possible for anyone, whatever the previous behaviour and for how long, believes in "There is good in everyone." That goodness may never manifest itself, but it is less likely to if the person is treated as if s/he were irredeemable. It might be argued that this internal goodness is not equal - demonstrably some people manifest goodness more than others - but external manifestation is only one aspect of goodness and goodness, like all things of value, is impossible to measure. How can we measure any difference between a billionaire giving millions to the developing nations and a kindly hand on the shoulder for someone who is grieving? We cannot even assume that the consequences of the actions are unequal. The consolation of an individual may have wider consequences than the provision of better living standards for millions, or it may not. It is interesting that chaos theory does not differentiate between "significant" and "non-significant" events and we should remember Margaret Mead's assertion that the the world can only be changed by the actions of a few. Measurement does not apply to goodness.

If we accept either that "There is that of God in everyone" or "There is good in everyone" we can recognise that there is in our core a common faculty that we share and that it is, however latent or manifest, equal. In this we we acknowledge that people are of equal value, whatever the unequal circumstances of their lives and their personalities. To believe otherwise is to start down the path of racial, gender, age, religious or any other discrimination, to see people as "other." Seeing people as "other" forms the root of violence, war and oppression. To perceive the essential equality of everyone is necessary for the future of humankind to be free from violence and to enable everyone to be treated fairly. It really does only need for all of us to subscribe to either of the two beliefs, "There is that of God in everyone" or "There is good in everyone" and act accordingly.

October 2010

This article is also available at Blogger News Network.