I was in a certain class the other day, which reintroduced me to the whole "equality of opportunity versus outcome" concept. This was accompanied by a poorly executed thought experiment about a world with perfect equality and a rereading of Kurt Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron". The point of the entire class was to stress the superiority of the bottom-up equality of opportunity over the top-down equality of outcome.
This is, I think, a misguided attempt to convey the idea that differences are okay. While I agree entirely with the sentiment that differences can be entirely acceptable and even beneficial in social systems, I disagree with the use of the word "equality" as a blanket for these contrived lacks of differences. An entirely preferable terms for these situations would be either "homogeneity", or perhaps better yet, the phrase "lack of differences". We need to be explicit in these situations because confusion over terms and definitions could create material effects, and I think they may be antithetical to the long-term goals that most people would agree are worthwhile.
Before I continue into that vein of thought, it may be a good idea to expand on the differences I perceive between "equality" and literal or total "sameness". Equality, generally speaking, involves totals or sums. An example I like to use is that of a simple algebraic equation, wherein the sides of the equation (see the same root as "equal"!) can look very different, but are ultimately still equal. Sameness and homogeneity, however, would involve no differences whatever. Note that these terms are not synonymous either–homogeneity means that any component of the whole will appear the same, while sameness is vaguer (we see a descending categorical set of definitions). In these situations, there would still be equality; the same parts configured in the same ways will have the same sums. These are not, however, required for equality to exist.
It's important to remember that while equality, sameness, and homogeneity aren't subjective measures, they are affected by perspective. Often, these perspectives depend upon the coarse-grained views or models of reality (think of homogeneity in populations versus the actual individuals; none will be the exact same, but homogeneity can still be a useful term for the coarse-grained view). They can also depend on separate (but equal!) criteria or perspectives. My favorite example of this is isotropy in physics. From one perspective, something can look the same in every direction, but from every other perspective, there will be discrepancies (my favorite example of this is standing on top of a sombrero versus anywhere on the brim).
As an example of this, let's take a look at "Harrison Bergeron" again. The people of the United States in the year 2081 were all forced to be "equal" through imposed handicaps on people above average in any way. The result of this was equal outcome, but only in the sense of statistics like GDP. What the story fails to take into account (perhaps intentionally; I don't actually know Vonnegut's reasoning behind writing this) is the ear-splitting pain that George Bergeron experiences all day while his wife, Hazel, didn't. Examined this way, that sounds like a pretty unequal (and unfair!) outcome. The Handicapper General possessed a shotgun which she could use for enforcement of the law. Other people did not have the same authority, and they didn't have shotguns either. The most that could be said was that they actually had equality of opportunity in becoming the Handicapper General.
My goal in this is not to disparage "Harrison Bergeron" or to make the case for total equality, but I think it's important to get definitions straight. It's conceivable for there to be a society that has true equality of outcome while still not being homogeneous. This does not mean that it is useful to strive for that society, but it could most certainly be.
Let us now consider how different equality of opportunity outcome truly are. Now, "equality of opportunity" is usually used in reference to law and societal pressures, but just for the moment, let's entertain the literal definition so that we can get concepts straight. There are a great deal many opportunities that rely upon previous outcomes; indeed, I can't think of a single opportunity that is not at least partially based on the successful outcome of biological development. I don't think people would object to the treatments of disabilities and illnesses, despite the fact that these would be very material attempts to achieve healthy outcomes, which generally means within the range of "normal". I know people would object to my use of this as an example, saying something along the lines of "Treatment of disability and illness is not the same as imposing a university quota." and they'd be correct. I'm not saying that top-down impositions on what people choose to do is a good idea; I'm saying that attempts at equality of outcome don't have to be top-down. I'm also saying that equality of opportunity can depend upon equality of outcome, not just vice-versa.
This is, I think, a misguided attempt to convey the idea that differences are okay. While I agree entirely with the sentiment that differences can be entirely acceptable and even beneficial in social systems, I disagree with the use of the word "equality" as a blanket for these contrived lacks of differences. An entirely preferable terms for these situations would be either "homogeneity", or perhaps better yet, the phrase "lack of differences". We need to be explicit in these situations because confusion over terms and definitions could create material effects, and I think they may be antithetical to the long-term goals that most people would agree are worthwhile.
Before I continue into that vein of thought, it may be a good idea to expand on the differences I perceive between "equality" and literal or total "sameness". Equality, generally speaking, involves totals or sums. An example I like to use is that of a simple algebraic equation, wherein the sides of the equation (see the same root as "equal"!) can look very different, but are ultimately still equal. Sameness and homogeneity, however, would involve no differences whatever. Note that these terms are not synonymous either–homogeneity means that any component of the whole will appear the same, while sameness is vaguer (we see a descending categorical set of definitions). In these situations, there would still be equality; the same parts configured in the same ways will have the same sums. These are not, however, required for equality to exist.
It's important to remember that while equality, sameness, and homogeneity aren't subjective measures, they are affected by perspective. Often, these perspectives depend upon the coarse-grained views or models of reality (think of homogeneity in populations versus the actual individuals; none will be the exact same, but homogeneity can still be a useful term for the coarse-grained view). They can also depend on separate (but equal!) criteria or perspectives. My favorite example of this is isotropy in physics. From one perspective, something can look the same in every direction, but from every other perspective, there will be discrepancies (my favorite example of this is standing on top of a sombrero versus anywhere on the brim).
As an example of this, let's take a look at "Harrison Bergeron" again. The people of the United States in the year 2081 were all forced to be "equal" through imposed handicaps on people above average in any way. The result of this was equal outcome, but only in the sense of statistics like GDP. What the story fails to take into account (perhaps intentionally; I don't actually know Vonnegut's reasoning behind writing this) is the ear-splitting pain that George Bergeron experiences all day while his wife, Hazel, didn't. Examined this way, that sounds like a pretty unequal (and unfair!) outcome. The Handicapper General possessed a shotgun which she could use for enforcement of the law. Other people did not have the same authority, and they didn't have shotguns either. The most that could be said was that they actually had equality of opportunity in becoming the Handicapper General.
My goal in this is not to disparage "Harrison Bergeron" or to make the case for total equality, but I think it's important to get definitions straight. It's conceivable for there to be a society that has true equality of outcome while still not being homogeneous. This does not mean that it is useful to strive for that society, but it could most certainly be.
Let us now consider how different equality of opportunity outcome truly are. Now, "equality of opportunity" is usually used in reference to law and societal pressures, but just for the moment, let's entertain the literal definition so that we can get concepts straight. There are a great deal many opportunities that rely upon previous outcomes; indeed, I can't think of a single opportunity that is not at least partially based on the successful outcome of biological development. I don't think people would object to the treatments of disabilities and illnesses, despite the fact that these would be very material attempts to achieve healthy outcomes, which generally means within the range of "normal". I know people would object to my use of this as an example, saying something along the lines of "Treatment of disability and illness is not the same as imposing a university quota." and they'd be correct. I'm not saying that top-down impositions on what people choose to do is a good idea; I'm saying that attempts at equality of outcome don't have to be top-down. I'm also saying that equality of opportunity can depend upon equality of outcome, not just vice-versa.
No comments:
Post a Comment