‘I had done some work on social mobility and the evidence is overwhelmingly that the reason why children born to different families have very different chances in life is because of what happens in those families.’Once he got thinking, Swift could see that the issue stretches well beyond the fact that some families can afford private schooling, nannies, tutors, and houses in good suburbs. Functional family interactions—from going to the cricket to reading bedtime stories—form a largely unseen but palpable fault line between families. The consequence is a gap in social mobility and equality that can last for generations....‘One way philosophers might think about solving the social justice problem would be by simply abolishing the family. If the family is this source of unfairness in society then it looks plausible to think that if we abolished the family there would be a more level playing field.’It’s not the first time a philosopher has thought about such a drastic solution. Two thousand four hundred years ago another sage reasoned that the care of children should be undertaken by the state.Plato pulled few punches in The Republic when he called for the abolition of the family and for the children of the elite to be given over to the state.
Well, Plato wasn't at all concerned about equality in that discussion in Republic V. The model society he proposed was inherently and intentionally unequal. His intention was to divide society into the most rational, the most spirited, and everyone else: the ruling would be done by the most rational, the fighting by the most spirited, and everyone else would work for a living.
The reason he wanted to separate them from their children was partly to ensure that the elite received the most fitting upbringing for exercising their power, but mostly because he didn't trust that parents would admit that their offspring weren't really fit for the ruling class and allow them to be demoted to the workers. In other words, it was to preserve the inequality of the most-rational that he proposed this idea.
Our philosophers are interested in equality, however. They tried to construct an argument in favor of continuing to have natural families, and did decide that at least a few of the benefits are allowable.
‘It’s the children’s interest in family life that is the most important,’ says Swift. ‘From all we now know, it is in the child’s interest to be parented, and to be parented well. Meanwhile, from the adult point of view it looks as if there is something very valuable in being a parent... Parenting a child makes for what we call a distinctive and special contribution to the flourishing and wellbeing of adults.’
Thus, they set about determining which of the contributions of the family were defensible against the countervailing claims of equality.
‘Private schooling cannot be justified by appeal to these familial relationship goods,’ he says. ‘It’s just not the case that in order for a family to realise these intimate, loving, authoritative, affectionate, love-based relationships you need to be able to send your child to an elite private school.’
In contrast, reading stories at bedtime, argues Swift, gives rise to acceptable familial relationship goods, even though this also bestows advantage.
Indeed, as he goes on to point out, the evidence suggests that it conveys even more advantage than private schooling. AVI will here want to point out that probably the kinds of people who are genetically inclined to spend time reading to their kids are also genetically likely to produce successful offspring no matter what you do, which if true would be a counter-argument against all of this meddling they propose.
I notice, however, the popularity of the argument that we can't allow private schools because all of our children need to suffer public schools would be better if the rich also attended them. This argument is especially popular, I notice, among those who are politically or economically empowered by the public school sector. If anything I would go the other way and eliminate public school entirely, in favor of universal school choice.
An alternative perspective -- one that Plato actually would endorse -- is that maybe equality isn't that important. You can't do without it completely, but you should definitely minimize your appeals to it. In Laws VI, Plato attempts to paint this as 'another, better kind of equality' while noting the dangers of the first kind. It's fine to have one test for everyone, and let the best man win (or woman, as equality between the sexes really was important to Plato both in the Laws and the Republic).
Aristotle, who is even less interested in equality than Plato, discusses the matter in Politics II. He comes down quite on the side of the natural family, as he does on the side of rule by the most virtuous rather than by the many per se. The closest he ever comes to a notion of political equality being important is when he says that the least dangerous people to empower are the middle class, because they will be so interested in minding their own business that they will neither embark on grand government schemes (as the rich like, but it takes too much of time for a man who also has to run his business) nor on redistributing property (as the poor would, but which would take away from the middle class also). That isn't a suggestion that equality is the big deal, though; it's favoring the middle class as a locus of power over either the poor or the rich.
Making the crackhead and the corrupt politician the equals of the working man and the shopkeeper would be a kind of step forward from where we are today; but it isn't the ideal relationship either. You really want a fruitful inequality in which the human good is maximized. Swift is finally able to see that the human good really does flourish best in the natural family, but even so he keeps turning back to this artificial and negative conception of putting artificial equalities over actual good.
12 comments:
Is there a theory so crazed that no theorist anywhere will cling to it?
If you combine the Swift approach with the animal-rights theories, you have to get even more radical than just abolishing families. Language gives humans a huge advantage over the animals--will we hear calls to abolish that too? (Perhaps the theory's devotees could set us an example.)
Hear hear, james!
Grim, is there any meaningful pushback among contemporary philosophers on this idea of equality?
contemporary philosophers
A philosopher, according to Merriam-Webster, is
1 a: a person who seeks wisdom or enlightenment
2 a: a person whose philosophical perspective makes meeting trouble with equanimity easier
I submit, Tom, that there are no contemporary philosophers outside the Hall, only those who spout off in order to feed their attention addiction.
Eric Hines
He seems to be overlooking the possibility that genetics plays any role whatsoever in outcomes. To him it's rich kid stuff changing everything. The environmental advantages to children are mostly while they are still under the roof. While moving out does not put them into a state of one sort of equality immediately, genetics asserts itself pretty quickly thereafter.
I was going to ask "What will they do when they equalise the environments for all children and find they have still barely dented inequality?" but then immediately thought "It won't matter in the least to them. the point is not improving the lives of everyone - that is just the sales pitch. The real point is to punish people who have things they don't, and smack the satisfied looks off their rich faces.
He took Harrison Bergeron to heart, eh? Why is it all the dystopian sci fi I used to read as a kid has come back as a perverted instruction manual?
“Grim, is there any meaningful pushback among contemporary philosophers on this idea of equality?”
I suppose that depends on what you consider meaningful. The major schools are analytic in America and the British world, or Continental in Europe. Neither of them are interested in questioning it. There is some Russian work of dubious quality. Communists obviously endorse it, so Chinese philosophy is currently on board.
No, probably it is an outlaw and insurgent view.
So a suitable one for us, then.
There is no such thing as equality
It is the impossible dream
Take a piece of cake and cut it in two and never have two that are the same ever.
Greg
Social-Justifying the Means
The Move from Equality to Equity Invites Tyranny
https://salvomag.com/article/salvo58/social-justifying-the-means
So that is a subject we've often discussed here over the decades that this blog has been operational. Equality can mean several different things. The one you describe is mathematical equality, which is indeed -- just as you say -- impossible for human beings. It's actually impossible for natural objects of any kind (you mention cake, but the point extends). Math, at least as human beings practice it, is a model of reality that doesn't fit quite perfectly to reality.
There are two senses in which equality really is possible for human beings, however. The first one is the one that Plato is talking about in the Laws. You could apply the same test to everyone, and prefer the ones who do best on it. In that sense, it's fair to say that they "are all being treated equally" or "as equals." Obviously some are going to do better; that's the point of the test. But no one is receiving an unfair privilege or advantage, so they are in a sense being treated as equals.
Another way in which true equality is possible is when a bestowal is being made upon people. A father might bestow an inheritance exactly equally among his children, for example. This last is the sense of equality that is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence: the Creator is said to endow human beings with equal rights.
In that sense, we are equals: we have an equal bestowal. We have the same rights, by a divine command that no person can countermand. If that is what equality properly means in the American context, the only work to do -- which is already hard work -- is making sure that everyone's rights are indeed respected by the state and by other people.
It's interesting that all of these concerns for equality depend on destroying the greater and not on improving the lesser. E.g., "families give an advantage, so let's not have families" as opposed to the more intuitively just "families give an advantage, so let's make families the norm."
I've sensed in the past that this has to do with the idea of "punching down" where it is seen as oppressive to expect the socially disadvantaged to change in order to achieve equality, but that's just my impression.
I would, however, argue that that attitude toward equality is inherently unjust by their own values. If they believe justice can be achieved through social engineering, then society should be engineered to raise the disadvantaged up. That would be justice. Harming innocent children to bring the advantaged down would be unjust. Nevertheless, this tearing-down to achieve equality seems universal among them as well.
Raven, I get the sense that none of these people read "Harrison Bergeron," *1984*, and other books as cautionary tales. If anything, they see them as sources for ideas for "when we get it right next time." That is, assuming they read the stories at all. I once asked someone who was rhapsodizing about 'The Singularity' when all humans are linked to a computer via implants if she'd ever heard of the Cybermen.
Her answer? "I don't do science fiction froo-froo."
Which explained a great deal, in my opinion.
LittleRed1
"all of our public schools would be better if the rich also attended them. "
Entirely familiar though based on race instead of financial class. If the majority students had to attend the campuses established for the minority, then the taxpayers would ensure those formerly under-resourced facilities were brought up to par.
https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/the-two-billion-dollar-judge/
Despite this [it] failed either to improve the quality of education or to reduce racial isolation. Test scores continued to drop,
Post a Comment