Walter Weisskopf - The Dialectics of Equality
-
Upload
cesar-jeanpierre-castillo-garcia -
Category
Documents
-
view
221 -
download
0
Transcript of Walter Weisskopf - The Dialectics of Equality
7/27/2019 Walter Weisskopf - The Dialectics of Equality
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/walter-weisskopf-the-dialectics-of-equality 1/12
American Academy of Political and Social Science
The Dialectics of EqualityAuthor(s): Walter A. WeisskopfReviewed work(s):Source: Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 409, IncomeInequality (Sep., 1973), pp. 163-173
Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. in association with the American Academy of Political and SocialScienceStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1041502 .
Accessed: 08/05/2012 01:35
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Sage Publications, Inc. and American Academy of Political and Social Science are collaborating with JSTOR
to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.
http://www.jstor.org
7/27/2019 Walter Weisskopf - The Dialectics of Equality
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/walter-weisskopf-the-dialectics-of-equality 2/12
The Dialecticsof Equality
By WALTER . WEISSKOPF
ABSTRACT:Equality and inequality are discussed from the
philosophical and socio-psychological,rather than from the
economic,point of view. Social inequalitiesare bearableonlyif they are felt to be legitimate and justifiable in terms of the
predominanthierarchyof values. Movements for equality arecaused by doubts about the legitimacyof existing inequalities.Modernindividualism, ibertarianismand
equalitarianismwere
a rebellion against the existing order. In premodern times,inequalitieswere justifiedby ascriptionand were derived frominherent characteristics,such as birth and caste. Industrial
society justified inequalitiesby achievement of economic suc-cess. This orientationis reflectedin the labor theory of value,as well as in marginalistvalue theory. In the Americancreed,equalitarianismwas combinedwith the acceptanceof inequal-ities through the principle of equality of opportunity which
justifies inequalities by the assumption of an equal start foreveryone. Under the impact of the great depression and ofthe organizational revolution, economic achievement was re-
placed by intellectual merit, knowledge and academic creden-tials as justification for inequalities. Under the impact of
growingdoubts about this kind of achievement,a new equali-tarian trend is under way, supported by the antigrowth andthe environmental protection movements, as well as by the
tradition of protection for the underprivilegedwhich was al-ways an intrinsicpart of the market economy.
Walter A. Weisskopf has been Professor of Economics at Roosevelt University since
1945; he was Chairmanof the Department of Economics (1945-1965) and is currentlya member of the Board of Trustees of Roosevelt University. Professor Weisskopf hasalso taught at the University of Omaha, the Central YMCA College in Chicago (1943-1945) and the Salzburg Seminar for American Studies (1952). Born in Vienna, hereceived a Dr. Juris degree in 1927 from the University of Vienna, but also studied at
the Universities of Cambridgeand Geneva. He served as a panel member of the WarLabor Board of Chicago (1943-1945); currently, he is a member of the American Eco-nomic Association, the Association for Humanistic Psychology and the Board of Editorsof the Journal of Humanistic Psychology. Professor Weisskopf's publications deal withthe interrelations among economics, philosophy and psychology and include The Psychol-ogy of Economics and Alienation and Economics.
163
7/27/2019 Walter Weisskopf - The Dialectics of Equality
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/walter-weisskopf-the-dialectics-of-equality 3/12
THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY
ECONOMICS developed during a
period in which segmentalizationbecame the rule in the social sciences.
The fragmentedapproach makes it dif-ficult for economists to deal with the
philosophical, psychological, social, po-litical and economic dimensions of
equality and inequality. Yet, the non-economic aspects should be discussed ifthe purely economic aspects of income
inequality are to be understood. The
very question of the economic effects of
equality or inequality of incomes en-
tails value judgments and transcends,therefore, the realm of economics as itis usually considered. An integrativeapproach must start with the recogni-tion that equality and inequality arerelated in dialectical interdependence:they are like two sides of the same coin;they give meaning to each other; onewould be senseless without the other.
THE DIALECTICSOF PARTICIPATION-
INDIVIDUALIZATION
The equality-inequality dichotomy isone of the many antinomies which besetthe human condition. It is related tothe antinomy of individualization and
participation; this is an existential an-
tinomy, a category of human existence.Man participates in his world, in his
environment. He is a part of awhole, a member of a larger entity.This participationis one of the existen-tial roots of the experience of equality.It is the root of the experience of the"I am one with the world," of the "Iam thou" and of the unity of all crea-tion. It underlies ideas such as "weare all children of God" and "we areall members of the brotherhood of
man."At the same time, man has the ex-
perience of individualization, separate-ness and distinctness-being one self,and not the other. This is the root ofthe experienceof the I versus the Other,
of existing as a person different fromother beings and persons. This is theexistential source of incomparability
and inequality and the idea of theuniqueness of personality-I am I;nothing and no one is, nor can be, likeme.
THE SOCIAL DIALECTICS OF EQUALITY
The antinomy of participation andindividualization is reflected in man'ssocial existence. Again, one finds cen-
tripetal and centrifugal tendencies. On
the one hand, men have an innate pro-pensity for solidarity, community and
integration and, on the other hand, for
separation, distinction and differentia-tion. Solidarity and communityare thebasis for the experienceof equality. Asa memberof a family, group, tribe, clanor nation, I am equal to other members;such membershipforms a common link
which generates the feeling of equalitywith other members. Each memberofa group has common traits with othermembers. The very concept of societyimplies an element of equality, consist-
ing in group membership, if nothingelse-for example, the concept that "weare all Americans." This element of
equality through group membership isenhanced by the inclusion-exclusion
principle. A group includes insidersand excludes outsiders; the equality ofthe insiders is underscoredby the in-
equality, inferiority, of the outsiders.The centrifugal force in society is re-
lated to individualization. In his ownlife history, and in the history of soci-
eties, the individual tends to emancipatehimself from the primordial ties withthe mother, the parents, the family, the
peer group, the home town and even thenation. Self-consciousness leads to a
split between individual and groupwhich tends to counteract the experi-ences of belonging and equality. Inso-far as the individual becomes psycho-
164
7/27/2019 Walter Weisskopf - The Dialectics of Equality
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/walter-weisskopf-the-dialectics-of-equality 4/12
DIALECTICS OF EQUALITY
logically separated from the commu-
nity, the commondenominatoron which
equality rests is destroyed. Equality
requires comparability; when the indi-vidual becomes aware of his separate-ness and uniqueness, there is no basisfor either comparisonor equality.
THE HISTORICAL DIALECTICS OF
EQUALITY AND INEQUALITY
The conflict between equality and in-
equality is ineluctable in human exis-tence.
However,historical conditions
determine when and how this conflictbecomes conscious. Under certain his-torical conditions, there is little aware-ness of inequalities and, therefore, littledesire for equality; under other condi-
tions, existing inequalities are experi-enced as an intolerable burden and
strong equalitarian movements develop.In Western history, such a situation
arose in the eighteenth century; duringthis era, it was assumed that societygenerates unfreedomand inequalities of
power, status and wealth and, thus, de-
stroys the individual's natural state offreedomand equality. This intellectualscheme was developed in the eighteenthcentury, but had its roots in the thoughtof the Sophists, the Stoa and Romanlaw. According to this pattern-clear-est in the thought of Locke and Rous-seau-the individual surrendered hisnatural freedom and equality to thestate for the sake of economic coopera-tion and physical safety. This consti-tutes the famous social contract, whichassumes that the accomplishment ofcommon purposes necessitates the vol-
untary surrender of primary, natural
equalityand freedom to
social inequal-ities. This ideological scheme underliesmost modern thinking about equalityand inequality.
The scheme, however, is not borneout by history. Individualism,with itsclaim to freedom and equality, is a late
historical phenomenon. In all cultures,man is originally part of a group, inte-
grated into a community, linked with
others and hardly aware of his individ-ual existence. His ties with the groupare supported by religious belief,value systems and institutions whichare part of an uncritically and uncon-
sciously accepted natural order. Theindividual becomes aware of himself asa separate entity only when the stablestructure of beliefs, values and insti-tutions
beginsto
disintegrate. Then,consciousness awakens and existing in-stitutions are examinedby reason. This
process may confirm prevailing beliefs,values and institutions. But, sooner or
later, it leads to a critique of the exist-
ing order and to alienation from it.'This is the point where individual-
ism, libertarianism and equalitarianismemerge. Individualisticand equalitarian
thought owes its origin to an intellectualrebellion against the existing order;thus, they began as phenomenaof social
disintegration and change. Individual-ism implies a fundamentaldoubt in the
legitimacy and justice of the prevailingsocial hierarchy. All societies, with the
exception of a few small esoteric groups,requiresome hierarchyof organizationalstructure with superiority, subordina-
tion and a structure of authority, com-mand and obedience. Society, but not
community, is synonymous with some
unfreedom, inequality, suppression andrestriction of individuals. Originally,these restrictions were not experiencedas oppressive, because they were pre-sumed to be rootedin divine, or natural,order. When reason is applied to this
order, the hierarchy requires rationallegitimation and justification; it must
appear to conform to principles of jus-tice. In premoderntimes, such justifi-
1. Walter A. Weisskopf, Alienation and Eco-nomics (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1971),p. 33 ff.
165
7/27/2019 Walter Weisskopf - The Dialectics of Equality
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/walter-weisskopf-the-dialectics-of-equality 5/12
THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY
cation was based on ascription: differ-
entials of power, status and wealth were
derived from inherent characteristics
such as ancestry, birth or caste; peoplewere privileged or underprivileged be-
cause of what they were and not for
what they accomplished. During the
last four hundred years, modern West-ern industrial society replaced ascrip-tion by achievement: differences were
justified by the degree to which differ-
ent individuals attained social goals and
values. Ascriptive aristocracy was re-
placed by a meritocracy wherein merit
consisted of achieving that which soci-
ety valued most.
It is misleading both to identify in-
equalities based on achievement with
meritocracy and to maintain that in-
equalities based on ascription have
nothing to do with merit. The courtiersin ancient Egypt, the citizens of the
Greek Polis, the Senate and the peopleof Rome, the feudal lords-all groupswhose status rested on ascription-con-sidered themselves as the better, more
worthy and superiorones and, thus, de-
serving their privileges because of theirinherent merits. In a way, social hier-archies based on ascription are also
meritocracies; they rest on the convic-tion that the existing inequalities are
legitimate and just. After all, theGreek word aristocracy means the ruleof the best. The difference between
ascriptive and achievement-oriented
meritocracy lies in the yardstick formerit: in the case of ascription, it is
being and belonging to a group; in thecase of achievement, it is doing and
performing. Hierarchies based on as-
scription are also morerigid,
whereasthose based on achievement allow up-wards, and downwards, mobility; onecan never change what one is, but onecan change one's social position byachievement and performance.
Achievement replacing ascription as
the legitimizing principle went hand in
hand with a class struggle. The bour-
geoisie, in its struggle with the aristoc-
racy in England and with the Ancientregime in France, attacked the tradi-
tional ascriptive inequalities throughtheir demand for liberty and equality.The ideal of equality had the socio-his-
torical function of attacking the exist-
ing inequalities, but it led, in turn, to
new inequalities based on achievement.
EQUALITY AND INEQUALITY IN
ECONOMICS
The new inequalities are reflected in
the history of capitalism and economic
thought. The ideas presented by Max
Weber, in the Protestant Ethic and the
Spirit of Capitalism,show the transition
from the principle of ascription to the
one of achievement. The belief in pre-destination through the inscrutable
counsel of the Lord is ascriptive; one ischosen regardlessof one's merit. How-
ever, every Calvinist and Puritan tried
to prove his salvation by his economic
success,achievedby practicingeconomic
virtues: systematic, methodic, unrelent-
ing pursuit of gain combined with in-
tensive impulse control through hard
work, thrift, frugality and avoidance of
spontaneous enjoyment. Achievement
of economic success gradually replacedascriptive salvation; economic perform-ance became the source of individual
worth.It is important to understand that
this transition from an ascriptive to an
achievement-oriented ociety took placehand in hand with the emergence of
capitalism; thus, the way for a merito-cratic mobile
societywas
openedtwo
hundredyears ago. Meritocracy is notan invention of postindustrial society.2The achievementorientation of capital-
2. This seems to be the position of Daniel
Bell, "Meritocracy and Equality," Public In-terest 29 (Fall 1972), p. 29 ff.
166
7/27/2019 Walter Weisskopf - The Dialectics of Equality
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/walter-weisskopf-the-dialectics-of-equality 6/12
DIALECTICS OF EQUALITY
ism was, and is, supposed to be merito-
cratic. Merit consists of living up to
the work ethic and thereforereaping the
rewardof one's performance. A changein the basis of merit distinguishes the
postindustrial meritocracy of the mid-
twentieth century from the bourgeois
meritocracy of the nineteenth; the eco-
nomic virtues have been replacedby the
intelligence quotient (IQ) and by ed-
ucational credentials.
The work and success ethos per-formed two historical functions: (1) it
destroyed the basis for ascriptive in-
equalities of the old order; (2) it also
provided a justification for the new in-
equalities of wealth and income in thenew order of the market economy. The
labor theory of value in economic
thought reflects this justification.The pure labor theory of value, as
formulated by Adam Smith and Ri-
cardo, justified the inequalities of in-come. This theory is essentially merito-
cratic: in an economy of independentproducers-without wage labor andwithout private property of land-
prices would reflect differences n effort,measuredby labor-time used in produc-tion; thus, those who work longer andharder would sell a higher priced prod-uct and receive a higher reward. The
classics used this theory to justify theexisting price system-therefore, Ri-cardo's desperate, although unsuccess-
ful, attempts to eliminate profits as adeterminant of price and his theory ofrent which interpreted land income asan effect, rather than a cause, of price.3Profit and rent are not earned throughlabor; therefore, they do not fit intothe moral
philosophyof the labor value
theory. Ricardo thus tried to provethat they were not causal for price dif-ferentials. If that were true, such dif-
3. Walter A. Weisskopf, The Psychology ofEconomics (Chicago, Ill.: University of Chi-
cago Press, 1955), p. 51 ff.
ferentials would be caused only by dif-
ferences in labor-time used in the pro-duction of goods; such differentials
would be morally justified according tothe labor theory of value: more workleads to higher prices and incomes.
Marx used the same theory to casti-
gate the price system. In contrast to
Ricardo, he acknowledgedthe influence
of profits on prices. But to Marx, the
surplus value-profit-is an unearnedincrement which the capitalist did not
earn by his own labor. Therefore, a
profit economy leads to inequalitieswhich are unfairby the standards of thelabor theory of value. The union move-
ment and the modern women's libera-
tion movement use the same theory-asin the slogan "equal pay for equalwork"-to attain equality. Equality isbased on merit and is quite compatiblewith inequalities of unequal pay for un-
equal work.The labor theory of value was later
replaced by marginalist value theories.
Originally, they also containedthe seedsof moral justification of differentialsin
prices and incomes. When economists
state that in a competitive market sys-tem everyone's wage, or income, will be
equal to one's marginal value product,they actually state: "to each according
to his productive contribution." Thisis a meritocratic justification of eco-nomic inequalities.
In the twentieth century, economic
thought has become evermore value-neutral and value-empty. Few econ-omists today would openly try to justifywage and income differentials by their
proportionality to productive contribu-tion. Their
apologeticsfor the
existingincome distributionwould rest on func-tional grounds: inequalities are neces-
sary as incentives for increasing the
supply of scarce resources. However,the idea that higher income and wealthare deserved and caused by personal
167
7/27/2019 Walter Weisskopf - The Dialectics of Equality
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/walter-weisskopf-the-dialectics-of-equality 7/12
THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY
virtues and higher contributions has
been absorbed by popular feeling and
vulgar economic philosophizing. Social
Darwinism is still very much alive;those who have succeeded in the com-
petitive struggle regard themselves as
the fittest and as better than others.This attitude underlies the Nixon ad-
ministration's attack on the welfare
state. The economy is viewed as a
meritocracy of the rich; they sup-
posedly deserve their exalted status.
EQUALITYOFOPPORTUNITY
The existing inequalities, however,had to be made compatible with the
equalitarian, individualistic and liber-
tarian tradition of the American creed.
The combinationbetween egalitarianismand justification of inequalities was
achieved by the idea of equality of op-
portunity. It contains an element of
equalitarianism; everybody is supposedto begin at the same starting line; but
the inequalities that emerge in the com-
petitive struggle are accepted. The ideaof equality of opportunity makes pos-sible the representation of the result-
ing unequal income distributionas just:because of initial equality, the resultinginequalities are supposedly based on
merit.4
The idea of equality of opportunitycan serve its purpose to justify existinginequalities only if one believes every-one has an equal start and accepts the
resulting inequalities as meritorious.Both beliefs are open to grave doubts.There are obvious flaws in the assump-tion of an equal start; differences n en-
vironment, background, education and
genes distribute the chances very un-
evenly, indeed. But the main source of
4. For a critique of the principle of equalityof opportunity, see J. H. Schaar, "Equality of
Opportunity and Beyond," in Equality, ed.
J. R. Pennock and J. W. Chapman (NewYork: Atherton Press, 1967), p. 228 ff.
discontent is the conviction, ever grow-
ing in the twentieth century, that the
privileges of higher income and wealth
are not deserved-that the present formof the free enterprise system is not a
meritocracy. Corporate concentrationand market power made the inequalitiesin economic opportunities more visible.
The events of the great depression ofthe 1930s made it obvious that hardly
anybody is master of his economic fateand that economic success and failurehave little to do with individual merit.
Under these circumstances,the Horatio
Alger myth and the idea that the higherincome receiversare the fittest appearedto be ludicrous. These ideas were sup-posed to justify economic inequalities,but the underprivilegedand the intelli-
gentsia began to reject them. Peoplefeel that high incomes are not based on
just desert. As long as there was an
unspoken, implicit, oftenunconscious
consensus about the justice of income
differentials, equalitarianism remained
marginal, remedial and ameliorative.When this consensus evaporated, the
inequalitieslost theirpsychologicalbase.
They can then be maintained only bythe power structure of the existing in-stitutions.
MERITOCRACY
A more recent source of discontentwith the principle of equal opportunityis found in the changing character ofthe meritocracy. This term is not
usually applied to the merits of the richand successful, but to what Galbraithcalls the "technostructure"and the "ed-ucation-scientific estate." 6 Previously,merit was based on the virtues of the
work ethic and of the adventurous,suc-cessful entrepreneur. Since World WarII-in what is fashionably called
5. John K. Galbraith, The New IndustrialState (Boston, Mass.: Houghton, Mifflin,1967), chps. 8 and 25.
168
7/27/2019 Walter Weisskopf - The Dialectics of Equality
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/walter-weisskopf-the-dialectics-of-equality 8/12
DIALECTICS OF EQUALITY
the postindustrial society-merit anddifferentials in status and powerare attributed to the knowledge of
the highly educated and trained ex-perts with academic credentialswho are
supposed to have become the real deci-sion makers and power structure in
business, government and even politics.Under present conditions, this furtherrestricts the equal start necessary forreal equality of opportunity; highereducation and expertise are to manyeven less accessible than economic suc-cess. Equalitarianism, once directed
against the rich, is now directed againstthe status of those with credentials of
higher education and expert knowledge.Trying to justify the existing hier-
archy of status and poweras an intellec-tual meritocracy-as does the literarycrowd writing in the Public Interest 6is even less effective than the justifica-
tion of income differentials on the basisof the work ethic and entrepreneurialsuccess.
First, the trend towards a meritoc-
racy of the intellectual elite has aggra-vated inequalities in the economy. Ithas reenforced the dual economy: mi-
nority groups have been shut off fromthe mainstream of the economy; theydo not even benefit from expansionand
prosperity,because of their lack of back-groundand education. More and more,the better jobs require educational cre-dentials of achievement which theseminoritiesare unable to acquire. With-out the certificates they are not needed
by the economy. Therefore, they can-not improve their situation by organiz-ing and withholding their services-bystrikes.
Theyare not
exploited-needed, but underpaid-but discrimi-nated against-discarded, not in de-mand. This aggravates their unequalstatus because the system does not pro-
6. Public Interest 29 (Fall 1972), issue onequality.
vide any legitimate remedies: they arein the minority, therefore, they havelittle political power; they do not have
an equal start, therefore, they havelittle upwards mobility. A meritocracybased on IQ and academic credentialscondemns these groups to social in-
feriority.
However, the resentment against theintellectual elite is not confined to the
disadvantaged minorities. The resent-ment is also caused by doubts about thevalue and
meaningof
intellectual, whitecollar work. Recent interviews of bluecollar workers in the Boston area havethrown some light on this attitude.7After twenty years as a meat-cutter, ablue collar worker-who had beenforced to quit high school-became awhite collar bank clerk; however, heharbors an innate disrespect for edu-cated white collar work: "these jobs are
not real work where you make some-thing-it's just pushing papers." Hefeels a "revulsion against the work ofeducated people in the bank, and a
feeling that manual labor has more dig-nity." Children of blue collar workers,with more education than their parents:"feel that they have more opportunityopen to them than their manual-labor-
ing parents. At the same time they seetheir parents'work as intrinsically more
interestingand worthwhile.. .". Thesemen see "knowledgethrough formal ed-ucation as giving a man the tools for
achieving freedom. ... As things ac-
tually stand, however, certified knowl-
edge does not mean dignity . . . it isthe reverse, it is sham."
In part, this attitude is a heritage of
the industrial society in which produc-tion of goods was the main economic
activity. It is an attitude reminiscent
7. R. Sennett and J. Cobb, The Hidden In-juries of Class (New York: Alfred A. Knapf,1972), p. 21 if., from which the following quo-tations are taken.
169
7/27/2019 Walter Weisskopf - The Dialectics of Equality
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/walter-weisskopf-the-dialectics-of-equality 9/12
THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY
of the Marxist glorificationof the man-ual worker as the only real productivefactor. However, this traditional belief
in the superiordignity of manual workhas become amalgamated with a more
recent distrust in expertise, intelligent
quotients, academic credentials and the
achievements of the intelligentsia, in
general. The growing resentment of
Middle America against the "best and
the brightest" seems to bear this out.
The issue of postindustrialsociety is not
merely intellectual meritocracy versus
equality, as sociologist Daniel Bell
maintains,but the growingdoubts about
the merits of the meritocracy.
Consideringthe kind of world the ex-
perts in science, technology and businesshave helped to create, these doubts are
not without justification. Yet, the
sourceof these doubts lies deeper. They
are-consciously or unconsciously-
connected with the basic problem ofpostindustrial society: the longing both
for a ground for legitimizing equalityand inequality and for the fusion oforder and freedom.8 The postindustrial,
meritocratic, intellectual elite owes its
high status to its mastery of a restric-tive intellectuality of a cognitive, ana-
lytical, measuringand technical nature.
They use instrumentalrationality which
can choose means, but can say nothingabout ends. This rationality has de-
stroyed a deeper philosophical kind ofreason which could deal with ends,goals, purposes and ultimate meanings.9
The merits of the meritocracy arebased on a rationality which makes it
impossible to establish standards for
any merits, whatsoever. Their highIQs and their academic credentials en-
able them to serve the existing order,
8. J. Kristol, "Capitalism, Socialism and
Nihilism," Public Interest 31 (Spring 1973),p. 15.
9. Weisskopf, Alienation and Economics,p. 37 ff.
but not to justify it, nor to replace it,
by one that can be accepted as legiti-mate by its citizenry. The hunger for
such legitimacy, called by Irving Kristolthe dominant political fact in the worldof today, cannot be satisfied by the
instrumental, technical intellect of the
experts. Therefore, their merits are not
accepted by the community.
Thus, today's egalitarian resentment
of the underprivilegedagainst the priv-
ileged is based less on need than on a
loss of the belief in the justice, legitima-tion and justification of existing in-
equalities. The traditional approachthat the starving masses resent the
abundanceof the rich has become, withsome notable exceptions,obsolete in our
relatively affluent society. The main
cause of egalitarian trends is the dis-
integration of the belief that the priv-
ileges of higher income, wealth and
education are based on just desert andmerit.
THE TRADITIONOF SOCIALPROTECTION
There is, however, another source of
egalitarianism which is related to pov-
erty. It does not originate with the
poor, the disadvantaged and the under-
privileged, but with society as a whole-or better, with the privileged groups.
This is the tradition of charity and com-passion and the idea that society has to
take care of those who cannot take careof themselves.
In the Middle Ages, the poor werealmost exclusively the impotent poorwho were not able to support them-selves. They were the object of charitywhich was, and is, a method of practic-ing a Christianvirtue and of assuagingguilt feelings of the privileged. In thefree market system, the impotent poorwere joined by the able-bodied poorand the unemployed. Variousmeasureswere used to force them into employ-ment but they were also made the ben-
170
7/27/2019 Walter Weisskopf - The Dialectics of Equality
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/walter-weisskopf-the-dialectics-of-equality 10/12
DIALECTICS OF EQUALITY
eficiaries of charity and compassion
throughsome measure of relief-for ex-
ample, the allowance system of Speen-
hamland, 1795. Aside from trying tosolve socio-economic problems of pov-erty, this constituted an enlargementofthe group to which charity and com-
passion was extended from the phys-ically, to the economically, helpless.The reason for this extension was, and
is, the guilt feelings of the haves to-wards the have-nots. This is probablyone of the
strongestroots of
egalitarianwelfare measuresand of the orientationof social responsibility. Not only doesthe resentment of the underprivileged,but also the guilt feelings of the haves
grow when income differentialsare feltto be illegitimate; the less they feel thattheir privileges are deserved, the more
they feel obligated to ameliorate thesituation of the poor and underpriv-
ileged-for example, as in the 1930sin the United States. It was muchless the case early in the nineteenth
century when wealth was equated with
morality and poverty, with immorality.Thus, demands for a more equal dis-tributionof income originate not merelywith those who want more,but also withthose who feel badly about having more.
However, there is more to this trend
than the guilt feelings of the privileged.The free market system required, al-most from its beginnings, a protectionof society from the system's detrimentaleffects. As Karl Polanyi has pointedout, the free market tended to destroyman and his environment by treatinglabor and land as commodities.10 When
they are used or not used according tothe
vagariesof the
market, human be-ings and their natural habitat may be
injured or destroyed. A countervailingforce-which Karl Polanyi calls social
10. K. Polanyi, The Great Transformation(New York: Farrar & Rinehart, 1944), partII.
protectionism-was required, includingall types of social legislation and wel-fare measures. Social protectionism
forms a necessary counterweightagainstthe free market. Without it, the freemarket would lose its infra-structure,the supporting framework of a viable
society.Social protectionism, nourished by
the Christian tradition of charity and
compassion towards the underpriv-
ileged, rests squarely on the principleof
ascription:we
helpthe disadvan-
taged not for what they do or achieve,but for what they are-namely, human
beings in need. The ascriptive prin-ciple has never been completely aban-doned as the meritocrats maintain. Ithas been applied as a countervailingforce, as a balance against the ravageswrought by the inequalities of the mar-ket economy. Significantly, social pro-
tectionism was often supported by non-bourgeois, conservative groups, such asthe Tories in England and Bismarckand the Junkers in Germany,and by a
growingcivil service bureaucracy.
CONCLUSIONS
Where does this kaleidoscopicand di-alectical picture leave us, today? The
antinomicforces pulling towardsgreatereconomicequality, on the one hand, andthe counter-tendenciespushing back the
equalitarian trend to protect the exist-
ing order,on the other hand, are still atwork. If the equality-inequality dichot-
omy is an existential antinomy, the
struggle will not cease, whatever thestructure of our society and economy.
However, the two forces are never in astatic equilibrium; there are alwaystrends in one or the other direction.Surface appearances to the contrary,the pendulumwill probably swing in adirection of greater equality based on
ascription and away from income dif-
171
7/27/2019 Walter Weisskopf - The Dialectics of Equality
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/walter-weisskopf-the-dialectics-of-equality 11/12
THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY
ferentials based on either financial or
educational achievement. One of the
reasonsis that economicgrowth,at least
in the developed countries, may becomeless and less desirable and possible.
Growingaffluence makes an increase inthe standards of living, in terms of
more and more income and wealth, less
attractive. This, in turn, may weakenthe resistance against measures towards
a more equal income distribution, such
as a guaranteedminimum income. The
economies of thedeveloped
countries
may turn towards an improvement of
the quality of life, which would imply a
weakening of the acquisitive ethos.
Time and energy-the really scarce re-
sources-may be increasingly devoted
to the production of psychic income in
the form of playful, artistic and con-
templative pursuits to satisfy the higherneeds and to games, circuses, fishing
and loafing to satisfy lower needs.The likelihood of such a development
is greatly enhancedby the dangerspre-dicted by the ecologists. If population
growth, exhaustion of basic resources,pollution and the problems of waste
absorption should actually set absolute
limits to economic growth, the basiceconomic orientation of the present eco-nomic systems will have to change.Mankind, especially in the West, willhave to turn to a life style which con-sumes less resources and leads to lesswaste than the present system. Thus,production and income, in the tradi-tional sense, will lose their importanceand a more equal distributionof incomewill be more acceptable merely becausethere will be fewer uses for money in-come. The basic values of life
maychange; market values will have to be
replacedby noneconomicvalues. Peoplewill have to pursue goals which willcost more time and energy, but less re-
sources, and will not generate detrimen-tal by-products. Friendship, love, en-
joyment of nature, contemplation,mere
loafing and so forth will have to become
more important than income and pur-
chasing power.This does not mean an end to in-
equality, but it will be based on differ-ent grounds than income and wealth.
Inequalities may be based on noneco-nomic-such as aesthetic, spiritual and
communal-standards. These differ-ences may be based on achievements
outside the economic dimension. In
the economicfield,
wemay
return to
the principleof ascription. Income will
have to be separatedfrom productionof
traditional goods and services; mean-
ingful activity will have to be defined
as more than the earning of income;and a guaranteedminimumto everyone,with strict regulation of what can be
producedand bought without ecological
dangers,will have to be instituted. The
realm of "goods" will have to be re-stricted and the realm of "bads"greatlyincreased. If all this sounds utopian, it
is; however, without utopia, there can
be no vision and no survival.
The problemof equality is ultimatelya philosophical, and not an economic,
question. Differences of status, wealth,power, natural endowment and socialfunctions are unavoidable in any soci-
ety. When people talk about equalityand human dignity, they really want
acceptance-I shy away from the wordlove, but that is what it is-in spite ofall differences. They want to be ac-
cepted and loved as they are, even in
spite of what they are. This love and
acceptance-Christian theology calls it
agape-is not primarily a creation of
any social system; it is needed to softenthe nonegalitarianharshness of society.This is the real meaning of the longingfor a classless society and for a pluralityof values. It is expressed beautifullyin the brilliant social science fiction ofMichael Young:
172
7/27/2019 Walter Weisskopf - The Dialectics of Equality
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/walter-weisskopf-the-dialectics-of-equality 12/12
DIALECTICS OF EQUALITY
The classless society would be one which
both possessed and acted upon plural val-
ues. Were we to evaluate people, not only
according to their intelligence and theireducation, their occupation, and their
power, but according to their kindliness
and their courage, their imagination and
sensitivity, their sympathy and generosity,there could be no classes. Who would be
able to say that the scientist was superiorto the porter with admirable qualities as a
father, the civil servant with unusual skillat gaining prizes superior to the lorry-driver with unusual skill at growing roses?
The classless society would also be thetolerant society, in which individual differ-
ences were actively encouraged as well as
passively tolerated, in which full meaningwas at last given to the dignity of man.
Every human being would then have equalopportunity, not to rise up in the world in
the light of any mathematical measure, but
to develop his own special capacities for
leading a rich life.1"
This is, of course, a fable. But where,
today, would a description of the ideal
be found if not in a fable?
11. M. Young, The Rise of Meritocracy
1870-2033(New York: PenguinBooks, 1958),p. 169.
173