Look at those two societies and tell me which is better. If you can't agree on something as simple as that, the rest of what I have to say need not be said.
Well, of course I agree that the second society is better. You’ve
told me that it is, and you’ve indicated that everyone gets along, and nobody judges them unfairly, and that Jesus himself approves. There’s a picture of all the cute little Nuhams together, basically holding hands. You’ve also told me that the first society is shit, and all the pictures look formal and beaurocratic. And heck, look at the drop shadow on that turd.
However, there’s probably never been a more appropriate use of the term intuition pump. Because I think that, one good criticism aside, you've led towards a conclusion without really explaining much.
Timeline 1To summarise: identifying differences actually leads to prejudice, because it enables and entrenches stereotypes
1) Your criticism of Timeline 1
Can you show that this problem would actually happen as described? You’ve identified a vector by which it might very well occur, and I agree that it is a good criticism. But does it happen this way? And if so, does it never happen that the same situation leads to the opposite effect?
Note that I might well say something else, like:
“Understanding differences is a key to understanding how people are similar. We do share a lot, but at first glance this doesn’t necessarily appear to be the case. That can lead to disagreements over superficial things. However, it is only by experiencing different things on their own terms, and sharing those different experiences, that you can come to appreciate many of the underlying similarities, and/or the value of those differences in and of themselves.”
So which is what really happens? What you suggest, what I suggest, or a bit of both. If both, how much of both? Or is it that both arguments are imperfect?
And do stereotypes only form this way? Or do stereotypes form for other reasons, as well? Do they form in other types of society? What does history tell us? Does Timeline 1 lead to good effects overall? Does this one problem completely undermine the entire foundation of the society, so that we should pooh-pooh it completely? (Har Har).
Can you even show that these problems occur more when differences are identified than when they are not? Isn’t the problem that differences are assumed, rather than identified? Isn’t it therefore more dangerous to identify no differences, in a society where some things will *appear* to be different?
Can you show that this discord if it occurs, is worse than the alternatives? Is it more harmful than failing to identify differences? Is it more harmful than being authoritarian about difference?
Is it avoidable in any case? Human nature identifies differences. We’re naturally tribalistic. Can you show that the problem with Timeline 1 wouldn’t happen anyway?
If it would, wouldn’t a solution which uses our inherent difference spotting productively be better than one which denies that instinct an outlet?
Relatedly, can you show that this whole issue doesn’t also occur in a real-world Timeline 2 scenario?
What about all the other criticisms of sameness vs. difference?
What about all the other criticisms, period?
2) Egalitarianism as in Timeline 1 is not necessarily about different rights for different people.
You don’t necessarily need to create multiple systems of separate rights to disagree with Brian Barry. I’m not necessarily talking about positive discrimination or affirmative action when I talk about opportunities egalitarianism – in fact, I don’t much like such purported solutions, because they prejudice decisions against individual people based on who they are, in the name of a larger social goal – which is the very same problem that opportunities egalitarianism aims to correct.
However, maintaining the equal right to do something that one particular set of people are more likely to benefit from, is not actually an equal situation. It’s entirely possible to have one set of rules, rights, or social norms, which are applied to all people, which are prejudiced against some of those people. I assume that this is not in dispute?
So the next logical step in the argument is: is it possible to have a set of rules which disproportionately advantages one set of people in a way that is *non-obvious* to people within that set? And I’m strongly inclined to think that this is the case. See the case of privilege.
Again.
Timeline 2To summaraise: concentrating on what is equal amongst people leads to a much better society, because… well, something.
1) Timeline 2 doesn’t show us how it works, even under ideal conditions. I don’t know if you’ve got some fantastic philosophical argument which puts all the pieces of Timeline 2 together, but right now it looks like a black box which apparently outputs the perfect society. Unless you’re planning on starting a religion, I think we need more.
I’m sure it’s not as simple as ‘if we didn’t pick over differences we’d all get along swimmingly and nobody would ever be discriminated against unfairly and everyone would be perfectly egalitarian about everything’, but I can’t identify any stronger argument than that.
2) You’re *not* in the position of starting a society.
Let us assume that your Brian Barry ideals are absolutely the correct foundations for creating a more equal society. I don’t even think that’s the case, but let’s assume. How does it help? You’re not in the position of starting a society. You’re in the position of – at best - changing an existing one.
You’ve got to work with what you’ve got. What you’ve got to work with is a society which already resembles Timeline 1. That reasonable analogue of Timeline 1 has produced the most fair, liberated, equitable society that we’ve so far achieved in all of human history.
To identify problems with it is one thing, and I’m all for it. To reject it utterly in favour of something that doesn’t even have moving parts is another: as far as I can see, Timeline 2 doesn’t, maybe can’t, fix anything that’s already broken, and that’s assuming that it even does what it says on the tin.
In fact, the single criticism you have offered of Timeline 1 is a problem for you, too: it is essentially an explanation of how privileged positions can evolve in a society.
You may reject the kind of politics which gives rise to this, but you haven’t magically banished such situations from the world. You’re still not providing any pragmatic solutions for resolving such a situation after the fact – which is, of course, where we are.
No, what you’d need to do is explain how in a society which already, clearly, does favour certain groups above others, you can bring about your equal society of homogenous sameness without exacerbating the problems you’ve identified. And I simply don’t think that you can do this in a system which is authoritarian about sameness.
3) Aren’t you assuming that the differences between all your little Nuhams are unimportant for the egalitarian project? And, in so doing, aren’t you assuming quite a lot? If you want to argue that nothing we do not all have in common has any place in our structure of rights, then any one difference which we do not all have in common, and which does impact equality, suddenly becomes a complete undoing of your theory.
4) Your system is *horribly* open to abuse. If one generally cannot/does not consider the effects of difference, then those who break the rules and do so will benefit disproportionately.
In a society in which we are all considered equals, if the weight of that equality is moved to favour a particular set of people, there’s not much you can do about it without acknowledging and working on the basis of difference.
If I lived in your society, and I was out for myself, I would make every effort to ensure that myself, and my kin, were just a little bit more equal than our peers, and then there wouldn’t be a damn thing you could do about it without breaking your own rules.
You end up in this Orwellian situation where it’s not really even possible to formulate your objection to my improved status without breaking the codified social rules of sameness beats difference.
What that means is that those who are willing to break those rules, and make advantage in so doing, keep that advantage from everyone except other people willing to break the rules.
The meek shall not inherit your earth, in other words. And if your egalitarianism does not provide some protections from this kind of situation, then what exactly does it do?
This is the absolute worst case scenario: the people who live according to your system of sameness are in the worst possible position in your society.
Final thoughts: I don’t like where Iris Young ends up, but she does some good work identifying problems. A large part of Iris Marion Young’s criticism of Universalist positions is in their historical use by biased social movements. For example, she talks about the Western-centric culture which devalued deviations from some idealised Western appearance, which led to theories of ‘degeneration’ and the very real pseudoscience of eugenics.
Those problems haven’t gone away. Of course I’m not saying that these are the beliefs which you have, or that you support eugenics.
What I am saying is that the degree to which your beliefs are qualified by your paradigm is information which is unlikely to be significantly more available to you, than it was to people in the 19th century.
We have better tools for our theoretical work of course, such as those introduced by Rawls. But the idea that suddenly, for the first time in history, we are completely aware of everything that affects our viewpoints and goals, and can finally formulate by reason alone the one true answer to the human condition is naïve, and arrogant.
The fact is that there is a great deal of subjectivity, disagreement, and doubletalk about what equality really amounts to in the real world.
That’s a problem for both of our viewpoints, of course. But it’s a lot more of a problem for yours, because my viewpoint recognises those differences and plumbs them for value, whereas your absolutist worldview is harmed by each and every viable difference of opinion.