The Excellence of Egalitarianism

How to best understand and support a deeply potent & polarized precept of our modern society

The words egalitarian and egalitarianism were first used in English during the late 19th century, the latter is the broader ideology/movement itself, the former an adherent of it. They both relate to the idea that all people are equal and deserve equal rights & opportunities in society. This political philosophy actually existed, albeit loosely, as a socially unifying ethos for several centuries prior, probably going all the way to Ancient Mediterranea, if not earlier. It was the notion without a name. Within the last 500 years, our understanding of what equality meant and how we should adjudicate it was made more explicit. The Western European Renaissance gave rise to a philosophical stance we call humanism, one centered people over religions or governments. Within the humanist framework, modern egalitarianism was beginning to take more of a recognizable shape. Key reifications happened during the Enlightenment era in 18th & 19th centuries, followed again by reiterations and recapitulations in the 20th century.

What is Egalitarianism and What It Isn’t

The core of egalitarianism has influenced a number of political actions and atmospheres, including but not limited to: the aforementioned national revolutions; the idea of, and movements to promote, civil rights; democratic enfranchisement of the general populace (especially women and ethnic minorities); the original ideals of feminism; mixed economic (capitalism + socialism) systems, especially ones with a significant distributive component; and much more. It must also be acknowledged as an inspiration for more pernicious things as well. Compare the differences between the 1st wave and 4th wave of feminism, for example, and equality of outcome aka substantive equality (Equity) initiatives, some of which I’ve discussed previously.

Due these factors, it is easy to misunderstand what egalitarianism actually is, and to be reflexively apprehensive about what it potentially prescribes. “Egalitarian despotism“ was a term retroactively applied to the French Revolution of the late 1700s, as well as various Communist movements in Europe and Asia during the 1900s. Critics of egalitarianism would argue that authoritarian force is required to make people equal in society. Yet this is confused on two scores. Firstly, egalitarianism already declares and celebrates the self-evident fact that people are created equal. There is no need to harm anyone to prove this. Secondly, egalitarianism does not demand the sort of brutal Equity that critics logically fear. Egalitarianism primarily suggests that efforts be made to protect people’s rights and ensure their access to fair participation in a just society. This is the principle of formal equality, an equality of opportunity and a fair set of judgments on merit.

To drill down on substantive equality though, it must be emphasized that the conflation of egalitarianism with what we might call Equity Leftism is actually wrong on several fronts. As already stated, it misunderstands what true egalitarians want, which is formal equality. It also fails to grasp what the equity leftists actually believe in. Substantive equality isn’t premised on the foundational equal natures of different people. Just consider how Equity enthusiasts talk, often in very racist, sexist, overtly essentialist and anti-egalitarian terms. They don’t truly believe people are equal, no matter how flowery and disingenuous their language may sound. They just think that the people currently in positions of success and status should be replaced by different identities. What they actually favor is not equal treatment, but rather a sort of inverted caste system.

This point must be underscored. A caste system, by its nature, is both unequal and enforced to remain so. It is the exact opposite of what an egalitarian would want. The siren song of some Equity pushes are that past discrimination must be addressed by revanchist policies of social retribution. One group was on top before, so it’s only fair to bring that previous high caste low and put others above them, even through force. Some equity leftists may say “people are equal,” but unsaid is a hidden addendum a la the pig Napoleon in George Orwell’s Animal Farm: a belief that "some people are more equal than others."

Given all this, one might be inclined to believe that the only criticisms of egalitarianism are just historic misunderstandings at best or strawman caricatures at worst. Well, no. That would also be a mistake. All too often people want to presume or proclaim that they only believe good ideas and the goodness of those ideas is so universal that no one could disagree rationally or without bad faith. The truth is that egalitarianism, just like any other ideology, is all pretty challenging and disagreeable! This is especially true in terms of implementation. Before we get to that though, we must nevertheless recognize and address the proper definitions of egalitarian precepts and the sometimes equally legitimate objections to them.

(Mostly) Fair Criticisms and Honest Answers

Are people (morally) equal?

Let’s start by taking the core precepts one at a time. First being the equality of all people. Some phrase this as “people are equal,” end of, like offered up top. Others prefer the more edifying “people have equal moral worth.” Both versions point towards similar ideas, but the latter both narrows and clarifies the principle being attested. If one says people are of equal moral worth, this means they ought be treated the same in questions of law, social regard, and so forth. Like all the three precepts, it is mutually inclusive with its peer ideals. The beliefs of equal rights and equal opportunity will come in a bit, but they do align beautifully with moral worth.

A common retort or objection to the claim of equal moral worth is that it only works in theory. Whereas in practice, in everyday real life, people deserve different moral weighting. A member of one’s family is more worthy or valuable than someone of no relation, a neighbor is more valuable than a random passerby, a fellow citizen more valuable than a stranger in a strange land. Then there’s the question of behavior. Do people who behave different deserve the same treatment? Does equality mean ignoring justice on some level?

Nowhere in the notion of equal worth is this hallucinatory premise that we can’t consider behavior or render judgments. What is implied, we can freely grant, is that these judgments should levied evenly and have merit behind them. If someone behaves immorally, their moral status naturally changes. It is fair to judge them harshly as a result. This is all consistent with egalitarian principles. Now onto the non-behavioral judgments. Is it unfair to judge your family as more valuable than foreigners? Yes, in a sense, it is unfair. We ought to admit this, not shrink away from it or rationalize it. Since egalitarian principles are about fairness, it presupposes that ingroup biases are wrong.

Conservatives, the biggest opponents of egalitarianism throughout time, will say this is a highly contentious point and that theirs is a compelling counterargument. Central to the objection is a kind of self-referential refusal to reflect or self-correct. “If a bias towards the ingroup is natural,” they might say, “why re-examine that? Why upend it?” Well, because it can be wrong. Because it leads to unfairness.

What becomes especially pernicious is the insistence that this favoritism is not only permissible but valorous. The conservative says, “who are you to question why I love my family” but then adds, perhaps under their breath, “besides, devaluing others is the right thing to do.” Egalitarians would argue that we should temper ingroup bias, try to craft norms and laws which disincentivize it. This fairness isn’t just a moral act of self-sacrifice either. It benefits everyone universally, since it keeps us all honest and encourages social harmony.

The other concern around “people are equal” is the issue of what we might call blank-slatism. This is the belief that the human mind is a blank slate (tabula rasa) and can be shaped, almost entirely, by experiences and lessons a person gets in life. An attendant assumption is that people do not actually have genetic predispositions or natural aptitudes, at least not mental ones. At the absolute and cartoonish extremes, another strawman of sorts, some have argued blank-slatism means different people have no mental or physical differences, at least not ones of substance. Blank-slatism, whether we mean the nuanced version or not, has been heavily debated since the 17th century, and it is are now generally seen as incomplete, inaccurate, and/or ineffectual.

Owing in part to the phrase “people are equal” and to philosopher John Locke, who promoted egalitarian ideals (albeit before they had that label) alongside blank-slatism, egalitarianism is now seen by some as heavily tied to both. Whilst it is true that Locke was a great influence on many political ideologies, including what would become liberalism, we must admit he did not invent egalitarianism. He wasn’t even its greatest champion. He was favorable to it in some ways, but also capriciously unprincipled in opposing it at other times. The movement owes him something to be sure, but it must not be shackled to, or impugned by, this association.

Do people have equal rights?

Equal rights relates to the broader notion of human rights, the legal and ethical concept concerning the treatment of people and what they are entitled to in a just society. The overall concept is vast, with a near endless list of rights we might say all humans possess. But at a minimum, a common self-evident belief is that rights exist and we’re only ever arguing over how to legislate and protect them.

If someone opposes the very idea of equal rights, they are then necessarily in favor of either unequal rights or no rights at all. We can immediately dismiss the latter as chaotic and vacuous nonsense; to say one is in favor of no rights is tantamount to being a normative nihilist, which is a hollow and almost self-defeating position. No rights means no universally recognized moral principles or norms to establish standards of human behavior. Nothing to protect them, or anyone else, from rampant violations and total ruin. Again, a worthless position. So, what about unequal rights then?

Well, this has technically been a common idea or way of organizing society for ages. We have a number of terms that relate to it, but the one that’s arguably most fitting is caste system, like we mentioned up top. As already stated, caste systems are the antithesis of egalitarianism. A system where people of one group would have more or better rights and overall treatment than another? This isn’t how we should organize society. The hierarchal structures in places like Sub-Saharan Africa and India are wrong, and we can see it.

Few people, especially in the Western world, will openly say they favor caste systems. What they might do, either vaguely or semi-directly, is describe scenarios that are inherently unequal, explain how that inequality is just the natural state of affairs, and suggest it should be enforced in some way. It’s status quo bias. In this way an unbit bullet exists here on the conservative side. They must either defend caste systems in earnest, or recognize that some form of equal rights, and of the broader egalitarian ethos, is actually the only way forward. Surely more just than the alternative.

Should we provide equal opportunities?

The last of the three core precepts is a commitment to equal opportunities. This is a state of fairness in which individuals are treated the same, unhampered by artificial barriers (like identity or socioeconomic class), and only judged on their merits. It’s essentially the principle of meritocracy and the extension of openings and possibilities to all people within a given society. It is antithetical to favoritism, caste systems, nepotism, and the like.

Equal opportunity is the hardest of the three precepts, particularly to fully realize and enforce. Part of why is that it needs both of the preceding precepts to be upheld concurrently and coequally first. Equal opportunities don’t work without equal moral worth, nor can they even be attempted within caste systems. Assuming both those prerequisites are met, the trickiest part is figuring out which opportunities are unequal and how to equalize them.

Some of this is principally a matter of access. People must be allowed to participate in and/or apply to most/all activities and organizations which accept newcomers. Examples would be things like political activities (including voting) and government orgs, schools and businesses, and so on. The fundamental philosophy is to remove arbitrariness from the selection process and base it on some pre-agreed criteria, with the assessment process being as fair and procedurally consistent as possible. Individuals should be granted access based on their objective qualifications and efforts rather than extraneous circumstances such as their identity, their parentage, or their class status.

One common concern that has dogged egalitarianism, as we’ve repeated above already, is the conflict between the formal equality of the individual merit-based opportunities versus the substantive equality (Equity) focus on equality of outcomes for groups. Affirmative action and DEI, for example, are ostensibly geared towards substantive equality (in practice they may actually result in inverted caste systems). Since these two are mutually exclusive in practice, proper egalitarians favor an emphasis on formal equality. This means that egalitarianism as a movement must concern itself chiefly with ensuring fair systems of inputs and not with mandating one particular type of result. Opportunities matter, outcomes are fluid.

Egalitarians argue that if systems of judgment are just and standardized, the end results should be legitimate. This resultant legitimacy does not, contrary to common misconception, get undermined by unequal outcomes. Still, egalitarians often strive to ensure every effort is made to find and introduce potential participants, especially ones who might not otherwise be granted an opportunity at all. These efforts ought not straddle the line between formal and substantive approaches, as the latter will often amount to a kind of unfair bias in favor of one group’s outcomes over others.

Besides confusion or conflict over the differences between formal and substantive equality, the only significant opposition to equality of opportunity becomes a general disagreement over class status and how it ought to affects one’s access (if it ought to at all). A common assumption is that most opportunities are made available in ways that inevitably favor the upper class. Given this, what should be done to remediate the disparity in access? Some examples of strategies include: advertisement of these opportunities to lower income groups, more preparatory programs to help different groups meet the standards prior to testing, and even randomized access in cases where objective criteria for admission aren’t possible.

The opposition to all this will typically boil down to a concern that equality of opportunity, both as a heuristic and a set of policy prescriptions, is a waste of time and resources, specifically in societies where formal equality is already enshrined in law and taken for granted in daily life. One rebuttal to this is that it invites a bit of circularity, since assuming formal equality doesn’t need defending may, in turn, give oxygen to the very environment where it ceases to function. The formal equality we say we uphold in theory must be true in practice. A poor child of minority status must have a equal shot at achieving greatness in a society, when judged on his abilities rather than his background or appearance.

Another reason to support formal equality is that it remains the best check against substantive equality, thereby staving off a state of ideas and prescriptions that, even in the eyes of conservatives, are far worse. One need not agree on the exact nature of a problem, or even that a status quo is itself problematic, to at least see that there are better and worse ways to address it. In this way, the language of formal equality has actually begun to be adopted by some conservatives, if only as an alternative to the substantive equality pushed for by equity leftists.

Economics, Oh Those Pesky Economics

While egalitarianism as an overall ideology is economically agnostic to some extent, the general push for greater equality in society would plausibly align with distributive systems, such as predistribution (let’s say “predis” for short) vs redistribution (“redist”). This is a live ball and ongoing argument amongst proper egalitarians themselves within the movement. Does am ethos of treating people equally also necessitate economic distributive measures? Or are the participatory opportunity justice measures of formal equality enough?

There is actually far too much ground to cover within the realm we might call egalitarian economic discourse. Literally enough for a separate article, maybe several. But suffice to say, there isn’t unanimity of opinion. From liberal egalitarians who often favor more modest approaches, to luck egalitarians and social egalitarians who are typically more ambitious. The first want to pair liberty with equality and sees the state as a beast to be tamed in pursuit of this synthesis. The second seek to redress the unequal life states that can happen to people via bad luck (thus the name), things like accidents of birth or unavoidable misfortune. The last want to eliminate hierarchies altogether, and usually see extensive redist as a means to that end.

Assuming no distribution - a real option in egalitarian thought (despite how shocking that can sound to the uninitiated), the only tools at an egalitarian’s disposal are the elaborate and stalwart implementations of the three core precepts (moral worth, rights, and opportunity). This leaves socioeconomic hierarchies and certain resource disparities, but it still ensures freedom of movement within them. Most egalitarians, like most people period, are capitalists. They believe in ownership of capital and property, in open markets, in trade of goods and services for profit, and so on. As long as everyone is treated fairly and the rules well enforced within that economic system, an egalitarian can make peace with differing outcomes.

What egalitarians generally can’t countenance, and what leads to the distribution debate, are easily avoidable pitfalls. Things like poverty and homelessness. Public school failures. Elder suffering. Tragedy of the Commons. On and on and on. Taxation pays for the government to exist, so why not use that government to fund and protect these? Create a basic social safety net to prevent the worst negative externalities from occurring, especially in the lives of our morally equal, but perhaps economically infirm, fellow citizens. Again, a live ball worth fighting over.

So What of Yours Truly?

I will now break my imperfect third person encyclopedia/journalism voice to address you directly and less neutrally, dear reader. I’ve often described myself as an egalitarian, and I always will, but I’m increasingly seeing how this label alone isn’t enough to point up exactly what I believe or what I believe in. At various times I’ve debated whether I’m really something else, like a libertarian with egalitarian leanings, but to no avail. I had briefly even considered pulling a move out of Steven “Destiny” Bonnell’s playbook and just inventing a term for myself, as he did with the ultimately vacuous self-coinage of “omni-liberal.”

But the truth is that I am something that does already exist in the landscape. Not a luck egalitarian, because I’m generally ambivalent on their economic proposals and their view of human nature. They seem overly ambitious on the former front and overly naive on the latter. Not a fan of social egalitarianism, since it seeks to eliminate social status and hierarchies altogether. I’m actually very pro hierarchy, both because they’re unavoidable and because they work. The negative externalities come if/when those hierarchies metastasize into caste systems, which I seek to eliminate.

I am, cautiously yet affirmatively, identifying as a liberal egalitarian here, for the first ever in print. My two main driving ethics are liberty and fairness, so it makes perfect sense to pair them. I don’t identify as a liberal normally, in large part because it’s a vague and slightly bastardized term in the mainstream. But an egalitarian? I’ve been that unabashedly for ages. I do favor liberal economics, the system that has come to be known as capitalism in the modern day. I do hold to liberty ideals like that those of Locke, John Stuart Mill, and others. Most of all, I seek to make the state/government respect, and harmonize with, these things. The primary way I see that happening is through egalitarianism.

Liberal egalitarianism is the lens through which I view politics, culture, and even art. I am class conscious. I am anti-elitist (very loosely populist, at least in the art sphere). And I will break all the caste systems I can, or be brutalized for trying. It’s too important not to fight over. Men braver & wiser than all of us once demanded an end to life if they could not have liberty. I dare say they succeeded, and we are their inheritors. With that battle largely behind us, there’s just the matter of ensuring our liberties stay entrenched and our opportunities do not get infringed in the bargain.

Conclusion

The truth of equality, and of egalitarianism, will always be disagreeable. Not just in the sense that egalitarians themselves don’t all agree on everything, but in the very basic truism that the equality of humanity is a controversial concept. Some oppose it because they favor tradition, or more accurately, a different tradition. For we must remember that egalitarianism was around for many centuries hence, if not many millennia. It was the notion without a name. And as soon as a name came to it, the critics came for it.

Some support egalitarianism on the basis of a competing traditionalism. Not conservatism, but a historically-informed ethic of fairness. Others see it as a vehicle for social change, including those who would seek to redress grievances. Some of that may be more defensible, some less. In this way egalitarianism is like most other sociopolitical frameworks, it can be done better or worse. It is up to each of us to figure out where we want to land on the equality question, and the resultant sub-debates it necessitates.

For myself the answer is clear. I am a liberal egalitarian, affirmed for all to see in everything I believe, advocate for, and write. I’ll take the slings and arrows. I’ll defend it from the haters. I’ll try to steer it into the best possible direction. But above all, I’ll demand that it become and stay, the way of life, for everyone and forever. And so now I cry, to paraphrase the brilliant orator and Founding Father Patrick Henry…

Give me egalitarianism, or give me death.