Which Equalities Matter? E-Book

Anne Phillips

• Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 301

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2013

Beschreibung

Democracy and democratization are now high on the political agenda, but there is growing indifference to the gap between rich and poor. Political equalities matter more than ever, while economic inequality is accepted almost as a fact of life. It is the separation between economic and political that lies at the heart of this book.

Leseprobe

Which Equalities Matter?

Anne Phillips

Polity Press

Copyright © Anne Phillips 1999

The right of Anne Phillips to be identified as author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

First published in 1999 by Polity Press

in association with Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

Reprinted 2000

Reprinted 2004

Editorial office:

Polity Press

65 Bridge Street

Cambridge CB2 1UR, UK

Marketing and production:

Blackwell Publishers Ltd

108 Cowley Road

Oxford OX4 1JF, UK

Published in the USA by

Blackwell Publishers Inc.

350 Main Street

Maiden, MA 02148, USA

All rights reserved. Except for the quotation of short passages for the purposes of criticism and review, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher.

Except in the United States of America, this book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, re-sold, hired out, or otherwise circulated without the publisher’s prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser.

ISBN 0-7456-2108-2

ISBN 0-7456-2109-0 (pbk)

ISBN 978-0-7456-6828-4 (ebook)

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Phillips, Anne

Which equalities matter? / Anne Phillips

p. cm.

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 0-7456-2108-2 —ISBN 0-7456-2109-0 (pbk.)

1. Equality. 2. Income distribution. 3. Wealth. I. Title

JC575.P45 199999-16943339.2—dc21CIP

Typeset in 11 on 13pt Berling by Wearset, Boldon, Tyne and Wear.

Printed and bound in Great Britain by Marston Book Services Limited, Oxford

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Contents

Preface

1 Democracy and Equality

2 Taking Difference Seriously

3 Does Economic Equality Matter?

4 From Access to Recognition

5 Deliberation and the Republic

6 Equal Yet Unequal?

Notes

Bibliography

Index

Preface

I wrote this book in response to political and intellectual developments I saw occurring across a number of countries, but it will be apparent to British readers that it is also a more local reaction. The election in 1997 of an economically conservative but constitutionally radical Labour government posed the question of which equalities matter in a particularly stark way. It also put some of us on the defensive about whether to consider ourselves ‘old’ or ‘new’. The choice presented itself: to range oneself with the iconoclasts, with those who had shaken themselves free from the constraints of old labour thinking and had the openness of spirit to question its most foundational assumptions; or to reveal oneself as a backward-looking nostalgic, still seduced by false dreams of economic equality, still warming to the inefficient regimentation of the post-war welfare state. As someone whose political formation had been in feminist challenges to the masculinity of labourist traditions, I felt a curious sense of dislocation in rallying to defend earlier ideals of economic equality against the onslaught of the new. One aim of this book is to challenge the perversity of that either/or choice.

My thanks to David Held for suggesting I write a short, argumentative book just as my thoughts were turning this way, and for his insightful comments on the first draft. John Baker, Nancy Fraser, David Miller, Rosemary Pringle and Iris Young helped as much by their objections as by their support; while Brian Barry provided a characteristically robust reader’s report. I enjoyed generous sabbatical leave from London Guildhall University in 1997–8, and am particularly grateful to Iwan Morgan for arranging this.

Special thanks to Ciaran Driver for providing me (yet again) with a title; and to Declan and Mark (Anthony) for so thoughtfully pointing out my inconsistencies when it comes to equality between parents and children.

1

Democracy and Equality

Equality is now off the political agenda; nobody these days believes people can or should be made equal. This is true enough in one sense, very far from true in another. Economic equality has certainly fallen into disuse, tainted as it is by the failures of socialism, and made to seem hopelessly out of kilter with celebrations of diversity and choice. But if some aspects of equality have dropped out of fashion, others have come more prominently to the fore. Equality between the sexes is now considered such a defining characteristic of contemporary (Western) morality that journalists have begun worrying about the horrible effects this is having on the boys; racist classifications and hierarchies have been discredited, if not yet silenced; while the idea that democracies should respect and accommodate minority cultures and practices has come to be regarded as part of the meaning of equal citizenship in a multicultural world. Against this background, it would be absurd to say people have lost interest in equality. The more telling point is that in the weird mix of more with less equality, there has been a parting of the ways between political and economic concerns. It is the separation between these two that lies at the heart of this book.

The separation is particularly marked when you consider the high importance now attached to democracy, and the way that enthusiasm for political equality combines with complete lack of interest in its economic counterpart. One might, I suppose, see the explosion of interest in democracy as a matter more of prudence than of equality: people could be said to favour democratic forms of government, not because of any grand commitment to human equality, but simply because these are safer than the other alternatives. But even if prudential considerations loom large in the justifications for democracy, they have always combined with deeper assertions about equal worth. Democracy implies a rough equality between people in their influence on political affairs, and this expression of political equality rests on and reinforces profound notions about social equality. When Jeremy Bentham said that each should count for one and none for more than one, he did not mean this as a grand statement about human equality; but this deceptively simple dictum turned out to convey a daringly egalitarian ideal. Democracy is never just a system for organizing the election of governments. It also brings with it a strong conviction about the citizens being of intrinsically equal worth.

Set alongside the history of man’s inhumanity to man, this statement sounds a long way from what people actually believe, but as a principle regulating how societies should treat their citizens, it has achieved almost foundational status. We do not have to defend it by reference to divine injunction or by evidence that all humans are the same. Equality has become the default position, the principle to which we return when arguments for inequality have failed. Even the most vigorous defence of inequality typically starts from some statement of egalitarianism, employing equality before the law to defend the inequalities of private property, or equality of opportunity to defend inequalities in income and wealth. Where people continue to promote institutions premised on social inequality, they usually do so in terms that pretend the inequality away. Supporters of the British monarchy, for example, no longer claim that those of royal blood are ‘better’ than the rest. They talk, rather, of the monarchy as a protection against the vicissitudes of parliamentary politics, an important part of the national heritage, or more simply a tourist attraction and entertaining show. Arguments premised on social inequality no longer work. Few now care to defend inequality on non-egalitarian grounds.