Egalitarianism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (November 2007)

Egalitarianism (derived from the French word égal, meaning equal or level) is a political doctrine that holds that all people should be treated as equals from birth. Generally it applies to being held equal under the law, the church, and society at large. In actual practice, one may be considered an egalitarian in most areas listed above, even if not subscribing to equality in every possible area of individual difference. For example, one might support equal rights in race matters but not in gender issues, or vice versa.

1 Christian egalitarian view
2 Other applications of egalitarianism
3 Opposing views
4 See also
5 References
6 External links

See also: Christian egalitarianism

The Christian egalitarian view holds that the Bible teaches the fundamental equality of men and women of all racial and ethnic groups, all economic classes, and all age groups, based on the teachings and example of Jesus Christ and the overarching principles of scripture. While Bible passages are subject to various interpretations, Christian egalitarians believe that:

there should be no gender distinction in roles of men and women in the function or leadership of the church, to include ordination of women, or in society in general
in marriage the wife and husband are created equal as female and male, but there is a biblically-prescribed hierarchy giving the husband authority over the wife (1 Corinthians 11:3, 1 Peter 3:1 KJV). Although the male is required to treat the female with much repect and equality (1 Peter 3:7 KJV).

Ultimately, Christian egalitarianism holds that all human people are equal in fundamental worth or moral status. A significant source of this trend of thought is the Christian notion that humankind were created in the living image of God (Imago Dei) and that God loves all human beings equally, regardless of their individual differences in gender, race, status, position, etc.^[1] Illustrative of efforts to institutionalize this notion are these excerpts from an organizational Statement of Faith:

We believe in the equality and essential dignity of men and women of all ethnicities, ages, and classes. We recognize that all persons are made in the image of God and are to reflect that image in the community of believers, in the home, and in society.
We believe that men and women are to diligently develop and use their God-given gifts for the good of the home, church and society.^[2]

Egalitarianism is a philosophy of considerable variety or diversity in the many ways it has been applied in society. Other common forms of egalitarianism include economic egalitarianism (also known as material egalitarianism), moral egalitarianism, legal egalitarianism, luck egalitarianism, political egalitarianism, gender egalitarianism, racial equality, and opportunity egalitarianism.

The United States Declaration of Independence includes a kind of moral and legal egalitarianism. Because "all men are created equal," each person is to be treated equally under the law. However, not until much later did U.S. society extend these benefits to slaves, women and other groups. Over time, universal egalitarianism has won wide adherence and is a core component of modern civil rights policies.

At a cultural level, egalitarian theories have developed in sophistication and acceptance during the past two hundred years. Among the notable broadly egalitarian philosophies are Socialism, Communism, Anarchism, and Human Rights, which promote economic, political, and legal egalitarianism, respectively. Several egalitarian ideas enjoy wide support among intellectuals and in the general populations of many countries. Whether any of these ideas have been significantly implemented in practice, however, remains a controversial question. For instance, some argue that modern representative democracy is a realization of political egalitarianism, while others believe that, in reality, most political power still resides in the hands of a ruling class, rather than in the hands of the people.

Different kinds of egalitarianism can sometimes conflict, while in other situations they may be indispensable to each other. For instance, communism is an egalitarian doctrine, according to which everyone is supposed to enjoy material equality^{[citation needed]}. However, because material inequality is pervasive in the current international economy, something must be done to remove it. Since those who enjoy the greatest material wealth are not likely to wish to part with it, some form of coercive mechanism must exist in the transition period before communism. But if the coercive powers of redistribution are vested in some people and not in others, a conflict of interest will take place, and inequalities of political power would emerge. History has shown, in the former Soviet Union for instance, that people who are granted coercive redistributive powers often abuse them. Indeed, those with political power were known to redistribute vastly unequal shares of material resources to themselves, thereby completely confounding the justification for their unequal political status. Therefore, most Marxists now agree that communism can only be achieved if the coercive powers of redistribution needed during the transitional period are vested in a democratic body whose powers are limited by various checks and balances, in order to prevent abuse. In other words, they argue that political egalitarianism is indispensable to material egalitarianism. Meanwhile, other defenders of material egalitarianism have rejected Marxist communism in favor of such views as libertarian socialism or anarchism, which do not necessarily advocate the transitional use of the state as a means of redistribution.

Typical anti-egalitarian views hold that egalitarianism is based primarily upon politically-correct foundations, and that egalitarian philosophies have some kind of negative impact, either on specific groups of individuals or on society as a whole. Anti-egalitarians theorize that genetic differences within the population justify the view that some people are naturally superior to others in some important way, and therefore egalitarianism is fallacious.^[3]

Various anti-egalitarian views have been brought forward, among others in the discussion on the distribution of income. For example, John Rawls argued that those who have least, should benefit most from changes in policy.

This entry is related to, but not included in the Political ideologies series or one of its sub-series. Other related articles can be found at the Politics Portal.