The Stone is a forum for contemporary philosophers and other thinkers on issues both timely and timeless.
This
interview, the third in a series on political topics, discusses
philosophical ideas that underlie recent debates about inequality. My
interviewee is Elizabeth Anderson, a professor of philosophy and women’s
studies at the University of Michigan. She is the author of “The
Imperative of Integration.” — Gary Gutting
GARY GUTTING:
Public policy debates, particularly about economic issues, are often
about how to treat people fairly. You argue for “democratic equality,”
which says that treating people fairly requires treating them as equals.
What do you mean by equality?
ELIZABETH ANDERSON:
Talk about equality gets off on the wrong foot if we start from the
assumption that it expresses an immediate moral demand to treat everyone
the same. Of course, there are thousands of legitimate reasons why
people may treat different individuals differently. What egalitarianism
objects to are social hierarchies that unjustly put different people
into superior and inferior positions.
To argue that taxes on income and wealth limit the freedom wealthy people is like opposing stoplights on the grounds that they limit the freedom of movement of people in cars at red lights.
G.G.: Let’s get specific. What do you see as unequal treatments that are unjust?
E.A.:
Of course, there are standard cases of discrimination on the basis of
antipathy against, or favoritism towards, arbitrary identity groups —
such as race, gender and sexual orientation. But I want to stress the
many ways in which unjust social hierarchy is manifested in other ways
besides direct discrimination or formally differential treatment. The
discrimination/differential treatment idea captures only a small part of
what counts as unjust inequality.
On this broader view
of unjust inequality, we can see three different types of social
hierarchy at work. One is inequalities of standing, which weigh the
interests of members of some groups more heavily than others. For
example, perhaps out of negligence, a courthouse or hotel may lack
elevators and ramps for people in wheelchairs. A law firm may promote a
culture of off-hours socializing over drinks between partners and
associates that excludes women who need to spend time with their
children from opportunities for networking and promotion. As Anatole
France noted, “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as
well as the poor to sleep under bridges.”
Another type of social
hierarchy is inequalities of power: when some groups exercise
arbitrary, unaccountable power over subordinates, and can order them
around or harass and abuse them, without subordinates’ having a voice in
how they are treated. Traditional hierarchies, as of masters over
slaves, landlords over serfs, and dictators over subjects, are of this
sort. In many cases, the contemporary boss/employee relation also fits
this mold, for particularly tyrannical bosses and for workers in menial
occupations, such as crop-picking, slaughterhouse work and domestic
service.
Third is inequalities
of esteem: when some groups stigmatize, insult or demean others and
monopolize honorable status to themselves. A lot of the unjust
inequality suffered by L.B.G.T people, people with disabilities,
immigrants, the poor and the mentally ill works through demeaning and
even demonizing representations of who they are.
