There is still no such social system in the world where a model of absolute social equality could be fully realized. From their very birth, people are not equal, and, in fact, this is not their fault. Someone has great talent, someone less, some are born in wealthy families, others in poor. From the point of view of philosophy, biology and religion, all people are equal, but in the real world, someone will always receive more, and someone less.
Social equality
By equality is meant the position of individuals, classes and groups in society, in which they all have equal access to material, cultural and social benefits.
In different historical eras, the principle of social equality was understood differently. For example, Plato considered the same privileges on the principle of “to each his own,” that is, equality should be in every estate, and this is normal if there are none between groups (castes) .
The Christian philosophy of Europe in the Middle Ages insisted that before God all people are equal, and the fact that everyone had at their disposal a different amount of goods did not play a special role. Such philosophical and ethical views that touched the problem of merit fully reflected the specifics of caste-class societies, and only in the philosophy of the Enlightenment did social equality begin to acquire a secular character.
New ideas
When a bourgeois society was created, progressive ideologists armed themselves with this thesis. They contrasted the feudal-class order with the concept of “freedom, equality and fraternity”. This provoked a real sensation. In particular, people began to look at the world differently. There was a real revolution in consciousness, now the public wanted everyone to value the merits and accordingly the benefits were distributed to them. As a result, the line between estates and classes becomes actual, not legal. People gain equal rights before the law.
After some time, the ideas of equality began to be expressed by the principle "to each according to his capital." Capital was the main condition for inequality, where people had different access to such things as money, prestige and power.
Socio-philosophical views
In the nineteenth century, researchers of social factors of society began to note that equality has an increasing dynamics if the level of industrial development rises. For example, Tocqueville in his book Democracy in America noted that the struggle for the same rights has been going on in Europe for 700 years and the achievement of political equality is the first phase of a democratic revolution. Tocqueville was the first to pay attention to such concepts as freedom and justice. He wrote that equality cannot be prevented, but ultimately no one knows where it will lead.
Two concepts
By the way, P. Sorokin recalled this idea in his works, he pointed out that the process of acquiring the same rights has been going on for two centuries, and on a global scale. And in the twentieth century, social equality began to be considered according to the formula "to each - according to the degree of his socially useful work."
As for the modern concepts of justice and equality, they can be conditionally divided into two areas:
- Concepts that support the thesis where inequality is considered a natural way of society to survive. That is, it is welcomed in every way, since it is considered constructive.
- Concepts that claim that equal access to benefits can be achieved if economic inequality is minimized through revolution.
Freedom, equality, justice
In theories of classical liberalism, the problems of freedom were inseparable from morality and the demands of equality. Morally, all people had the same rights and freedoms, that is, it can be said, were equal. Somewhat later, the relationship between freedom and equality became much more complicated. The compatibility of these concepts was still discussed, but the question of the ideas of social justice was raised. Social equality and freedom cannot be achieved because justice is a concept of honesty that leads to maximizing the minimum. According to J. Rawls people do not want to achieve equality, since it will be unproductive for them. Only due to the fact that it is necessary to carry out joint political actions, people share the fate of each other.
In many sociological and political concepts, the concepts of freedom and equality had a different relationship. For example, neoliberalists considered freedom to be more important than equal access to goods. In the concepts of Marxism, equality was the priority, not freedom. And the Social Democrats tried to find a balance, a middle ground between these concepts.
Implementation
The ideas of social equality in society were so valuable that no dictator had yet tried to claim that he was against it. Karl Marx said that for the realization of equality and freedoms, certain historical conditions are necessary. An economic exchange and its carriers (i.e. commodity producers) should appear on the market. If you look from the point of view of the economy, then the exchange establishes equality and, according to its content, implies freedom (in the specific economic aspect, it is the freedom to choose one or another product).
Marx was right in his own way, but if you look from the point of view of the social and political sciences, then, when absolute equality is established, class barriers will be completely eliminated. That is, the social structure will begin to change rapidly, new layers of the population will appear, and new inequality will arise.
The Social Democrats said that equality can only be possible if all people have the same start. Simply put, people from their very birth are in unequal social circumstances, and so that everyone is the same, society should strive to provide each of its members with the same conditions. This idea makes sense, although it is more like utopia.
Interpretation
The concept of social equality has three interpretations:
- Formal equality, which involves the adoption of the idea of justice as a minimum of benefits.
- Formal equality, which corrects the original inequality to equal opportunities.
- Distributive equality, in which the benefits are equally distributed.
Kindness and knowledge
In the history of Russia, the problem of social equality has acquired a moral and economic character. The community ideal formed at one time the idea of equality in poverty, since each person does not own property in exactly the same way. If in Europe it was believed that a person should have equal access to benefits, then in Russia advocated egalitarianism, which involves the averaging of the individual, that is, its dissolution in the team.
Back in 1917, Pitirim Sorokin sympathetically accepted the ideals of equality in society. He criticized Engels for his limited understanding of this concept and said that the idea of equal rights should be made factual. Sorokin suggested that in a society where everyone has the same opportunities, rights and social benefits should belong to all its participants. At the same time, he considered the benefits not only in the economic context. Sorokin believed that benefits are also accessible knowledge, politeness, tolerance, etc. In the work “Problems of Social Equality,” he asked readers: “Is knowledge and kindness worth less than economic benefits?” It’s impossible to argue with that, but looking at modern realities, it's hard to agree.
Considering the ideas of equality in the process of their formation, it cannot be said that this concept was a universal dream. In every era there were scientists who disputed this idea. However, there is nothing surprising here. There have always been romantics in the world who perceive what they wish for reality, and realists who understood that a person is greedy by nature and that he will never agree to equal conditions. Especially if there is an opportunity to get a piece more.