IGNOU MPS 001 Political Theory — Unit 5: Equality (Complete Notes)

5.1 Introduction

Equality is among the most confusing and baffling concepts of social, economic, moral, and political philosophy because it figures in all other concepts — justice, liberty, rights, property, etc. Over two thousand years, Greeks, Stoics, and Christian fathers each stressed different aspects. Under the impact of liberalism and Marxism, equality acquired new connotations. Contemporary movements — feminism, environmentalism — continue to reshape its meaning.

Equality is essentially a modern and progressive value. The special feature of modern societies is that inequality is no longer taken for granted or assumed to be natural. Key markers of equality’s modern significance:

It is a measure of modernisation in the form of political egalitarianism.
Universal citizenship has become a central feature of all political ideologies in modern industrial democracies.
The principle of equality enunciated by the American and French Revolutions became the central plank of all modern forms of social change.
Equality can also serve as a criterion for radical social change and is related to the development of democratic politics.

5.2 Equality vs. Inequality

Equality is a relative concept — the demand for equality has always been directed against the prevailing inequalities of the times.

Historical examples of institutionalised inequality:

Ancient Greece (Aristotle, Politics): distinguished three social classes; noted differences between citizens and slaves, men and women in terms of rational and civic capacities; participation in the polis restricted to citizens only.
Hindu Society: society divided into four varnas (Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, Shudra); all rights and duties based on this classification.
Medieval feudalism: legal privileges based on status and birth.

Pre-18th century teachings argued men were naturally unequal and that a natural human hierarchy existed. Different ideologies justified inequality on grounds of superior race, ancestry, age, sex, religion, military strength, culture, wealth, and knowledge.

Turner: inequality is multi-dimensional — eliminating one aspect often exaggerates others. All human societies are characterised by inequalities of class, status, power, and gender.

5.2.1 Struggle for Equality

The doctrine of equality in western political ideas is practically as old as its opposite.

Key historical milestones:

Period	Demand/Development
Ancient Greece	Zeno (founder of the Stoic School): all human beings possess reason; all men are equal as men. Stoics — idea of universal brotherhood; opposed slavery
Roman Empire	Law of the People; citizenship conferred on individuals and communities; Edict of Emperor Caracalla (212 AD): citizenship of Rome conferred on all free inhabitants of the empire
Early Christianity	St. Paul to Galatians: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female, for ye are one in Jesus Christ”
5th–14th centuries	Demand for equality against serfdom, medieval gradations of rank, and hereditary nobility; equality of career opportunities in the church
15th–17th centuries	Against landowners’ status and religious intolerance — raised by Puritans, Levellers, doctrine of natural rights, and John Locke; Renaissance and Reformation demanded equality against legal privileges of clergy and nobility
17th–18th centuries	British Revolutions (1649, 1688); American Revolution (1776); French Revolution (1789) — “Men are born free and equal” — demand for juristic/legal equality
19th century	Economic and social dimensions of equality; demand raised by liberal socialists and Marxists — J.S. Mill, T.H. Green, Babeuf, Karl Marx; Reform Acts of 1832, 1876, 1884 (Britain) — steps toward political equality
20th century	National liberation movements; movements against apartheid; socialist revolutions in Russia, China, East Europe; Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) extended recognition of equality to third-world peoples

The demand for legal equality in the 17th–18th centuries was primarily raised by the rising bourgeois class — which had acquired wealth but lacked legal status and sought political and legal equality with the nobility.

5.3 What is Equality?

Equality is not identity of treatment or reward — men differ in wants, capacities, and needs. As Laski wrote, society’s purpose would be frustrated if the nature of a mathematician met with identical response to that of a bricklayer. Natural inequalities are inescapable. Injustice arises as much from treating unequals equally as from treating equals unequally. Apart from natural inequalities, socially created inequalities (based on birth, wealth, knowledge, religion) must be challenged.

Claims for equality have always been negative — denying the propriety of certain existing socio-economic inequalities. Equality is concrete only when particularised — out of context, it is an empty framework. The movement of history is not towards greater equality in an absolute sense; as one inequality is discarded (as unjustifiable), another (seemingly reasonable) is created. Equality constantly erodes the foundations of every status quo.

Negative and positive aspects (like liberty):

Negatively: equality = the end of feudal, social, and economic privileges.
Positively: equality = availability of opportunity for everyone to develop their personality.

Laski’s meaning of equality:

Absence of special privileges — the will of one is equal to the will of any other; equality of rights.
Adequate opportunities laid open to all — especially through equal education, since disparities in education produce disparities in the ability to use knowledge.
All must have access to social benefits; inequalities by birth, parentage, or hereditary causes are unreasonable.
Absence of economic and social exploitation.

Barker: equality is a derivative value — derivative from the supreme value of the development of personality. “The principle of equality means that whatever conditions are guaranteed to me in the form of rights shall also and in the same measure be guaranteed to others.”

Raphael: “The right to equality proper is a right to the equal satisfaction of basic human needs, including the need to develop and use capacities which are specifically human.”

E.F. Carritt: “Equality is just to treat men as equal until some reason other than preference such as need, capacity or desert has been shown to the contrary.”

Bryan Turner (Equality) — four dimensions of equality relevant to the contemporary world:

Type	Meaning
Equality of persons	Fundamental equality — “all equal in the eyes of God”; human dignity, personality, soul. Found in Marxism’s concept of “human essence” (all humans as knowledgeable, conscious, practical agents). Supported by thinkers like R.H. Tawney who combined socialism and Christianity
Equality of opportunity	Access to important social institutions open to all on universalistic grounds — by achievement and talent, not age, sex, wealth, caste, religion. Basis of meritocracy
Equality of conditions	Ensures that the starting point for achievement is equal — necessary for equality of opportunity to have real content. Where parents pass advantages to children, working-class children start with inherited disadvantages
Equality of results/outcome	Most radical — through legislation and political means, equalities of results are achieved regardless of starting point or natural ability. Positive discrimination programmes (scheduled castes, tribes, women, disabled, etc.) are examples

Historically: liberal democratic tradition favours equality of opportunity and conditions; socialist policies have aimed at equality of outcome.

5.4 Dimensions of Equality

Equality is multi-dimensional. Different dimensions were not demanded simultaneously or with the same intensity. Liberalism emphasised legal-political equality; socialists preferred socio-economic equality.

5.4.1 Legal Equality

Classical liberalism held that equal distribution of opportunities required only equal allocation of basic rights of life, liberty, and property. Legal equality means two things: Rule of Law and Equality Before Law.

(a) Equality Before Law: “equal subjection of all classes to the ordinary law of the land administered by the ordinary law courts” — “the like should be treated alike.” The law makes no distinction between rich and poor, feudal lord or peasant, capitalist or worker. Also implies equality in the actual administration of laws — judges must be free from political pressure and corruption.

(b) Equal Protection of Law: equality before law does not mean absolute equality. On grounds of reasonable circumstances, rational discriminations can be made — “equal laws for equals and unequal laws for unequals.” Example: Indian Constitution accepts rational discriminations like reservation of seats and concessions to students, while not recognising distinctions based on birth, caste, creed, or religion.

J.R. Lucas: equality before law means the law will be within reach of everybody — nobody too small to take its shelter, nobody too great to be unaccountable to it.

Limitation: legal equality becomes meaningless without equal opportunities to get justice. All may have equal rights, but not equal power to vindicate them — vindicating rights demands expenditure which not all can meet. In practice, inequality still prevails in the operation of courts, though being reduced by reforms.

5.4.2 Political Equality

Historically, humanity has lived under regimes of inequalities and privileges. Bases of political inequality have included: knowledge (Plato), religion and God (monarchy), birth (aristocracy), money (plutocracy), colour (South Africa), race (Hitler), elite (Pareto, Mosca).

Political equality = associated with democratic institutions and the right to participate in the political process. Summarised in “one-man-one-vote” — expressed in the right to vote, right to stand for elections, to hold public office, with no distinction based on caste, colour, sex, religion, or language.

Laski: political equality means the authority which exerts power must be subject to rules of democratic governance.

Limitation: real political power in modern times vests in bureaucracy, police, and army over which people have no direct control. Political power and political equality are distinct categories. The merit of political equality lies in recognising that if men are equal before law, there should be equality regarding the right to governance.

5.4.3 Economic Equality

20th century saw sharpened concern for economic equality. Equality of opportunity cannot be achieved by equality of law alone — as the famous phrase implies, a law that forbids both the rich and the poor alike to steal bread or sleep under bridges is not genuine equality.

Equality of opportunity requires not only equal legal rights but also equality in the satisfaction of certain basic needs — privileges for the economically underprivileged.

Tawney: “Equality of opportunity is not simply a matter of legal equality. Its evidence depends not merely on the absence of disabilities, but the presence of abilities.”

Rousseau on economic equality: not that power and riches should be absolutely identical for all, but “no citizen be wealthy enough to buy another and none poor enough to be forced to sell himself.” Social legislation must compensate the poor — minimum wages, tax exemption, unemployment benefits, free schooling, scholarships.

Laski: economic equality is largely a problem of proportion — things without which life is meaningless must be accessible to all. It is twofold: (i) a matter of status (industrial partnership of equals), and (ii) a matter of property and income (correcting inequality in distribution).

Liberal sociologists (Dahrendorf, Raymond Aron, Lipset): through welfare services and progressive taxation, the state has lessened economic disparity. Galbraith declared economic inequality has ceased to be an issue in Western democracies.

Liberal socialists disagree: permanent ownership of capital resources and the disparity between rich and poor continues — state action “only touches the fringe of the problem.”

5.4.4 Social Equality

Social equality = equality of opportunity for every individual to develop personality; abolition of all discrimination based on caste, creed, religion, language, race, sex, and education.

Equality of races: denies that any class (Negroes, Blacks in South Africa, Jews, etc.) is inferior to any other. Inferiority involves: (i) refusal to extend equal consideration; (ii) use of dubious biological evidence to assert racial superiority.

Equality of sexes: despite physical/psychological differences, no evidence that women are generally inferior in intelligence, business capacity, or soundness of judgement. Admitted differences do not support discrimination in voting rights, entry to professions, education, or remuneration. “Equal pay for equal work” is the operative principle. Emancipation of women must express itself not only in law and economics but also in changes in conventional marital relations.

Educational equality: social equality depends on equal access to educational institutions. In practice, education in liberal countries is heavily organised along class lines — elite schools serve the affluent; state elementary schools remain poorly resourced (unhealthy buildings, lack of libraries, laboratory facilities, shortage of books, unqualified teachers). Equality of educational opportunity remains largely a paper realisation.

5.5 Relation of Equality with Liberty and Justice

5.5.1 Liberty and Equality as Opposed to Each Other

Early/negative liberalism (Locke, Adam Smith, Bentham, James Mill, Tocqueville, Lord Acton) held liberty and equality to be antithetical:

Locke did not include equality in the list of three natural rights.
Liberalism was based on free market and open competition among egoistic rational individuals — unequal outcomes of economic competition were seen as benevolent and progressive.
Liberty is individual; equality requires social intervention. Any programme to remove inequality must interfere with individual freedom and democratic rights.
Liberty, choice, and money were closely related — coercing the wealthy to part with their wealth was a double encroachment on their freedom.

20th century supporters (Bagehot, May, Stephen, Hayek, Milton Friedman, Mosca, Pareto): a political programme for equality of conditions or outcomes would require massive state regulation, resulting in a totalitarian regime.

Hayek: “From the fact that people are very different, it follows that if we treat them equally, the result must be inequality in their actual position and that the only way to place them in an equal position would be to treat them differently. The equality before law which freedom requires leads to material inequality.”

Elite theorists (Pareto, Mosca): people are politically unequal; to save democracy and liberty from mob rule, only elites should participate in the political process — inequality, not equality, is the basis of liberty.

Summary of this position: liberty and equality are incompatible; equality is desirable only before law; political equality should be limited to the right to vote; social and economic equality, in so far as it increases state powers, is a threat to liberty.

5.5.2 Equality and Liberty as Complementary to Each Other

Supporters: Rousseau, Maitland, T.H. Green, Hobhouse, Lindsay, R.H. Tawney, Barker, Laski, Macpherson.

Positive liberalism saw the individual as a social being whose desires could be satisfied in a cooperative social environment. Liberty was reinterpreted as equality of opportunity — deliberate social restraints on individual freedom are necessary to provide such opportunity.

Tawney: “The liberty of the weak depends upon the restraint of the strong and that of the poor upon the restraint of the rich.” Also: “A large measure of equality, far from being inimical to liberty, is essential to it. A society which permits gross inequalities cannot secure political or civil liberty. Where there are rich and poor, educated and uneducated, we find masters and servants.”

Laski: Without economic satisfaction, liberty cannot be realised. “An interest in liberty begins when men have ceased to be overwhelmed by the problem of sheer existence.” Equality is the true basis of liberty — gross inequalities thwart liberty.

Hobhouse: the state has been driven by experience that liberty without equality is “a name of noble sound and squalid results.” Welfare legislation is not an infringement of liberty and equality but a necessary means of their fulfilment.

Dean: “Liberty and equality are not in conflict or even separate but are different facets of the same ideal.”

Gans: “There is no inherent conflict between liberty and equality.”

Important qualification: even positive liberalism ultimately prefers liberty to equality. Barker writes that liberty matters more than equality because it is more closely connected with the supreme value of personality and its spontaneous development, and because liberty unites men while equality, exclusively pressed, may produce jealousy and division. Equality pressed to the point of uniformity defeats its own purpose.

5.5.3 Equality and Justice

With the advent of socio-economic equality, the struggle against prevailing inequalities became a central element of justice. Equality is today invoked by every theory of justice. Justice demands equality of opportunity, equality of treatment, uniform distribution of goods, one-man one-vote.

John Rawls (A Theory of Justice, 1971) — attempted to reconcile liberal theories of rights and liberties with social egalitarian conceptions. A just society involves:

Maximisation of equal basic liberties — the liberty of one person should not conflict with the liberty of others.
Social and economic inequalities should be so arranged that:
- (i) they contribute to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged in society; and
- (ii) offices and positions should be open to all under conditions of equality of opportunity.

Rawls’s general concept of justice: all essential social goods should be distributed equally, unless unequal distribution would advantage the least favoured members. Inequality above the income median is socially desirable from the standpoint of justice only when it helps reduce inequalities below the median. Rawls does not rule out inequalities altogether — they may serve as incentives creating a greater stock of goods for distribution.

At a more abstract level, justice demands that government treat citizens with equal consideration and respect — “each person matters equally.” Dworkin: “every plausible political theory has the same ultimate value, which is equality.” Kymlicka: this basic notion of equality underlies both Nozick’s libertarianism (equal rights over one’s labour and property) and Marx’s communism (equality of income and wealth).

5.6 Towards Equality

Positive attempts to eradicate inequality are undermined by the paradoxical relationship between personal liberty and social equality. Key distinction: equality of opportunity vs. equality of conditions vs. equality of results. Most democratic societies have achieved equality of opportunity and, to an extent, equality of conditions — but not equality of results.

Citizenship rights (first developed in Europe) promoted equality of opportunity:

Legal citizenship: freed individuals from arbitrary legal constraints; opened professions and public administration on the basis of educational qualifications.
Political citizenship: right to participate in government.
Social citizenship: attempted to reform capitalism through legislation — universal provision for basic education, health, and social security.

Bryan Turner: calls the modern system a “hyphenated system” — combines progressive expansion of egalitarian citizenship rights with continuity of inequalities in class, status, and power.

Gellner identifies additional processes in modern industrial societies promoting egalitarianism:

High degree of social mobility making enforcement of traditional rank difficult.
Movement of youth from villages to cities — decline of parental authority.
Involvement of women in the workforce — weakened patriarchal authority; rise of the nuclear family.
Mass media and consumerism — produced a leisure society where traditional cultural inequalities declined.
Mass transport and railways — removed immobility, provincialism, and isolation of traditional social classes.

Conclusion on trends towards equality: (i) a sense of justice appears to be a necessary feature of all social relations — inequality is on the defensive; (ii) democratic politics is a set of institutions enabling people to achieve desired goals; (iii) social groups and movements (working class, feminist movements) successfully mobilise to achieve substantive social rights.

5.7 Plea for Inequality in the Contemporary World

Inequality is still legitimised by various ideological systems:

Religious justifications: most major religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Christianity, Islam) grounded in notions of inequality — special knowledge transmitted to cultural elites; slavery accepted in Christianity and Islam. Hinduism justified the varna system.
Social Darwinism: with secularisation, religious inequality was replaced by racial and economic inequality justified as “survival of the fittest” — an application of evolution and natural selection to human society. Legitimised competitive capitalism and white racial superiority. Found its extreme form in fascist theories of racial purification and extermination.
Classical political economy and utilitarianism: associated with possessive individualism, achievement, and initiative. Locke — right to unequal possessions. Adam Smith — model of the market assumed three social classes (capital owners/profits, landowners/rents, working class/wages), providing the basis for free market explanations of income inequality. Revived in modern period by Milton Friedman and F.A. Hayek in the form of libertarianism.

Common arguments against equality:

Different components of equality are mutually incompatible — equality of opportunity in a competitive society is bound to produce inequality of results.
Radical equality of conditions or outcome requires massive state regulation — totalitarian and authoritarian regime.
Achievement of equality may be incompatible with liberty and other desirable values.
Functional theory of stratification: some social positions requiring special skills must carry differential rewards to incentivise training and sacrifice — social stratification is positively functional for the continuity of society.
Low pay and poverty ensure “dirty work” is accomplished; stigmatisation of the poor forces people to work and contribute to general productivity.
Inequalities of wealth subsidise the living standards of upper and middle classes; the lower-paid subsidise the public sector disproportionately through taxes.
Talcott Parsons and Kingsley Davis (American sociologists): inequality is a necessary condition of all social organisation; social differentiation and stratification are essential to social structures.

5.8 Marxist Concept of Equality

In Marxist-Leninist philosophy, equality = abolition of classes and equal social status for all.

Marx: “We want to abolish classes and in this sense we are for equality.” The aim is not levelling but enhancement and differentiation of personal needs — collectivising the means of production and material incentives would develop productive forces until every human need is satisfied.

Engels: the demand for equality has been either a spontaneous reaction against social inequalities (rich/poor, feudal lords/serfs, slaves/masters) or a reaction against the bourgeois demand for equality — in both cases, it is a demand for the abolition of classes.

Lenin: only the abolition of classes will achieve social equality and promote the all-round development of human personality.

For the proletariat, equality means: (i) abolition of private ownership of means of production, (ii) end of human exploitation, (iii) elimination of classes, (iv) eradication of all political and cultural discrimination against the proletariat. Socialisation of the means of production must precede universal obligation to work and equality of pay regardless of age, sex, or nationality (though wages may vary by quality and quantity of work).

Marx explicitly rejected equality of physical and mental capacities — the aim is not uniformity but development. Principle: “from each according to his ability, to each according to his work” (socialism) → ultimately, “from each according to ability, to each according to need” (communism).

Post-Revolution (USSR):

Lenin (Dictatorship of the Proletariat phase): some social inequalities persist due to inadequate material production and survival of differences between mental/physical labour and town/country. Political inequality operates against former exploiting classes — no democracy or rights for them.
Stalin: after collectivisation, claimed economic antithesis between industrial workers and peasants was decreasing; classes still existed but tending toward harmony prior to a classless society. However, Rosa Luxemburg criticised the absence of equality for non-conformists and the potential opposition.
Soviet Constitution established equality of rights in all spheres — economic, cultural, social, and political. Early policies: virtually equal remuneration, equal rations, abolition of ranks and titles.
With industrialisation, demand for skilled labour created a new intelligentsia — scientists, artists, senior party functionaries were paid 20–30 times more than ordinary workers. By the late 1930s, a highly differentiated class structure had emerged.
Later corrections: raised minimum wages, uniform wage fixing, socialised means of production, welfare services (free medical care, crèches), free education (tuition fees abolished in 1956).
Political field: the system remained centralised and authoritarian; the Politburo of the CPSU controlled means of production, distribution, ideological policy, and public opinion through strict control of press, radio, and television — preventing masses from becoming aware of prevailing inequalities.

Conclusion: invoking equality while in practice justifying inequality through dictatorship of the proletariat or authoritarian rule is out of keeping with the normal trend of industrial society — compelling a questioning of the principle of economic and social equality as propounded by Marxism and practised in the former communist states.

5.9 Summary (Key Takeaways)

Equality is a modern and progressive value; relative in nature — meaningful only in the context of prevailing inequalities.
Laski: equality = absence of hereditary privileges + availability of opportunities + universal access to socio-economic benefits. Bryan Turner: adds equality of conditions and equality of outcome.
Liberalism fought for legal equality (rule of law, equality before law); democracy added political equality (one-man-one-vote); socialists drew attention to socio-economic equality.
Early negative liberalism (Locke, Tocqueville, Hayek): liberty and equality are opposed — equality threatens liberty. Positive liberalism (Green, Tawney, Laski): liberty and equality are complementary — but even positive liberalism ultimately prefers liberty.
Rawls: justified inequalities are those that benefit the least advantaged in society.
Marxism: equality = abolition of classes and private ownership of means of production; in practice, communist regimes did not achieve full equality.
Despite massive inequalities in wealth, power, and prestige, trends in modern societies — citizenship rights, welfare state, social mobility, mass media — promote greater egalitarianism. The debate over equality must remain an unending one — every resolution a beginning for a new one.