We live in a slice of history that is hyperfocused on the concept of “Equality.” Whether it is concerning the representation of women in the workforce, victimization of minorities in the US, linguistic rights of transsexuals, or the policing of Political Correctness or hate speech, it seems that the western world is trying a great deal to reach some form of equality.
This seems a fairly expected graduation from last century's fight for women's educational and professional rights, the civil rights transformations of the 70s, and the integration of gay marriage just this past decade. It seems quite reasonable that a society that has historically become more inclusive and balanced would become more specific (even “intersectional”) and attuned to the needs of all underrepresented peoples.
And so the term “Equality” is used a great deal today and the debate is diversifying amongst groups of all kinds. In the feminist domain, women's income discrepancies and representation at higher executive levels is seemingly a cause of of concern. In the academic world, percentages of race amongst the black, latino, and even asian communities are a constant tug-o-war. And although I believe that all of these conversations are critically vital, I want to push forward a real evaluation of what the word “Equality” means in the modern world and why we have to be ever more cautious as how we use the term.
This is because “Equality” is obviously a general ethos that we all want to achieve. We want everyone to be treated fairly regardless of their religion or ethnicity, we want everyone to have similar opportunities to succeed and self-actualization regardless of economic level, and we want everyone to be able to get to wherever they want to arrive in the future.
The tricky thing is though, is how we set that goalpost for what “Equality” looks like. This is paramountly important as 'rights' movements without a destination simply devolve into abstract ideologies and attitudes. The suffragists wanted the 19th amendment. Civil rights actors wanted desegregated institutions. Whether the change is physical, legal, educational, etc., the most important factor is to figure out what that social change looks like.
And so the current 'solution' that progressives implicitly lean on is proportionality – that representation in all things good and bad should be weighed against the percentages of the country. This isn't outright said by activists and mobilizers but it can be understood by their usage of terms like “underrepresented” or “overrepresented” when it comes to executive positions, law-firm employment, police brutality, prison sentencing, etc. When qualifications like 'over' and 'under' are used, we have to be clear that 'just right' line that has been arbitrarily been made is against the proportions of the population. For example, African Americans constitute about 12-13% of the American population. Thus, when black prison populations are much much higher than 13%, the word “overrepresented” is regularly used.
So now that we've established that proportionality is the tentative goal set by those who are fighting for 'equality' today, we have to ask ourselves whether that is actually a desirable outcome? Are the percentages laid out by numeric racial and gender demographics legitimate goals for an equal future? Will we be an inherently fairer and more equal society when 13% of college students are black, 5.6% of doctors are Asian, 0.3% of New York Times columnists are transgender, 2% of convicts are Native American, 50% of women are CEOs, 50% of women are oil-rig workers, and... well, you get the picture. Is it correct for us to societally strive for these proportions under the understanding of “equality?”
Seeing that even structuring the debate has taken quite some time and writing, I'll leave it at that cliffhanger until later this week. What do you think? Yes or no? What are your thoughts and concerns? I would love to get this debate going and sustained between various Steemians before even voicing my stance on it.
