There is still no social structure in the world where the model of absolute social equality could be fully realized. From their very birth, people are not equal, and this, in fact, is not their fault. Someone has a great talent, someone less, some are born in rich families, others in poor ones. From the point of view of philosophy, biology and religion, all people are equal, but in the real world, someone will always get more, and someone less.
Social equity
Equality means the position of individuals, classes and groups in society, in which they all have the same access to material, cultural and social benefits.
In different historical epochs the principle of social equality was understood differently. For example, Plato considered the same privileges according to the principle “to each his own”, that is, equality should be in every estate, and this is a normal phenomenon ifbetween groups (castes) it does not exist.
The Christian philosophy of Europe in the Middle Ages insisted that before God all people are equal, and the fact that everyone had a different amount of goods at his disposal did not play a special role. Such philosophical and ethical views that touched on the problem of merit fully reflected the specifics of class-caste 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 opposed the feudal estate order with the concept of "freedom, equality and brotherhood". This provoked a real sensation. In particular, people began to look at the world differently. There was a real revolution of consciousness, now the public wanted to evaluate the merits of everyone and, accordingly, benefits were distributed to them. As a result, the line between estates and classes becomes factual, not legal. People acquire the same 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 things like money, prestige and power.
Socio-philosophical views
In the 19th century, researchers of the social factors of society began to note that equality has an increase in 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 the democratic revolution. Tocqueville was the first to draw attention to such concepts as freedom and justice. He wrote that equality could not be prevented, but ultimately no one knew where it would 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 modern concepts of justice and equality, they can be conditionally divided into two areas:
- Concepts that support the thesis that inequality is considered the natural way of society's survival. That is, it is strongly welcomed, as it is considered constructive.
- Concepts that claim equal access to benefits can be achieved by minimizing economic inequality through revolution.
Freedom, equality, justice
In the theories of classical liberalism, the problems of freedom were inseparable from morality and the demands of equality. In moral terms, all people had the same rights and freedoms, that is, one might say, they were equal. Somewhat later, the relationship between freedom and equality became much more difficult to interpret. Still talking about compatibilitythese concepts, however, the question of the ideas of social justice was raised. Social equality and freedom cannot be achieved because justice is a concept of fairness that leads to the maximization of the minimum. According to J. Rawls, people do not want to achieve equality, since it will be unproductive for them. Just because they have 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 correlation. For example, neoliberalists considered freedom more important than equal access to goods. In the concepts of Marxism, equality was a priority, not freedom. And the Social Democrats tried to find a balance, a golden mean between these concepts.
Implementation
The ideas of social equality in society were so valuable that no dictator has ever tried to say that he was against it. Karl Marx said that certain historical conditions are necessary for the realization of equality and freedom. Economic exchange and its carriers (that is, commodity producers) should appear on the market. From the point of view of the economy, the exchange establishes equality and, according to its content, implies freedom (in a specific economic aspect, this 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 social and political sciences, when absolute equality is established, estates will be completely eliminatedpartitions. That is, the social structure will begin to change rapidly, new strata of the population will begin to appear, and new inequality will arise.
The Social Democrats said that equality could only be possible if all people had the same start. Simply put, people from their very birth are in unequal social circumstances, and in order for everyone to be the same, society must strive to provide each of its members with the same conditions. This idea makes sense, although it looks more like a utopia.
Interpretation
The concept of social equality has three interpretations:
- Formal equality, which implies the acceptance of the idea of justice as a minimum of goods.
- Formal equality, which adjusts the original inequality to equal opportunities.
- Distributive equality, in which 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 communal ideal at one time formed the idea of equality in poverty, since each person does not own property to the same extent. If in Europe it was believed that a person should have the same access to benefits, then in Russia equalization was preached, involving the averaging of the individual, that is, its dissolution in the team.
Even in 1917, Pitirim Sorokin sympathetically perceived the idealsequality in society. He criticized Engels for his limited understanding of this concept and said that the idea of equality should be made factual. Sorokin assumed 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 the benefits are also accessible knowledge, politeness, tolerance, etc. In his work “Problems of Social Equality,” he asked readers: “Are knowledge and kindness worth less than economic benefits?” It is impossible to argue with this, but, looking at modern realities, it is difficult 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 have been scholars who have challenged this idea. However, there is nothing surprising here. There have always been romantics in the world who perceive wishful thinking, and realists who understood that a person is by nature greedy and he will never agree to equal conditions. Especially if there is an opportunity to get a piece more.
