Equality?

September 25, 2018 Sociocultural Issues No Comments

Everybody knows we live in a world of huge inequality. Indeed. But inequality in what? Where lies importance? Thus, in what should we strive for more equality?

In money?

Thus: in the currency that can be traded for any other ‘goods’: a car, a house, even a wife in (many men’s) imagination?

A strict focus on money would make an urge for ‘equality’ also a surge for objectified materialism. Even ‘the other wife’ becomes objectified, materialism-ated.

Is that OK to you?

Not to me. At one time, it struck me deeply when working as a doctor for less money-privileged patients. Then at times of election, huge numbers just voted for own money and against other people, principles, anything… Money makes the world go around till everything stops, doesn’t it.

So, striving for monetized equality?

Sure, with realistic moderation.

An already more to-the-point general currency: status.

In a world where money = status, the difference is not obvious. One ‘does it’ without thinking: the person with money can ‘boss around’ the person without. If this ‘bossing around’ is not done, it’s felt as a gift.

Which then again is OK! It’s nice to give and it’s nice to receive. A real gift is given wholeheartedly. It’s a person giving a piece of himself to another person.

A real gift is not a deal, in any way.

Equal-worthiness

In my view, equality should be about status indeed. Not the one that is money or -related status, but the one that is related to ‘human (end) value’. [see: ‘Being of Value’]

We all deserve that status, although this is obviously not easy to achieve in vivo… Best is to start giving it to yourself. Paradoxically, this is of course the only way to achieve real status and yet it’s also the ‘most difficult way’ unless one is in the game of self-deception.

Different people, different statuses

Again, so obvious.

And yet people massively turn the other way.

Deep down, we – probably naturally – manage status as for instance the thing needed for erotic success. It’s as if we (humans) just cannot help it. We need status to have a workable environment that looks more or less like the present.

Then, we could change environment.

In the future, we will, as we have done in the past.

Should we then strive for an environment prone to utmost equality?

Which equality?

Equal-worthiness would probably be most correct, but very fuzzy.

Or: we might ‘forget’ equality altogether. See where that leads to… In my view, we should then all the more strive for worthiness and happiness, such things, in which then again money and status may play their roles, not in an urge for equality but for end-result…

Eventually, people should be able to make their own self-worthiness

but they (we) definitely need a lot of support in this.

Leave a Reply

Related Posts

The Common Enemy is Not the Way to Unity

History repeatedly shows that some forms of unity are deceptive, offering only a fleeting alliance against a common enemy. This kind of unity, while powerful on the surface, fails to nurture the depth needed for true cohesion. True unity is not about rallying against something; it’s about coming together for something. Rather than focusing on Read the full article…

The Cultures Thing

Can people from different cultures sufficiently understand each other to contribute significantly to the intercultural exchange of profound communications? In other words, does planetarianism presently make a chance? If so, will it make the world a better place? Toward a certain future I believe that people from any culture can evolve in their capability of Read the full article…

No to Wokism, Yes to Gentleness

In another blog, I define wokism as woke fundamentalism, being an abuse of wokeness as a positive striving to fully respect and tolerate people of many different kinds. I am very woke, but not at all a wokist. Woke should be gentle. Without gentleness, woke tends to fall into the opposite, being intolerance. Woke is Read the full article…

Translate »