Part I: Cain’s sin
A wise farmer once said: "This is how we all will be like, when the socialists have had their way with us", looking at the field, after all the crops had been cut down.
Traditionally, socialists have seen themselves as the front fighters for egalitarian and levelling world views, and Socialism is the political ideology most associated with this concept, at least on paper. But we trace its roots even further back, through the philosophy of Jean-Jacques Rosseau as an example, anarchist ideas, the French Revolution and in some facets of the theories of modern democracy. It is, however, crucial to be aware of what kind of egalitarian set of ideas we are talking about. That is the goal of this article, to look at problems with this concept and examine how and why it has gone sour.
But what is so wrong with modern Egalitarianism? Why is it problematic? For a starter: It’s unnatural. Only the most basic conditions and ingredients in nature have anything approximately “egalitarian” to it. The basic building blocks of life, atoms, cell structures, the inability of life to thrive in open space outside the planetary life sphere on Earth, the basic need for breathable air and oxygen for mammals, water for fish and so on. Beside the basic conditions, the Outcome and variety is almost endlessly rich.
We observe this kind of “original equality” in Christian theology too, we are all God’s creatures, and will all have to stand before Him on the Final Day, high and low, kings and servants, and all in between. He has given us the objective starting point. But we, ourselves, have to take it from there on. Christian ethics have a lot to say, too, of what happens thereafter, how we deal with the unfolding of life and so forth. As we observe an almost infinite variety in Creation, in nature, we also see huge varieties in human existence, both for the good and also for bad.
This is modern Egalitarianism’s massive problem: It cannot accept all the variations of outcomes. And its non-compliance bursts out into a recreation of social and cultural relations, norms and habits, and subsequently outlawing of traditional ways of social and cultural behaviour, both in public and in private arenas. It constitutes a revolutionary form of social constructivism, where ”equal rights” now means the right to equal outcomes. Any recognition of the equality of outset, of origins, or firsthand creational offset, of an original position (to borrow a phrase from political philosophy) is considered outlandish, non-essential and even problematic. This is especially true if the concern for originality, or equal opportunities, is ranked higher than a demand for equal distribution of outcomes.
Let’s take a closer look at what “Egalitarianism” means. The English philosopher Sir Roger Scruton, specializing in political philosophy, defines “Egalitarianism” as follows:
“Egalitarianism. A somewhat vague term, best taken to denote the belief that people are or ought to be equal in at least some, possibly every, respect relevant to political decision-making. Specifically, the belief that there are no relevant differences whereby one person can be supposed to have a greater inherent right to some benefit than another. From that it is sometimes held to follow that an unequal distribution of benefits is either unjust, since it distinguishes people on grounds which do not determine their rights, or else inherently in need of justification.
(...) It might then seem as though the logical consequence of egalitarianism is some kind of genetic engineering, in which it is ensured that everyone has his own regulation measure of beauty, intelligence, and innate capacity for well-being. The description of this state of affairs in Aldous Huxleys’s Brave New World normally evokes revulsion, even among the most hardened egalitarians. It therefore seems that egalitarianism stands in need of a procedure for determining which benefits are to be attributed to humans as their responsibility, and which to be withheld as part of the sacred reserve of ‘nature’.
Much modern egalitarianism seems to stem not from universalist doctrines about rights so much as a nihilistic disbelief in them. If there are no rights, no obligations, no values, but only subjective preferences, then no one has the right to anything. From which it follows that no one has the right to any more of anything else than anybody else.
(...) Opponents of egalitarianism might reject any of [this]. Commonly they argue that distribution can be made equal only by violating natural rights of ownership; alternatively, that utility, or human fulfillment, requires an element of struggle, competition, success and failure in the pursuit of all goods, and a background of accepted disabilities from which to embark on this struggle.“
(Sir Roger Scruton, A Dictionary of Political Thought, p. 141-2, The Macmillan Press, London 1983. Find this title on Amazon:https://www.amazon.com/Dictionary-Political-Thought-Roger-Scruton/dp/0330280996)
A key feature in Sir Roger Scruton’s explanation here, is the necessity for “human fulfillment, [to require] an element of struggle, competition, success and failure in the pursuit of all goods“. Does this highlight one of the main problems with modern Egalitarianism? Does struggles and competitions „trigger“ (to use an modern expression, popular in certain circles these days) certain sentiments of antipathy and hostility towards nature, God and natural variations and variating outcomes, resulting from the outset of a position of equal opportunities?
The Biblical story of Cain and Abel in Genesis (Gen. 4:1-9 ) tells us about one of the main roots and consequences of an egalitarian mindset. It is spawned by envy. Envy and anger of variating end-results, and a blind determination to “fix” the outcome, no matter what. “To fix it”, levllingthe world, becomes the primary objective. It triumphs everything else, even life and death. Abel’s offerings reached all the way, the smoke from his alter rose into the sky and was received by the Lord, whereas Cain´s didn´t make it. The story doesn´t tell us why, just that this was the outcome and Abel was slain because of it. Today, in the modern world, the state would have interfered in the name of this envious Egalitarianism and ordered sky-high chimneys to be built, and legislated on what amount of divine acceptance would be achieved at various levels. No independent alter places that might facilitate and show variating levels of divine approval, must be allowed in a stately regulated officialcultus. Or they will just ban all worship, as Communist and Socialist regimes most often do, in fact, or want to do. Religious syncretism, or the abolishment of worship altogether, is the logical consequence of this sort of Egalitarianism.
Instead of improving Cain’s attempts to please the Lord, making an effort to figure out why it didn´t succeed, and to seek ways of bettering his offerings, the main focus and main objective becomes the difference itself. The problem of differentiation becomes the sole issue. Trying to understand why and to implement ways of improvement and betterment to the failed enterprise, is of no concern. Everything must look the same. No matter what, why, and what the specific backgrounds might be to the failure.
Jumping all the way forward to modern times, we have the former US President Obama’s greatest achievement and legacy, the levelling of toilet rules, meaning essentially to dissolve gender differences and to implement so-called gender Egalitarianism by state regulations and enforcement. But this is more than just gender and “orientation” equaling, it is the abolishment of human genders altogether, that is at play here, manifested in Obama´s lavatorian legacy. Gender Egalitarianism, as with all other sorts of egalitarian enterprises, demands that humans are to be defined, socialized and regulated as abstract and empty entities, as being void containers to be filled with whatever the latest prescribed and politically correct meanings and identifications might be. Meanings constructed ad hoc by the state or dominating trends, media, cultural elites, entertainment pop icons, or even in many cases, individual lunacy and devious antisocial disorders. Adherence to “originality” (male and female, in this context) is considered unjust, un-equal and unfair. The right to choose what kind of outcome you might think you deserve, or choose to identify with, whatever the origin of your own being, is more important to uphold, than whatever anyone has ever said or what traditions in society has developed or laws in this regard has been decided upon.
Sir Roger Scruton’s scary prophecy of genetic engineering, in the quotation above, seems to have come true, at least with regard to the engineering part of it. People are apparently willing to undergo the most ingenious surgeries and physical alterations of their appearances and gender related attributes, in order to pursue their perceived rights to an identified orientation on the terms of some equal outcome. And it relates no longer just to gender shifts. To deny them such alterations and engineering possibilities, would be regarded as unjust and un-equal treatment of their perceived orientation, and most certainly also a breach of their human rights, they would say. And criticism of these practices, and lifestyles, is deemed totally un-acceptable too. Lawsuits, fines, loss of jobs, reputation and livelihood can easily be the consequences of such criticism (for further reading on the muffling and suppression of free speech and thought, see my article here:They don't care much about freedom anymore). However, it doesn’t stop there. It is a small step from there on to plan, implement and treat humans genetically for gender, race and so-called “orientational” issues during and before fetal stages, as the technology and biological know-how progresses. At least the willingness, lack of moral and ethical barriers and “positive” recognition of the perceived needs, are at hand and ready to be satisfied. The race hygienical, medical staff of the Third Reich would have been very happy in this kind ofZeitgeist.
From Cain’s sin of envy and murder, to the modern physical, gender and identification related self-mutilations, social constructivism and persecution of dissenters to this “new morality”, goes a straight line of rebellion. A rebellion against nature and against God. Being equals, as creations of God to enjoy equal opportunities as far-reaching as society can possible accommodate for everyone, must be forgone and even be swept away in the demand for equal rights to self-perceived and ad hoc outcomes, be it in social, cultural, economical or individual arenas. Egalitarianism, therefore, cannot be seen otherwise than as a reaction to, reflection of, or rebellion against something else, something that is already there and regarded as a pre-existing condition. It cannot find its own justification, and must always mirror itself to others or its own surroundings, hence it’s envious, Cainian, sinful nature.
Welcome to this mini-series on Egalitarianism where I will explore various aspects of this rather complex, intriguing and often confusing concept. This is foremost a critical investigation of the various problems that we encounter with Egalitarianism, to uncover and examine its roots and what can be said to be its logical mechanisms, and consequences, for human life and society.
Coming soon:Why is modern Egalitarianism so messed up?Part II: The Bubble People.
