A challenge to the logic of the normal conception of the search for social equality.

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Stuart523
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2017 5:23 pm

A challenge to the logic of the normal conception of the search for social equality.

Post by Stuart523 »

It seems the method in this search is to put defined groups versus defined groups, were the average member of the group represents the group's wellbeing. For example, a group that makes less money than another group is considered the underprivileged. This way of thinking somewhat disregards the individuals within the groups, who's personal wellbeing doesn't necessarily relate to the average member's wellbeing.

It seems the most commonly addressed ways one can lack privilege is through lack of opportunity to make money, through lack of money itself, through lack of social respect, through lack of access for those with disabilities, and through lack of the ability to live as one wishes because of laws and social stigma, especially concerning issues relating to sexual orientation and gender issues.

All defined groups of people widely considered underprivileged are said to lack adequate social respect. The ability to make money or income itself are generally tied to all the groups, though some much more than others.

What is a privilege and what is a lacking state doesn't seem to be adequately defined or delved into by most of those involved with such conversations. The way defined lacking states of privilege for one group is focused on, and defined lacking state of privileges for another group is focused on seems inconsistent. Granted, the lacking states most focused on for each group reflect what is the most reflective of the group's supposed disadvantage, but alluding to the earlier point about how the individuals within are somewhat disregarded, this fact only further works towards their being disregarded.

To illustrate the issue, consider the two groups which people contrast; poor and rich. - Not mentioning middle class for the sake of simplifying this argument. - In this case the very state of being in the former group is considered a disadvantage, and for one to rid herself of his disadvantage would mean going over to the other group. Now with that in mind, consider another two groups which people contrast; women and men. In these groups the average income is considered, and contrasted to each other, where men are considered to make more money on average than women. But, as well as contrasting the entire group's income alone, they contrast sub-societies where men and women exist. For example, among high paid executives, focus is given to male and female income, then among those executives' servants focus is also given as to male and female income.

This focus one female solidarity in the face of male colleagues is often conflated with a focus on female solidarity in the face of males in general. Concerning women in general, a woman is considered to be kind to other women so long as she treats them no worse than she treats men. So rather than an emphasis being put on building up low income individuals, or at least low income women, the only emphasis is on not allowing them to be treated worse than their male counterparts.

To be more consistent, or less inconsistent, the discussion on privilege would first define the many things that constitute a privileged state and an unprivileged state and then place the main focus on individuals rather than groups, allowing groups to only have a marginal part in the discussion.
Post Reply