This essay will look at the concept of equality and give a definition of equality in society. It will look at what the impact, on the lives of the members, in societies that are equal and unequal might be. Finally, it will look at how the rights that determine either equality or inequality are accorded to members of a society.

I will begin by defining the terms Equality and Society. The Collins English Dictionary defines Equality as “…..having identical privileges, rights, status…” Privilege is defined as “…..a right, advantage or immunity granted or enjoyed by a person, or class of persons beyond the common advantage of others.” Society is defined in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary as “…the state or condition of living in association, company or intercourse with others of the same species.” From the above definitions, one could define the Equality of the members of a society, which I will refer hereinafter to as “Equality in Society” as the state, in a society, where the members of that society have identical privileges, rights, and status. Put another way, Equality in Society can be said to be the state, in a society, where nobody has a right, advantage, or immunity beyond the common advantage of all the members of that society.

IMPACT OF INEQUALITY OR EQUALITY ON THE MEMBERS OF A SOCIETY

What if any, could the impact be on the members of societies that are unequal and equal? Going back to the definition of an unequal society, it is one where one or some members have privilege(s) and or right(s) that all the members of that society do not have. For the purpose of simplicity, we will look at a two-tier system, where the privilege(s) and or right(s) are accorded only to a group of people, in other words, the system that will be considered is one where there are only two groups, one with the privilege(s) and or right(s) and one without.

UNEQUAL SOCIETIES

What impact could such a situation have on the members? To begin, the presence of such a situation is divisive, as it automatically divides society into those that have those privilege(s) and or right(s) and those that do not. It is also implied that the basis of the accordance of rights to the members was inequality, in other words, the thinking behind the accordance of rights had a bias towards a group in the society. The question then is What could the thinking of the members of the society that belong to both these groups be? To answer this question, we will ask the question Is there any value placed, by the members of the society, on the possession of the advantage(s), that are received from having those privilege(s) and or right(s)? If the answer to this question is no, then, in my view, there is not likely to be any impact on members of either group. If on the other hand, there is a value placed on the advantage(s), then there is automatically a creation of “desirable” and “undesirable” states or groups for members of the society to belong to. The question then will be what might the effect be, of the existence of these states, on the members of either group? What might the thinking be, that will be created from the existence of these states, which will inform the creativity and actions of the society as a whole and the individual members within it? To answer this question, I will consider each group separately.

 Starting with the members of the “undesirable” group, the first question is How could the knowledge of belonging to a group that is classified as “undesirable” affect their thinking? To begin, I believe there will be a feeling, within this group, of deficiency, which could lead to a lack of confidence and self-worth. There will be, in my view, a division, into subgroups, within the group, of those who accept the situation and are resigned to it and those that do not accept the situation and actively try to change it. The latter subgroup will be, I believe, further subdivided into those that want a change in their individual circumstances, so that they can, if possible, belong to the “desirable” group, and those that want a change, that will eliminate the separation of the society into the “desirable” and “undesirable” groupings. I hold the view that the purpose of the members of the group that does not accept the status, is one of attaining equality in society, whether their intent is for themselves or the group

Looking at the members of the “desirable” group, the first question is, how could the knowledge of belonging to a group classified as “desirable” affect their thinking? I believe that there will be a feeling of confidence and self-worth. There will, I believe, like in the “undesirable” group, be a subdivision, within the group, of those that accept the situation and those that do not. The activities of those that accept the situation, will, in my view, be toward the consolidation of their position. If the accordance of rights is biased, as will have to be the case with a society with inequalities, then this is the group, within such a society,  that will accord the rights in the society. For members of this subgroup, their activities will be with the purpose of upholding the inequality in society. The second subgroup, within this group, is those that do not accept the position, and for them, if they are active, their activities will be with the purpose of eliminating the separation in society. It could therefore be said that the purpose, of the activities of the members of this group, is divided into those that want to maintain the state of inequality and those that do not.

Within both groups, these activities, of striving to achieve equality or maintain inequality, can be viewed in terms of survival, which is defined as “……to continue in existence”. This survival could be viewed in terms of the survival of the individual, group, or whole. The members of both groups that act with the purpose of eliminating the separation in society can be said to be looking out for the survival of the whole, but as they are not in a state of equality in society, they will have to struggle with the prevalent inequalities, in order to achieve the state of equality. For those in the “undesirable” group who want to “climb” up to acquire the advantage(s) that they do not possess and thus become a part of the “desirable” group and those in the “desirable” group that wants to maintain the status of inequality, their struggle is about individual and group survival. It can be said that in this situation of an unequal society, what pervades is a mindset of the survival of the individual or the group within the society. If that is the case, the question then is what does such a mindset provide and allow for? I believe that such a mindset does not allow for thinking that takes the whole into account. I also hold that it does not allow for creativity, other than that which is driven by the individual’s or group’s survival, within the context of the whole society. If that is the case, then all the attention of the members of the society will be focused on themselves or the groups that they belong to and not the whole. The question then is what will be the drive for this mindset? I believe it will be driven by the question “What can I get out of whatever situation I find myself in, to ensure the continuance of my existence?” Living inside this question might become a preoccupation, which if it does, will not allow for any other thoughts, other than those that try to answer the question, which, if it is the case, will not allow for creativity.

In summary, it could be said that in a society with inequality, the activities of the members will be one of the group and individual survival, and these activities will be trying to answer the question “What can I get out of whatever situation I find myself in, to ensure the continuance of my existence?”, which does not allow for much creativity.

EQUAL SOCIETIES

Having looked at the possible impact on the members of a society with inequalities, the question then is how might those in a society with equality be impacted? To begin with, the absence of any groups with advantage(s) over other members of the society implies that the accordance of rights was based on taking the whole into account. It could be said that in societies with equality, decisions are made for and by the whole. This point is dealt with later on, whilst considering how rights are accorded to members of society. If the thinking behind the accordance of rights is for the whole, then the aspirations of the individual members, that constitute the group, will be towards the betterment of the whole. If the thinking is thus fashioned, the question behind the actions that will be carried out, will, in my view, be based on the question “What can I give that will be for the benefit of everyone?” This contrasts with the question of those of an unequal society, which is “What can I get?” The absence of any groups, within such a society, also implies that there will be no internal struggle(s). The absence of any such struggle(s), would mean that the members of this type of society will tend to have time to create, not for individual or group survival but for the survival of the whole and creativity for its sake.

HOW MIGHT RIGHTS BE ACCORDED

The considerations of society, in my view, will be incomplete if thoughts on how the rights and privileges are accorded, to the members of society, are not considered. This is particularly important in the consideration of equality and inequality in societies. The question is what accords rights to the members of society? I believe that declarations, which in some cases take the form of laws do. The question then, is who makes these declarations and for whom are they made? In my view, the declarations are made for whoever makes them and nobody else. This statement implies that it is not possible for, say, person A to do anything for person B without consulting person B, as anything done in such a manner will be for the benefit of person A alone. Another way to look at this is through the question is it possible for person A to know the views or opinions of person B, without asking person B for them? My view is that it is not and that the only way person A can find out about the views or opinions of person B is when person B offers them. This implies that declarations or laws that are made according to the rights of people can only be considered to be made for everyone if everyone makes them. Similarly, suppose only a portion of society is consulted, in the making of the declarations that will give rights to members of the society. In that case, those declarations are made only for those who were consulted, leading to the advantage of those that are consulted, over those that were not consulted, hence inequality. This means that the accordance of rights in an equal society must involve the consultation of every member of the society.

CONCLUSION

To conclude, I will say that the possible impact, on the members of societies with equality and inequality is that the thinking of those in the former group, will, I believe, be for the whole, with the underlying question being “What can I give”. Members of such a society will also, in my view, not be preoccupied with individual and subgroup survival, and therefore have the time to create either for its sake or for the benefit of the whole. On the other hand, the possible impact on members of an unequal society is that the thinking might tend to be for individual or subgroup survival, with the underlying question being “What can I get?” Members of such a society will also, in my opinion, be preoccupied with trying to answer this question, which will have an impact on their creativity. Finally, any society where all the members are not a part of the processes that accord them their rights is a society with inequality.