Is the concept of equality applicable to everyone? While it may seem like a paradoxical idea to consider, fresh perspectives on the history of equality prompt us to analyse it. The definition of equality is a complex issue, mainly because it has been interpreted in myriad ways by diverse segments of society across eons. Further adding to this complexity are the inherent contradictions that come with it, primarily the dilemma of reconciling our unique individual differences with the collective ideal of equality.
McMahon’s narrative traces the trajectory of equality, commencing with early homo sapiens society. The journey takes us from the balanced social structure of hunter-gatherer communities, to the pronounced societal inequality which was triggered by the advent of settled farming groups. The advent of property added an extra dimension to this imbalance as it introduced a new correlation, that of property to power, and subsequently, domination. A novel concept of reading the Book of Genesis is presented – interpreting it as an acknowledgement of a lost way of life, where the pioneering hunter-gatherers – Adam and Eve – were banished into a world of hardship.
In the period between 800 and 300 BCE, known as the Axial Age, the concept of equality began to take shape with the emergence of major global religious and philosophical movements. The Stoics made the pioneering declaration that all humans are created equal – a fact later echoed by the founders of America as an uncontested truth. However, during these early civilisations, the increasing disparity compelled them to proclaim it, not merely because the imbalance had reached tipping point, but also because as is revealed throughout the narrative, the notions of equality are essentially the creations and perceptions of human society.
In the historical timeline, ancient Greece stands out as a significant deviation from the persistent trend of inequality. The culture of Athens stood for and actively promoted egalitarian values, implemented fair taxing systems, and passed laws to curb overt displays of affluence. In contrast, Sparta, while accommodating hierarchical discrimination, fostered within its elite citizen-soldier class, an environment promoting similarity, mutual exchange, and a sense of equality. However, it’s important to note that equality in the context of ancient Greece was forever relative and selective, based on differentiating those deemed as unequal. A distinct duality existed for the Athenians and Spartans where equality mirrored supremacy on foreign fronts.
Ancient Rome, a society underscored by inequality, strangely echoed the purity of equality in their rule of law. Likewise, the Christian ethos held that in Christ, slaves and free men were equivalent, presenting the idea of equality as an abstraction separate from their literal circumstances.
Fascists, similar to communists, stood against social equality and liberal democracy, although their enlistment of followers hinged on the concept of equality. The period of Enlightenment gave rise to a fresh interpretation of Christian equality as a prime political and societal objective. The ideology that men were inherently unequal because of original sin was rejected by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who fervently believed society could be restructured to safeguard liberty and equality for all. An endeavour to actualise this equality was carried out during the French Revolution, but it highlighted its boundaries. The recently established National Assembly rapidly differentiated “active” citizens from “passive” ones, based on wealth and gender. Consequently, the pursuit of equality led to the re-establishment of inequalities and supremacy.
Equality was the guiding principle of the French Revolution, but an opposing knee-jerk reaction was swift and universally felt following the revolution. Equality, seen as a relentless levelling of society, was lambasted as a “social toxin”, by figures ranging from Napoleon to early socialists like Saint-Simon and Charles Fourier. Marx viewed equality as a threat to the nurturing of individual talents, while Engels dismissed it as a bias found in both bourgeois and proletarian classes. Despite these, equality has remained till this date a critical ethical concept across all shades of socialism.
The rapport between the right and equality is equally complex. Fascists, like communists, vehemently opposed the principles of liberal democracy and social equality. Nonetheless, the idea of equality was a vital factor in their follower recruitment strategy. According to Nazi jurist Carl Schmitt, democratic society was always bedevilled by the contradiction of equality, necessitating a clear rejection of those considered unequal. He stated that only the Nazis demonstrated the “bravery” to implement this notion, leading to horrendously unequal treatment of individuals deemed inferior.
The concluding part makes connections between the history of known forms of discrimination in America (from slavery to segregation and civil rights struggles) to present issues about equality and identity that surfaced with the onset of second-wave feminism in the 1960s. While excluded groups from the 18th century onwards pursued equality on the premise of similarity, echoing the sentiment that “all men are created equal”, equality today is sought on the basis of dissimilarity, marking a remarkable “departure from previous understandings of the term”. Current political movements have converted the concept of equality into “a demand for the right to diversity”, a definition that is as succinct as it is counter-intuitive.
Ultimately, McMahon’s research suggests that our perceptions of equality are more complex than we initially assume. Through his scholarly and fashionable approach, McMahon elucidates the paradoxes and duplicity, along with the aspirations and desires, inherent in a concept paramount to the iniquities that pervade our disparate world. James Hanrahan, a deputy lecturer in French studies at Trinity College Dublin, underscores this point.