Yes, there are words like that: they enjoy confusing us. That they are given a privileged place and are boldly spoken and repeated and yet no one knows exactly what they are saying when they go and say them; no one, least of all when they hear them. In this game there is no equal for the word equality.
Let’s face it, it’s French: that’s where equality began, in 1789. It was the ham in the sandwich: between Liberté and Fraternité there was something that seemed indispensable, the famous égalité. Then it became clear what it meant: the equality of the Parisian bourgeoisie of the revolution was equality before the law, that no person had more rights than another simply because of his birth, that medieval feudal privileges disappeared and all people were supposedly equal. I said men, and I should have said white men: at first it didn’t even occur to them that black slaves had these rights, nor that women had them. But it was a powerful idea and it started to spread.
Half a century later, the French Revolution seemed to have failed and instead there were movements demanding a different kind of equality: these socialists wanted all people to be socially and economically equal. That there were not a few potentates and millions of poor people, that everyone could enjoy their lives equally, that everyone contributed what they could and got what they needed.
The idea was insanely seductive: for much of the 20th century, millions died in the hope that their deaths would help make it a reality. But toward the end it became clear that his achievements were his failures, that this supposed equality was a disguise for the concentrated power of a radically unequal few.
After this failure – the “end of history” – equality lost all protection and the great fate took over more and more, and we experienced – we know – one of the most unequal times in memory. It was so exaggerated that many became worried: the big capitalists said that this inequality was not good for business; The well-intentioned said it was unacceptable for morale. In different ways, very different sectors began to condemn inequality. The problem is that they don’t know what the opposite is.
It is obvious to say that the opposite of inequality is equality: after the failure of “egalitarian” systems, almost no one says it anymore. For the right wing, equality has been given a pretentious nickname: “Of Opportunities”. What they demand and proclaim is “equality of opportunity,” an implausible entelechy. This equality should consist of everyone having the same opportunities at the beginning: that the starting line is the same for everyone. First of all, the metaphor of race is sad: it assumes that their exit is equal, only to legitimize the inequalities that can occur along the way. In other words, the purpose of this equality is to legitimize the resulting inequality. And on the other hand, this supposed equality is false from the start: no matter how many times a young person gains access to public schools, scholarships or grants, he will never be able to regain the advantage of someone with educated and rich parents and books has and contacts, conversations and travel and accommodation. – the products of inequality.
For the left wing, however, equality is severely limited. Just as “memory” became the remembrance of atrocities committed by a dictatorship, “equality” is the need to equalize treatment and options between women and men. It is essential; It reduces. In Spain, without going any further, there is a “Ministry of Equality” which essentially deals with: not with the equality of workers with their employers, not with the equality of the unemployed, those on a bank with the owners of the banks sit. ; No, almost everything has become a gender issue. Since women make up half of the population, it is logical that they also occupy half of the seats in parliament. So it would also be logical that if the proportion of immigrants was 10%, one in ten would go to them. And the same applies to workers, the elderly, saddled and other non-autonomous communities. The Congress would be full of members, and in order to make it smaller and fitter, the interfaces would have to be worked on: A lame gypsy woman of Romanian origin who cleans houses would, as we know, have every chance of becoming a representative.
Or maybe not. Between genders and opportunities, this means that the word equality has never been used so little since 1789. If we fail to recharge it, to give it strong value again, it will end up having almost no meaning. And the problem is not yours, but ours.
Subscribe to continue reading
Read without limits
_