Equality versus justice
IS there a contradiction in terms between equality and justice? Sometimes it is argued that inequality, especially if it is removed by force, may infringe on the principle of justice. The opponents of equality -- economic or gender -- invoke nature and natural justice in support of their argument.
When intellectuals such as Dr. Hameeda Hossain and others remind us of the constitutional obligations of equality in gender relations in Bangladesh, certain opponents -- not necessarily confined to obscurantist clerics -- suggest that what is important is "justified rights" (najjyo adhikar) and not "equal rights" (shomo-adhikar). In various sermons and waz mahfils (religious lecture sessions) some Mowlanas insist on najjyo adhikar and not shomo-adhikar for women by giving an analogy: "You can give 2 yards of cloth to a man for pajama. Can you give the same amount of cloth to a woman for a saree? No, she has to be given more in this case; say, 5 yards -- that is najjyo adhikar. Ergo, justified rights are more important than equal rights.
For many, this seems like an infallible justification. Then, of course, there are others who insist that nature created inequality, by showing that the five fingers of a hand are not equal -- why should we, then, accept the argument of social equality? Isn't inequality natural? For many men (and, perhaps, some women) these are convincing arguments.
Let me closely analyse these two analogies.
First, we must be aware of the "tyranny of analogy." Analogical reasoning is one of the means of obtaining knowledge, but it has its own inherent limitations.
There are false analogies as there are just ones. False analogies help legitimise propaganda or unverified statements. Behind falsehood and unverified statements lurk vested interests.
In the first analogy, the problem begins with using the need of a man as the yardstick for allocation or distribution. This is not unusual in a patriarchal society. I will start with the need of a woman as the starting point, and argue that a woman needs at least five yards of cloth to cover her body. Hence, she should be given five yards of cloth; and men would be given the same, i.e., five yards, so that they could have a pajama and a shirt and, if so desired, a cap made with that cloth. No one will feel aggrieved. Here equality and justice coincide.
The main principle of distributive justice is fairness, not enforced equality. In times of food crisis, governments have opened food distribution centers for the poor. Here, the principle of equal distribution means equal distribution among those who are unable to buy food in the market. The rich section of the people cannot feel aggrieved and invoke the equality principle here.
Moreover, the assumption that men should wear only a pajama and nothing else denies their rights to clothing and decency. In fact, the basis of allocation must take into account the objective basis of the need situation as well as the availability of the resources.
Now let us turn to the argument of "inequality of five fingers." One of the most interesting and enduring features of nature is difference, not inequality. The earth has mountain peaks as well as wide and deep oceans; glaciers as well as deserts. In the biological world, variation of species is the name of the game. Variation ensures survival and beauty.
Equality does not mean dissolution of differences or variations. Variation or difference, for example, the biological difference between men and women ensures perpetuation of the human species.
Inequality is the creation of society, not of nature. Society does not mirror nature. They are interrelated but separate domains. In nature, tigers eat goats and goats eat grass. That does not mean that in human society those who have power must destroy those who are powerless.
Social inequality is a reality. So is robbery. What is real is not always acceptable. We make choices about what to accept and what to reject, social norms make the distinction between what is acceptable and what is not. Once slavery was acceptable, now it is not. The problem of slavery has not disappeared, but it is practiced only in violation of the laws of the society. The women and men who make up society are endowed with free will. We have the choice of using our free will, our different abilities and talents, to make a better society or live in the conditions offered to us by nature.
Since the time we decided to walk out of the caves to the road towards civilization the search for good society has not ended. The journey, as well as the quest for good society, will go on. In this quest, good arguments based on sound reasoning, not false analogies, will help us achieve our goals.
Long live difference; down with inequality.
Comments